BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 08:38 PM

I for one never have, Ebbie; at least not literally so. There may be some sort of actuality far behind these stories, for which they serve as diluted versions or metaphors or something. But who knows.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 06:06 PM

Has any one of you ever considered that the 'myths' of Zeus and Athena and all of those may be factual? Huh? Huh? And you know how rational they are.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:57 PM

LH,

Many of the Christian religions in their attempts to expiate "sins" buy into the "descent or fall of man". This idea seems to be built-in to Christianity. So the myth of Satan is created to keep the faithful in line.

Many moderate Christians still buy into the notion of a Manichean god who punishes those who transgress through "sin" although they reinterpret it to mean those who may be socially irresponsible. Many moderate Christians cling to an incoherent and restrictive document called the bible. They cherry-pick what they want from it.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:49 PM

Got that right, Amos. The thing that most repells me about the more troublesome aspects of Christianity is the enormous guilt trip that is laid on people. This God who is in need of appeasement is at the heart of the Christian, Muslim, and Jewish faiths. It's not a healthy idea at all, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:47 PM

M.Ted: I take your point. My point is that there seem to be a whole lot of Bible-thumping preachers out there who don't buy into St. Tom - if they ever heard of him.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:42 PM

Of course, you have to ask what sort of personal spiritual bent would postulate a God in need of appeasement. I sppose one deep in personal guilt.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 05:04 PM

MeSelf--St. Thomas is pretty much the foundation of all Christianity philosophy that followed--
A quick reading of the estimable St. Tommy(as if such a thing was possible) shows that understanding God, Christ, and all was important for moral, ethical, and spiritual development--Christ was here to help Mankind--not that we had to to appease God--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

"the wrong God"   Oh, horrors! LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:59 PM

Actually, my experience with Moslems (where I grew up was about 1/3 moslem 1/3 christian 1/3 animists) is that atheism is preferred to following the wrong god(s). In the US, in contrast, you're OK as long as you believe in SOME god(s) or other, but atheism is unconscionable.
Nobody cares about agnostics...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 01:01 PM

Wisely writ, Frank and M. Ted.

Of course, there are as many variants of Christianity, or of Buddhism, or of Zorastrianism, as there are adherents to these brands. Each of has some kind of perspective on the infinite and whatever spiritual power lies in it, whether we paper it with creeds and slogans, or whether we paint it black, or leave it bare to quietly inform our inner lives with whatever whispers reach us through our mental clutter.

As with any subject, each of us has his own kind and degree of confusion and insight, neatly blended through our language machines to try and sound coherent.

But in truth, I don't think there is a single clear description in any language of what goes on in that sphere. Not that it is literally unknowable, but it surely is indescribable, if not unspeakable.

But that could be just me. ;>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Leadfingers
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:34 PM

100 !!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Leadfingers
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:33 PM

I dont believe any of you !

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 12:18 PM

Don't you think your generalizing a little broadly, M.Ted? There is Christian thought and then there is Christian thought ...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:44 AM

Good point, Amos--and I have always suspected (and have evidence to support) that the ranks of Christian clergy are filled with atheists--

from a philosophical point of view, the idea of God as Genie of some sort who grants wishes and must be occasionally appeased with worship and adulation has been gone from Christian thought for nearly a thousand years, as the clergy know--a lot of the believers don't, and no one goes to any pains to straighten them out--in fact, many, who know better, play to the misconceptions--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:43 AM

Peace,
One area where I don't agree with Dawkins or Sam Harris is in the usage of the term "Bright". I think there are religious people with a great degree of intelligence.

However, the atheists I know tend to think in terms of the value of science and are more interested in that then the cop-out moderate religionists that I've encountered who are so easy in dismissing questions of existence, soul, god, or what-have-you in nebulous theological fog instead of allowing their views to be subjected to the rigors of science.

I have read Dawkins and have not noticed his wanting to attack people on a personal level.
His view of religion is consistent in that he believes that there are good people who "believe" but that the institution itself has been corrupted by a denial of anything that doesn't conform or accept its premises. He allows for the beauty of art that has been inspired by religious people without accepting their religious views. I don't get the feeling of intolerance here but a sensible re-ordering of the priorities that people have in determining what is moral or right and wrong.

