BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 08:36 PM

But to roundly dismiss the human instinct for reaching into the infinite, contacting the divine, or otherwise seeking connection with the ultimate Cause in the universe, is a very dull-witted thing to do. Even an atheist keeps on looking.

But to try to find answers, without searching for evidence, in the infinite, the divine or any ultimate cause is a very dull-witted thing to do. Your intellect will be stifled as you dismiss the need for evidence and seek solace in the exceptionally improbable. The great thing about those atheists is that they keep on looking, they relish the search and they don't allow themselves to be diverted by talk of almighty this or supreme that or supernatural the other.

Sorry to reverse-paraphrase you, but on this occasion you do appear to have things somewhat arse about face.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 09:22 PM

Non-belief in God is not a religion, but lots of religions don't believe in a god, or in any gods. You can look it up if you don't believe me.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 09:55 PM

"Dan, that's just silly. No one is making such a claim. These are straw men in an argument that has gone on far longer than one would expect it to. "

Where were you when they were arguing that Christian schools were dangerous because of the Crusades and the inquisition?


"No one is going to convince anyone to change their minds."

Dan is not asking anyone to change their minds. Dan is asking atheists activists to back down on the Jihad.

Dan didn't start this thread. Lots of people had lots to say before Dan. Why jump in and tell Dan to end it? Why tell him to "go outside and play?" What is wrong with you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 11:53 PM

". "Evolution is corrosive to religion. And vice versa. A true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith."

(Citing Dawkins upthread)

Both Dawkins and the poster of this link are being just a tad short-sighted here, I believe. For one thing this statement is ONLY true for certain values of "religion" but NOT all of them. And, probably, it is only true for certain versions of "evolution", but perhaps not all--I don't know enough different versions of evolutionary theory to say..

Dawkins may be saying, however that because certain versions of evolutionary theory focus on mechanism and materialistic interpretations, that the statements are true for materialism. In this case he should say that "Materialism is corrosive to religion. And vice versa. A true understanding of materialism is deeply corrosive to religious faith."

To make it a little clearer, the issue of causation is not included OR excluded in basic Darwinism's propositions about how species win or lose over time. But it is certainly eliminated in the extreme versions of materialism which include the paradoxical fact of thinking about materialism.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 12:23 AM

" agree that even an atheist keeps on looking for truth, but not looking for some vague misty entity such as an ultimate Cause"
.,,.,.
Not sure about that. Even Science has had to come up with something it chooses to call The Big Bang. A thread I OPd some years ago now, called "What went Big Bang?", produced IIRC, like the BB itself, probably more heat than light.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Amos
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:00 AM

"Souls are theologically based. They are a form of superstition. No one has ever measured one in a laboratory. "

Stringsinger's argument is lucid and understandable, but it is flawed by important omission. The primary semantic freight laden onto the word "soul" may indeed be theological, deriving from our Judeo-Chrtistian heritage.   But there is this "baby and bathwater" caveat. Thereis abundant evidence that a unit awareness uses a plurality of unit mental recordings to arrange its understanding of life. Every person who posts on any of these threads is doing exactly that. There is abundant evidence that the power of the unit of awareness to intend, decide or construct parts of the mindset it operates in seeking to solve the problems of life (and pose the right problems to solve) is of primary importance in the disposition and well being of the organism.

Frank himself is a living example of an owner/operator shuffling such mental constructs, and deciding things and putting then out there. There is nothing theological about this observation; but it is highly possible (and to my mind, probable) that in doing so he reveals his nature as a soul in action, not in the theological sense but in the ultimate sense of the aware center of the melodrama called a human being.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 03:15 AM

OK..been gone for a while..had to get caught up...
Stringsinger, though the frontal lobe does 'light up' more through various forms of stimuli, it would be preposterous to say that whatever was experienced was a delusion...maybe when other parts of the brain try to analyze it, it may seem delusional, but when the frontal lobe 'analyzes' the rest of the brain, it sees a different picture, which it may interpret as delusional.
You may have had an experience, but unlike a lot of others on here, I'm not about to judge it, whether it was 'delusional' or not. Perhaps the experience was just a taste, and not profoundly rooted...but who can say. Your best bet would be to talk to Seeger, being as you know him, you say...and ask him about what changed his mind, or life or both. I'm not even going to try to 'talk' anyone into anything, regarding this, because, as I've said for years, "If I can talk you into it, something can talk you out of it, including yourself." These experiences are best shared amongst those who have had them, deeply, more than trying to proselytize about them....which ties into another post that said, that Jack said : "I think that you may have mentioned that study about the brain scan to stringsinger before because he used in an an argument to show atheists were superior to religious people because their brains do not light up."
I didn't say anything about one group being 'superior' over another group, HOWEVER, unless someone has had those experiences, all of them, if possible, that I don't think they can speak with any understanding about it....they just DON'T know. In other words, if you say you believe in science, but the part of your brain that processes data scientifically doesn't work, or hasn't been required to analyze data that way, don't you think that you'd be working with an incredible 'blind spot'?? ....Data that is processed in the frontal lobes, go to the frontal lobes, because other parts of the brain are not developed to process it. Simple as that.
Back to Stringsinger, the tests that were done were with (one group)psilocybin, (one group) meditating, (one group)atheists, and Music, (as per aforementioned). THOSE lit up the frontal lobe..once you've experienced that, you CAN utilize what you experienced into your creative side...but using your creative side to talk yourself out of what your has experienced otherwise, would seem to say that you might be 'double-minded' about various things in your life, which tends to hold people back...rather than drawing from the whole experience....wouldn't you say?
One more point, as long as I'm trying to cover a bunch, Stim posted:
"Non-belief in God is not a religion, but lots of religions don't believe in a god, or in any gods. You can look it up if you don't believe me."
I agree with that wholeheartedly...and for those who keep citing the Crusades and Inquisition, those were done by 'governments' kingdoms, if you will, who co-opted the Christian faith, IE, The Holy Roman Empire...the same Holy Roman Empire that made it a crime to have or read a Bible without the 'correct' interpretation by a 'priest'. This had nothing whatsoever to do with the teachings of Jesus, nor having a 'spiritual awakening'. This was about one group co-opting another group, and pretending that they were all one.....sorta like what the Democratic Party did with the 'Peace Movement' of the 60's....and some still don't see it, but in fact, that is what happened.

GfS

P.S. by the way, isn't it the same bigotry, to discriminate against blacks, because of their skin color, as it is to discriminate against someone because of their religion??...as in Race, CREED, and Color??????
Yikes! the hypocrites or losing their sparkly camouflage!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 03:34 AM

Amos appears to use the word "soul" to describe being self-aware. However there is plenty of evidence that other animals show self-awareness, and the more intelligent ones show signs of mental analysis and learning from experience that he describes.

So far so good - it is, as he says, just a question of semantics. However religions, not just Judeo-Christian ones, credit the soul with additional qualities, in particular its continuance after death. This seems to me entirely a matter of faith and/or wishful thinking with no evidence to suggest this might even be possible.

I am insterested in GfS's reference to a spiritual experience. I have to admit that I don't understand what he means by this - which I think is his point. Perhaps it is, as someone said, like describing orgasms to a virgin. However virgins can experience orgasm through non-sexual stimulation, and if they are unaware of sex they won't think of it as a sexual experience. In the same way I wonder whether a 'spiritual experience' is actually a commonplace experience which those inclined to a religious view interpret spiritually, while those who are not interpret it differently.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 04:37 AM