I believe his point is that if you preach tolerance you have to be prepared to evaluate religious beliefs or any other for that matter as to whether they purport to claim value for the good of society. Clearly, religious practices over the years have included egregious intolerance that harm society. I really think that this is the focus of Sam Harris and Richard Dawkins, not a proselytizing for any intellectual or philosophical "belief" as they have been accused of by defensive religionists. They are trapped by their own inability to see anything that isn't prescribed by a religious conviction.

Tolerance doesn't mean a tacit acceptance of beliefs that deny logic or reality. That's not tolerance but acquiesence. I think Dawkins is extremely tolerant in his book and is not attacking in the way that is maintained by rabid talk show hosts or defensive religionists.
There is nothing "fundamentalist" in his approach and he would be the first to acknowlege a change of opinion if there were any real scientific basis whatever to a religious conviction.

Frank Hamilton

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 11:06 AM

I would submit that many theists who wave their arms wirh assertions about their anthropomorphic version of the deity are plain evidence that for them, the nature of God is unknowable since they can only offer bizarre authoritartian cartoons as a substitute. One point of view holds that awareness of the "God" presence cannot even begin until one has cleared up his own confusions as a spiritual entity. This is an interesting if somewhat demanding view, I think.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 31 Mar 07 - 07:45 AM

"IN other words, agnostics are just chicken shit athiests. " - Donuel

Cute, and perhaps somewhat true where atheism is frowned upon as severely as it appears to be in the US and certain Islamic states (although I suppose agnosticism doesn't go over too well there, either), but in countries like Canada, I think it really is a valid personal POV, held sincerely by people like myself who do not think we are omniscient. By some measures, I am an atheist; there are many gods in whom I don't believe, including the warrior god of Abraham, but I'm not able to state with absolute certainty that no deity exists: I don't know.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:40 PM

Well, just as the words Republican and Liberal have been melodramatcally redefined to support the PR goals of one or another side, so you can wrench these words around to be something they never were originally.

AGNOSTIC: A word first used by Professor Huxley, to indicate one who believes nothing which cannot be demonstrated by the senses.
www.theosociety.org/pasadena/key/key-glos.htm

An Agnostic [1] [noun] [OW] embraces a worldview in which the existence of deity is unknown or unknowable. Derives from the Greek agnostos, a = without, gnostos = known or knowledge. "Agnostic[ism] [CE] was coined by Professor TH Huxley in 1869 to describe the mental attitude of one who regarded as futile all attempts to know the reality corresponding to our ultimate scientific, philosophic, and religious ideas."
members.aol.com/porchnus/dict01.htm

one who believes that the evidence for and against the existence of God is inconclusive. (agnosticism)
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

Agnostic: one who questions religious or spiritual beliefs, and who may choose not to claim any system of knowledge.
iamuniversity.org/glossary/cv_glossarylist.php

One who holds the theory that God is unknown or unknowable
www.innvista.com/culture/religion/diction.htm


ATHEIST:someone who denies the existence of god
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

Atheism is the state either of being without theistic beliefs, or of actively disbelieving in the existence of deities. In antiquity, Epicureanism incorporated aspects of atheism, but it disappeared from the philosophy of the Greek and Roman traditions as Christianity gained influence. ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist

one who believes that there is no God. (atheism)
www.summit.org/resource/dictionary/

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:09 PM

Oh, piffle. Having never once been forced to go to church or to believe in any God of any sort when I was a kid, I guess that's why as an adult I don't feel I have to fight a continual war with organized religion.

It's a good thing too, because I have to spend a lot of energy already on the things I DO have a chip on my shoulder about, which are mostly political things.    ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Donuel
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:44 PM

The clever comparison of fundamentalists and athiests sharing absolute certainhood was cute.

I have the perspective that subdividing athiests into agnostic, spiritual, naturist camps - ad infinitutm - is needless.

Due to the profound predjudice and violence by theists, it seems to me that athiests were able to find shelter as an agnostic. As long as they were seen as sitting on the fence they weren't entirely athiest.

IN other words, agnostics are just chicken shit athiests.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:39 PM

I'm very familiar with the Trickster Coyote, Mrzzy, and I think he's a neat teacher. ;-) I also like Lady Luck and Mother Nature just fine as grand archetypes. My approach to religions is to be pretty much agreeable and open to all of them, assuming that they all offer an interesting and possibly useful way of looking at creation. I consider them all symbolic, just like Lady Luck, Mother Nature, and Trickster Coyote. They are aspects of the life we experience.