Howard, you bring up a most excellent point!
I was about to 'take exception' to what you were saying, UNTIL, I remembered that there was a woman whom I knew, Who I actually thought she LOVED her man. She relayed this story to me, that she said she had never experienced before she had met her present guy. She was telling me, that she was driving away down her driveway(she had a long one, in the country), and I believe she was thinking about the guy, and lo and behold she had a full blown orgasm...without any physical stimuli or contact to her own body. I had heard of that before, but never had an occasion to actually talk to someone who had that happen.
Now if you'd read a couple of my earlier posts, I DID say, in regards to the 'spiritual experience' that I did not believe you can 'give them to yourself'..at least not the ones I'm talking about....any more that you'd be able to 'control' where your experience with a psychedelic drug, such as psilocybin, would take you if you took enough to really 'get you off'!
What triggered her orgasm???....For me, I could only speculate..I wasn't there in her brain..I could only listen to her explain it...She was very much blown away, by it, and felt comfortable talking to me about it...and when she was done explaining it, i believe she was telling the truth....HOWEVER..(big 'however') women's orgasms are hugely emotionally triggered, more so than guy's...so whatever emotional threshold she crossed must have been a big one.
That being said, I've had a saying for years, that is sad but true...and you might want to give it some thought...."Finding a woman who REALLY LOVES her man, is about as rare as finding a man who REALLY loves God!"......that one goes down several layers!
In both cases, some spiritual experiences, and this woman who had an orgasm the way she did, both were 'surprises', and neither is under the control of the recipient, but the recipient can 'lose control'...but anyway, thanks for getting back, with an intelligent question, as opposed to a half witted 'rebuttal'!!

Regards,

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Howard Jones
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 08:32 AM

GfS, thanks for taking my point the right way. I genuinely don't understand what you mean by a 'spiritual experience', and since you brought it up I would find it helpful if you would be willing to expand on this.

I think you are correct that there is a (possibly unbridgeable) gulf in understanding between those with a religious viewpoint and those without. The latter find it difficult to understand why the former need religion, while they find it hard to understand why the latter can live without it, and assume that they are seeking something to replace it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 09:37 AM

" The latter find it difficult to understand why the former need religion, while they find it hard to understand why the latter can live without it, and assume that they are seeking something to replace it. "

As someone who has gone from devout child to Atheist young man to less than devout older man, I do not find what you say about to fit my experience of myself or others. Almost all religious people have doubt enough to consider how it would feel not to believe.

Some atheists are quiet about it and see it as a personal matter.
Most religious people are the same.

The zealots in both camps tend to be cut from the same cloth. St. Paul persecuted Christians before he became their greatest evangelist.

Hitchens carried his aptitude for dogma through several transformation.

>>As if eager to provide comic relief from this mismatched battle, American television occasionally summarizes it in its own you-can't-make-this-stuff-up way. "The O'Reilly Factor" on Fox News invited David Silverman, president of the American Atheist Group, to discuss billboards proclaiming religion a "scam." Throughout the interview, Silverman kept up a congenial face, claiming that there was absolutely no reason to be troubled, since all that his billboards do is tell the truth: "Everybody knows religion is a scam!" Bill O'Reilly, a Catholic, expressed his disagreement and clarified why religion is not a scam: "Tide goes in, tide goes out. Never a miscommunication. You can't explain that." This was the first time I had heard the tides being used as proof of God. It looked like a comedy sketch with one smiling actor telling believers that they are too stupid to see that religion is a fraud, but that it would be silly for them to take offense, while the other proposes the rise and fall of the oceans as evidence for a supernatural power, as if gravity and planetary rotation can't handle the job.

All I get out of such exchanges is the confirmation that believers will say anything to defend their faith and that some atheists have turned evangelical. Nothing new about the first, but atheists' zeal keeps surprising me. Why "sleep furiously" unless there are inner demons to be kept at bay? In the same way that firefighters are sometimes stealth arsonists and homophobes closet homosexuals, do some atheists secretly long for the certitude of religion? Take Christopher Hitchens, the late British author of "God Is Not Great." Hitchens was outraged by the dogmatism of religion, yet he himself had moved from Marxism (he was a Trotskyist) to Greek Orthodox Christianity, then to American Neo-Conservatism, followed by an "antitheist" stance that blamed all of the world's troubles on religion. Hitchens thus swung from the left to the right, from anti–Vietnam War to cheerleader of the Iraq War, and from pro to contra God. He ended up favoring Dick Cheney over Mother Teresa.<<

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 10:03 AM

That's been posted before. I'm sorry to hear that religion has certitudes. Rather than long for such things, atheists recoil from the disgusting idea. Certitude is, in one word, everything that's wrong with religion. The people of faith who deserve respect are the ones who disdain certitude. All the rest are deluded. I'm not bothered about people who harbour certitude quietly inside themselves. I am bothered by people who try to force certitude on others when they have no evidence for it. The main victims of that are children. As for inner demons, most of us sleep peacefully and harbour no such things. Accusing atheists of having demons is just another frustrated ploy to, er, demonise us (as is saying that atheists are cut from the same cloth as religious nutcases). And Dick Cheney versus Mother Teresa? Cor,that's a close call. Let's predicate the decision on which of them caused most grief to most people. Still a tough one, but Mother Teresa wins by a short head.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 10:09 AM

Almost all religious people have doubt enough to consider how it would feel not to believe.

This is not my idea of what "doubt" is. I've spent all my life as a big, hairy, gruff man, but I've often considered what it might be like to be a woman. This does not reflect any doubt at all on my part that I'm a man. Incidentally, I should like to have the survey results that demonstrate the levels of doubt you appear to be claiming. Almost all, eh? I have my doubts.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 10:31 AM

No Not all of it has been posted here before. I include the bit where O'Reilly was roasted for a little more balance.

"I'm sorry to hear that religion has certitudes. "

You didn't hear that from me. What I said, in different words, was that people who tend to express certitudes tend to express certitudes whether they are religious, anti-religious or not religious at all.

I think that the biggest myth that we hear from atheists is that somehow, the rejection of the religious paradigm makes them different people or even better people. IMHO it does not. I think that for the most part you are the same person before and after your conversion no matter the direction to or away religion.

Anyone who says, Jesus is my savior, is admitting their own imperfections, they are saying that they rely on Jesus' love, forgiveness, wisdom and compassion to guide them through their own uncertainty. Sometimes what you hear as certitude can be nervous self-affirmation.

It is hard to be generous about others contradictory beliefs when you are not certain about your own.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 10:57 AM

Steve Shaw,

It is often hard to tell whether you are trying to have a give and take or if you are just deliberately being contrary. In either case you are opening an interesting can of worms with this.

"This is not my idea of what "doubt" is. I've spent all my life as a big, hairy, gruff man, but I've often considered what it might be like to be a woman. This does not reflect any doubt at all on my part that I'm a man."

You have always had the choice of whether or not to live as a woman and more recently, for all purposes other than reproduction you have had the choice of physically becoming one. Whether or not that reflects any doubt on your part that you are a man is something that can be found only deep within your psyche.

You don't need to see a survey. You can simply examine the lyrics of Hymns and the contents of sermons and homilies. Look at the story of St Paul. The act to becoming born again is part of a process where one strays from the teachings and comes back to them. Overcoming doubts is a common topic of sermons, and is the oblique purpose of every Billy Graham and evangelical mission in any predominantly Christian country.

I honestly do not understand your dwelling on certitude. I do not think that it is a big factor in religion or the lack of it. Keep in mind that Dawkins dismisses the idea of his certitude or lack of it with a Douglas Adams JOKE about "fairies in the garden."

My father and grandfather both had plenty of doubts and experienced being born again. Their euphoria and joy at this and their wish to express it, I found both understandable and rather tedious. But I never detected certitude from them. It was more like "jump into the pool with us. The water is fine." Rather than "Do as we do or you will go to Hell." I realize that your perception and experiences were different. But I think that mine are applicable to a large number of people in the Americas and Europe, especially in the older denominations.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 11:20 AM

" I'm sorry to hear that religion has certitudes."

Steve, it goes beyond that. There is a kind of arrogance that says "my way or the highway" when it comes to espousing "faith". It runs counter to a religious conviction that says in effect that my religion is so strong that whatever you say makes no difference to me. That has a kind of integrity in itself, no matter how delusional I might think it is.

The other rants about Dawkins or anyone else who is a non-believer belies the sincerity of the ranter. They "protest too much" and avoid the issue by trashing the critical non-believer.

What is really wrong here is the total absence of civility when it comes to this discussion and the umbrage it takes by those with a religious agenda. Professor Dawkins has always had a discourse which was polite, attentive and sympathetic when interviewing religious types with which he disagrees.