Satan is a symbol too, as is hell, and heaven. They're all symbols.

Try reading some books on Taoism. It's wonderfully sensible and practical in a very non-authoritarian way. There are no rules, just some common sense guidelines.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 09:29 PM

Forgiven, perhaps - but they're still silly, and I don't want my kids to have to take them seriously *in the way we're being made to* here.
I used to be closeted. I came out after 9/11.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 08:51 PM

ANd from anothe rpoint of view they are (many of them, anyway) just a crowd of mocked-up imaginary playmates running slightly amok. This calls for a stilling of the divisions within one's own soul, more than a conquering of some exterior evil.


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:58 PM

It is interesting that we have people our universe with agents of great good and agents of great harm, and then set about courting the one and resisting the other. From one point of view the Gremlins, kobolds, djinns and devilets are just confused, disoriented, woebegone beings in the universe, just as much as, say, homeless people or Republicans are. In a similar vein they act out their own horrors, hatreds, despairs and angers without much regard for intelligent applicability and context. But they can be forgiven.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:15 PM

Sorry, Little Hawk! Cross-posted again - the Yes was to Guest-meself, who'd been making some great points all along.

My shrink once told me that while I didn't believe in god, I apparently did believe in the devil! I tell my kids that the embodiments of the powers I find in human life are Mother Nature, Lady Luck - and Coyote. He's the Trickster from Navajo mythology, Finagle's Law (the perversity of the universe tends to a maximum) - the way the gremlins hide your car keys just when you need them most, etc. All of these powers are deaf to human voices (you can't entreat them - well, you can entreat, but you can't expect it to listen).
Wonder with whom *this* post will cross?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:06 PM

Yes! But I've got hiiiiiiiiiiigh hopes (hey, this is a music forum)...
Or maybe the thought I'm having (having a rabid adherent of one religion help take that particular religion out of the celebration of human accomplishment we prefer is strange bedfellows, but I was *his* strongest supporter in trying to avoid Christianity too. The only difference was, I would have tried to avoid the Judaism too, had it been cocooning me. He was avoiding the one religion that there was in the way. I was avoiding all religions, but only that one was in the way, so you couldn't tell the difference) isn't the thought you were thinking I might pause for?
Glad you like "nibling" - sibling's child. Totally gender-neutral.

Anyway, I wanted to apologize for the thread creep. The issue isn't how to live a secular life; it's whether atheists

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:05 PM

Are you saying you don't believe in Goblins, Mrzzzy?????

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 07:01 PM

"nibling" - that's a pleasant term. I've never really liked "siblings" for some odd reason.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:36 PM

" ... my greatest supporter, the rabid fundamentalist ... " -

Does that give you pause for thought?

" ... all my sisters and all of the rest of my niblings are atheists, so it's funny, to me, their insisting on calling what we celebrate, which is 100% secular, Christmas ... " -

And so - does that give you pause for thought?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:31 PM

"but try to get elected after people find out you'd be affirming instead."

I'd have thought that quoting from the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5) would shut the critics up pretty sharpish:

...it was said in old times, "Do not take false oaths, but give effect to your oaths to the Lord". But I say to you, take no oaths at all - not by the heaven, because it is the seat of God, or by the earth, because it is the resting-place for his foot, or by Jerusalem, because it is the town of the great King. You may not take an oath by your head, because you are not able to make one hair white or black. But let your words be simply, Yes or No: and whatever is more than these is of the Evil One.

If it's ghood enough for Jesus, it ought to be good enough for those self-styled Christians...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:26 PM

I remember that! We've taken to celebrating the solstice - we just do it AT Christmas because that is when people have off.

But my extended family no longer supports my efforts away from the term "christmas" for our midwinter celebration, in that my greatest supporter, the rabid fundamentalist Jewish nephew, is now living in Israel and they don't have to accommodate his not wanting to bathe in Christianity either. Again - belief in a different mythology is OK but belief in none isn't? And the funny thing is, we all grew up without religion and all my sisters and all of the rest of my niblings are atheists, so it's funny, to me, their insisting on calling what we celebrate, which is 100% secular, Christmas. So even within atheism there is antiatheist (there has to be a better term - prodeist?) bias! Funny!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST, Ebbie
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 06:01 PM

Mrrzy, this is not meant as an 'attack' on you but your speaking of a commemoration makes me smile in remembering your posts from several years ago when, as I recall, you lamented that there is no Christmas that is non-religious.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:34 PM