Not so with many Christians.

This is one reason why this issue keeps coming up as a thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 11:33 AM

While it is difficult to determine your motives Steve. Mr Stringsingers BS and lack of intellectual discipline is more than apparent.

>>>The other rants about Dawkins or anyone else who is a non-believer belies the sincerity of the ranter. They "protest too much" and avoid the issue by trashing the critical non-believer.

What is really wrong here is the total absence of civility when it comes to this discussion and the umbrage it takes by those with a religious agenda. Professor Dawkins has always had a discourse which was polite, attentive and sympathetic when interviewing religious types with which he disagrees.<<<

It is a wonder to behold how he talks about civility on the one hand and so thinly veils his incivility on the other. I'd like to see a survey on how many people he is fooling.

Do you think that he can produce a single example of Mr. Dawkins interviewing religious types at all whether he is doing it "politely" or not?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 11:54 AM

"I think you are correct that there is a (possibly unbridgeable) gulf in understanding between those with a religious viewpoint and those without. The latter find it difficult to understand why the former need religion, while they find it hard to understand why the latter can live without it, and assume that they are seeking something to replace it."

Howard, you bring up an interesting point. I understand why those who need religion defend it so vociferously. I understand that it is a conditioning that happens early in the way some are conditioned to drug use or alcohol. A replacement is sometimes a temporary solution to the addiction. I can't agree that the non-belief position doesn't understand the religious position. Quite the contrary in my opinion. Many non-believers were former religious people and those who at one time espoused "spirituality" or New Age.

When "spirituality", "New Age", or religious convictions are not enforced by adopting a superior attitude or belligerence then it is my opinion that because of the US Separation of Church and State implication in the US Constitution, people can believe in the tooth fairy,
Santa Claus or whatever they choose as long as it stays out of government and is not forced down someone else's throat. I have encountered so many who claim "spirituality"
as a means of feeling superior to others who "don't get it". They bought the T shirt,
and paraphernalia and all the trappings to exhibit it on their own soap box without allowing any criticism or skepticism about it.

Among non-believers, critical examination of non-belief is welcomed. This is another reason why it's not a religion. It's open to empirical verification and many don't think this is true but there is a great deal of humility there about what someone can actually know about anything. This is one reason that Professor Dawkins doesn't think the term "atheist" really covers the extent of the views held by non-believers and he relies on a sliding scale of belief in the probability of any god.

When he talks about "The God Delusion" he is referring to the massive reactionary pulpiteers and religious pundits and the enabling that is done by so-called "moderates".
These reactionaries have dominated the discussion of religion and "spirituality" for so long shouting down the voices of dissent. Now, that's changed. A new voice is being heard and of course the reactions range from contempt and offense to downright violence.

Instead of the term "atheist" I prefer FreeThought, the freeing from dogma and certitude.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 12:12 PM

Jack the Sailor: "You have always had the choice of whether or not to live as a woman and more recently, for all purposes other than reproduction you have had the choice of physically becoming one. Whether or not that reflects any doubt on your part that you are a man is something that can be found only deep within your psyche."

Boy, you said a mouthful there!..maybe without even knowing it!!
Something to consider: Could it be, as either an analogy, or literally, that mankind is the feminine part of God?......The answer is found in several teachings, and in the psychological make-up of men and women in general. In other words, the 'gulf' between men and women is uncannily made up of the same 'mechanics' (if you will), as 'God' has with men(as a gender)...and I could enumerate a list, if necessary...but I gave Howard Jones a piece of input, that if you scratch the surface, is rather profound. The quote was, ""Finding a woman who REALLY LOVES her man, is about as rare as finding a man who REALLY loves God!"......that one goes down several layers!""
Now, unless one has studied Psychology, and 'religion', it might not be apparent at first...but in the above sentence, you can also insert the word 'trust'(in the place of 'love')....instead of fear. The applications of the attributes of men and women are a direct 'reflection' of the attributes of 'God' and men. In many 'religious' teachings, beside Christianity, the head of the woman is man, and the head of man is 'God', and erroneously taught that women should be subjugated to man, WITHOUT the man being subjugated to 'God'...but rather, they teach that the man should be subjugated to their 'sect' of interpretation to whatever 'religion' they are 'promoting'. This is a MUCH misunderstood error, which has alienated a great many people!! I could sum it up in a way by saying,"That one needs not to fear surrendering ones self to one who has submitted to Love." I feel that you could figure out the ramifications of that....coupled with my earlier post that stated, that a virgin should not feel so separate from her man, that she could not approach him(or Him), for an orgasm....or 'spiritual' experience respectively....and it would seem that in either case, he(or HE) would be more that willing, and his(or His) pleasure to do so!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 12:19 PM