Missed Bobad's comment - it isn't just legislation. Just came back from attending the city school chorus recital - 6 out of 10 songs were invocations to a single god or "greater" "superior" whatever "force" or whatever [no paganism, polytheism etc), of which 4 were of Christian origin (no Moslem or Jewish], of which 2 were actually Praise Jesus songs. And that is against the law. And I've been complaining about it since they were in kindergarten - they're in 6th grade now. *sigh*
My one hope is that we now have an elected school board. And I live in one of the most aggressively liberal cities in a mostly conservative buckle-on-the-Bible-belt states... we actually had *3* Iraq War 4th Anniversary commemorations...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:28 PM

Yes, we affirm instead of swearing. And the Constitution says No religious test for office - but try to get elected after people find out you'd be affirming instead. Y'all hear about that US Senator of 35 years who's come out as an atheist? Goes to church every Sunday, though!
And I reiterate - they can *think* whatever they want. What they shouldn't be allowed to do is make anyone else act as if it were true, just because they believe it.

No followers of different religions, even those who follow the same god but a different prophet, believe the other religion is true. (Note that the prophet, the human interpreter, is always necessary since the god isn't *really* there.) My hypothetical followers put up with each other, usually, until someone starts telling the other's children that their own interpretation is more true than the children's parents' own interpretation.

And it's having my kids in public US schools that's got my dander up. Or is that knickers in a twist? Anyway, I've lived in or had family live in Eastern (pre- and post-communist) and Western Europe, West, Central and South Africa, and Eastern Asia, and nobody's public school system taught religious doctrine (what I call mythology) as if it were reality the way they are trying, and sometimes succeeding (GO, Dover!)in doing here. My old ex-French colony in West African school (that the Ivorian rebels burned down a couple of years ago, remember?) took off for the Catholic and Moslem holidays, since adults weren't expected to be working, but we bloody well learned science in science class- and religion in philosophy class. The harm! It's the harm!

So again - this is a US rant, and I guess a Middle East rant too... Although I don't know if everybody would prefer their children learn reality (I do *not* call it "the truth") rather than mythology in public schools purporting to be teaching reality, but I think that as an American, with all that founded-to-keep-the-church-out-of-the-government and all, that *my* kids have lucked into actually legally having that right. Of course I think it's everybody's human right, but if individuals choose not to avail themselves of that privilege, that is their right too.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: bobad
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 05:03 PM

Being tolerant of everyone's beliefs is an ideal, the problems arise when politicians make legislation in accordance with their beliefs.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST, Eb
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:52 PM

M'sieu Ted's post back a ways made me think of taking an oath in court to speak the truth.

Due to their interpretation of biblical injunction, the Amish and some other 'plain' people refuse to swear to anything. They instead 'affirm' that they will speak only truth.

Question: Do atheists (and agnostics) also refuse to take an oath?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:47 PM

To be more direct--You've decided that it is bad for society that certain people believe what you claim they believe, and that you are entitled, and even obliged, to act against them for the good of society.

That's the justification for religious persecution--people who think like that, far from being "bright", are narrow minded and intolerant.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:41 PM

Who was it said Lord, protect me from Your followers?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 04:36 PM

Whose enemy?
But good words!
Of course they can believe anything they want - what I'm talking about is behavior, including speech. The behavior I'd like see the thinking world think is, well, silly if not intolerable, is the behavior of acting as if any god were actually real, that any supernatural force exist in the natural world, that natural powers can be effectively petitioned, that you survive your death, and so on.
Note that racism and sexism are bad examples of this kind of wish-it-were-intolerable behavior. A better example would be a grownup who insists on the actual reality of leprechauns, or goblins, or any such silliness. It's just silly for a grown person to still believe in fairy tales.
And the parallels with racism and sexism and other intolerables appear when faith is applied - that is, when the differences in fairy tales translate into kill the people who believe in different fairy tales, or don't hire the person if they don't at least believe in some fairy tale, or into the Kansas and Dover PA debacles of whether science can actually be taught in a science class! The damage is intolerable! It should be, at least, OK, I'm climbing back down off my high soapbox.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 03:29 PM

Mrzzy--Reading your last post, I thought of nothing other than this, from the Immortal
Bob"--In a soldier's stance, I aimed my lance at the mongrel dogs who teach, fearing not I'd become my enemy in the instant that I preach"--

You've become the enemy--

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Midchuck
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:13 PM

Leaving others to be happy in their beliefs is a lousy spiritual principle for the society - would you mean don't speak out against racism, sexism, and other well-held beliefs? I think not.

You're confusing beliefs with actions based on those beliefs.

I strongly support the right of a person to believe any damn thing he/she chooses, no matter how evil or stupid I personally consider it. I also support the right of society to limit actions harmful to others or to society as a whole - even if those actions are based on a belief that they are mandated by God's Law.

How are you going to regulate beliefs, anyway, unless you can read minds and are a superb hypnotist? At best, you can force people to lie about what they believe.

Peter.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 02:03 PM

Let's jusst use atheist as I meant it in my original question - someone who does not believe in any god (includes all supernatural "forces" or "superior beings") or gods.
Children are born with very strong beliefs, including the belief in what the adults around them are saying... the tabula rasa has fallen by the wayside. You get your adults' religion(s) the same way you get their language - absorbed like a sponge.
And it's the withdrawal from the brainwashing that makes those who transcend it appear smarter.
Leaving others to be happy in their beliefs is a lousy spiritual principle for the society - would you mean don't speak out against racism, sexism, and other well-held beliefs? I think not.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:40 PM

Children are born without beliefs - they have "beliefs" thrust upon them by theists, i the name of education. It can be quite difficult to withdraw from the brainwashing.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 01:05 PM

Well, there are basic defining elements to the word. The prefix "a" means 'without any" or "not". But hell, de gustibus non disputandum.

Ted, hear hear. The place where the plow comes to earth is the most important point of all.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:55 PM

Those are legitimate things to object to, M. Ted. Mind you, hypocrisy, self-justification, authoritarianism, compulsory oaths, and exclusion, sanction, and persecution of those that don't adhere to the dogma are all problems that can and DO arise in a great many other hierarchical systems...NOT just in the religious ones.

Therefore, is the aggressive atheist's (like Mr Dawkins) attack on religion really as altruistic as he thinks it is? Or does he have a special ax to grind. I would suggest the latter.

You can just as well attack a great many political systems, educational systems, military systems, and other hierarchical orders on the basis of their hypocrisy, self-justification, authoritarianism, compulsory oaths, and exclusion, sanction, and persecution of those that don't adhere to the dogma.

The more aggressive atheist's real objection to religion, like the Republican's objection to the Democrats (or vice versa) or the Baptist's objection to the Muslim or vice versa is primarily this: it's a different set of assumptions than the set he has chosen to espouse. That offends him. It must be wrong! He didn't think of it, so it must also be stupid! Better yet, it must be evil, pernicious, and wholly to be opposed and argued down at every opportunity, because it is a threat to the entire world!!!

Awww...go take a hike, I say.

A good spiritual principle to follow in life is this: Be happy in your own beliefs, and leave others to be happy in theirs.

Aggressive atheist prosyletizers and aggressive religious prosyletizers would both do well to heed it.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:47 PM

Incidentally, there are a whole parcel of atheistic philosophies in the Hindu tradition -- Check this Wikipedia entry:Atheism in Hinduism, but use it as the beginning, rather than the end of your inquiries.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: M.Ted
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 12:32 PM

The self-described "Atheists" that I have known tended to have more of a problem with the Christian Religion, as they have experienced it, rather than with anything else.

The things that they had a problem with broadly, tended to be:

A) Hypocrisy--the apparent conflict between professed values and real life conduct

B) Self-Justification-the practice of using the Bible and the Name of the Higher Authority to exempt "believers" from accountability

C)Authoritarianism--Use of worldly power and wealth to impose social conformity

D) Compulsory Oaths--The requirement that people publicly avow a certain dogma, and submit to the judgment of the church on their adherence that dogma.

E) Exclusion, sanction, and Persecution of those that don't adhere to the dogma.


Whether God exists or not is a moot point--talk about it as much as you want, it won't change anything-but these other things are real and legitimate issues.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,meself
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 11:21 AM

Clearly there are some differing and somewhat contradictory understandings of the terms "atheist" and "agnostic" here, which is leading the discussion to become pretty unwieldy ...

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:16 AM

LOL, John. Gets teejious, dunnit?


A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: John Hardly
Date: 30 Mar 07 - 10:02 AM

The mudcat agnostic is one who isn't sure if there is a god, but is very sure that you don't know either.