Stringsinger, I cross posted after yours. All I can say, in regards to your last post "Howard, you bring up an interesting point. I understand why those who need religion defend it so vociferously."....To those who merely adhere to a set of dogmas or edicts, they may be clinging to some sort of personal security, and lock themselves into 'believing' those things because they feel 'safe'...but to those who have had a life changing experience, where something is 'added', and they KNOW what it is, they will hold onto that out of love, rather than merely having 'fire insurance'!!

GfS

P.S. Ask more if you want.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 12:41 PM

Goofus analysing Jack the Sailor.

Hang on, putting the kettle on. This could be fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:03 PM

"When he talks about "The God Delusion" he is referring to the massive reactionary pulpiteers and religious pundits and the enabling that is done by so-called "moderates".

He said the book was written to attack the beliefs of his moderate colleagues. But of course that does not make him a zealot. Does it strings?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:08 PM

"Boy, you said a mouthful there!..maybe without even knowing it!!"

I know what I said GfS. I don't know how you drew all of that from it. I was just saying to Steve that his analogy has a bit of a hole in it.

All that other stuff. Comparing types of love and trust and all that, came from your head, not mine. I have nothing to say about it other than it is lively and imaginative and that does not conform at all to my ideas of reality.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:27 PM

I think that the biggest myth that we hear from atheists is that somehow, the rejection of the religious paradigm makes them different people or even better people.

I think it's a myth that you've heard this myth. Atheism, to start with, is not "the rejection of the religious paradigm" (whatever that means). I'm an atheist (and I think so are most other atheists) because, as yet, insufficient evidence has been presented to me to demonstrate anything other than that God almost certainly does not exist. Good atheism is a shrug, not a pointing of a finger. That isn't religion. Religion is something that wraps itself round the almost certainly false premise of God's existence. I'm no better or worse than anybody else, as far as I know (though we can break that down into categories, me and my friends). I know that very many people who adhere to religion live good and virtuous lives (though you're disqualified, no matter how nice you are, if you lie to children that myth is truth, or tell people that poverty is a virtue). Atheists don't really jiggle around to classify themselves as better or worse than someone with a different, er, belief system - basically because we haven't actually got one. I don't think you could come up with a single statement from any atheist that he's better than someone else because he's an atheist. We're a very self-deprecating lot, you know. Humility is my middle name and I'll bloody shout it from the rooftops.

And you need to desist from your ridiculous vendetta against Stringsinger. He is one of the more thoughtful and measured posters here and he takes a good deal of trouble over what he posts. You carry on like you do and you'll have everyone concluding that Jack thinks anyone who disagrees with him is automatically insulting him. We have words for that syndrome.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

Ok, Jack....I'm not going to press into it. If you get it, you get it, if not, well you might look into it.

...and Musket, don't forget to put the kettle on the fire!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: olddude
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:49 PM

Jack
for your own sanity, you are wasting your time and energy. people of faith here at mudcat have treated their faith a personal ever since I been here. Guys like Jerry and many others, their beliefs are held personal. The church of Dawkin is not like that, they love being in everyone's face so why bother

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 01:53 PM

"He is one of the more thoughtful and measured posters here and he takes a good deal of trouble over what he posts. "

Now I know you are taking the piss. He reads a line or two of any given post and free associates. How can someone who is "thoughtful and measured" tell me three times that he has read my link then twice insist that I read the same article because it had "important information?"

You are just counting on no one wading through Frank's crap to see just how thin it is. Or more probably you don't read it yourself.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 02:22 PM

Jack, look
They took someone who for 12+ years called them friends and made a mockery of his core family values. The other threads make a mockery of their own country and those who are losing their lives protecting the right to talk about this stuff, and make a mockery of everyone's faith no matter what path one follows. How do you think you can carry on a conversation about the Gospel of Dawkins. Cause it isn't really about faith or non faith, it apparently is about he who dies with the most toys wins and no other person matters. Because that has played out quite well here on mudcat

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 02:41 PM

"Atheists don't really jiggle around to classify themselves as better or worse than someone with a different, er, belief system - basically because we haven't actually got one."
.,,.
Not sure I agree with you 100% on that, Steve, although as you know I am on your side of the question throughout. Do we not, I sometimes find myself wondering, perhaps feel a bit - what - self-satisfied? content with ourselves????... - by virtue of the fact that we are not taken in?

But I write this with the utmost tentativeness ~~ genuinely in interrogative, not assertive, mode.

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 02:42 PM

Actually, I'm not that familiar with Dawkins...however, that being said, my personal experience with spiritual things has not been dependent on his or any interpreter's teachings. I'm not saying he is one way or another, but it's okay, I have access to that which I need..and it's been a GREAT ride!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 04:31 PM

I'm not self-satisfied about anything. I don't know whether there's a God, even though I might be quite a long way down one end of the spectrum. I want to hear what people have to say about this. I'm open to discussion and I'm open to persuasion. All I ask for is evidence. When I see people acting as though they have enough evidence to be certain (especially when they think they have evidence in favour of God), then I haven't got a lot of patience. Those people deserve condemnation and derision. Or at least whoever it was who hoodwinked them deserves it.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 04:38 PM

Being as one of the leaders of the 'so-called liberal' agenda named, none other than Rockefeller..yes, of THE Rockefeller Dynasty, says that Communist China is the ideal model for the world...looky what I found:
Sounds familiar, doesn't it???....for those who have succumb to propaganda

.....and you thought that those bankster/corporate moguls were on the 'other side'!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 06:51 PM

Interesting article about China Gfie.

"Religion has been around for a very long time, and if we rush to try to push for results and want to immediately 'liberate' people from the influence of religion, then it will have the opposite effect and push people in the opposite direction."

"Religion basically upholds peace, reconciliation and harmony ... and can play its role in society," Wang said.

"But due to various complex factors, religion can become a lure for unrest and antagonism. Looking at the state of religion in the world today, we must be very clear on this point."

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 07:33 PM

"Religion is something that wraps itself round the almost certainly false premise of God's existence." This is only true for some religions. There are, and I repeat, a number of religions that don't include the idea of god or gods, and a couple who spell out that it doesn't much matter whether they exist or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 08:50 PM

OK.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Stim
Date: 21 Apr 13 - 09:00 PM

Sorry, that was me, Steve.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans reality check
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 04:24 AM

Those atheists eh? Always in your face. Pushing their reli... err. Belie.... err...

I'd stick to pocket watches myself. It is precisely comments such as yours above old dude that show the issue. Us and them.

Except there is no them.

Sure there are people who try to assert a claim for representing a system they self style as atheism. But by that standard, prisons and secure hospitals are full of murderers who reckon god told them to do it. Same as suicide bombers being told their deaths are consistent with Islam despite counter claims to the contrary.

The difference is that being religious is to have a position. Might be based on genuinely believing the fantasy aspects or just accepting the inferred wisdom of the metaphor but it is belief.

Not believing includes having as much of a stance as the pet goldfish. Such people, and I include myself in this, just get a bit wound up when religious people think their hobby extends outside of their church / mosque / home / mind.   If a religion is to do what it sets out to do, it needs to influence society. And that is where the fun starts.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 08:48 AM

Keep in mind that Musket (sans Ian avec blather) has already said on this forum that it is OK to commit fraud on school application forms because it is lying about "fantasy."

I think that if you go to nearly any atheist website you will find plenty of evangelizing and what they call activism. No goldfish to be seen. The only question you need ask is "Is blather (Musket) lying or is he ignorant?

http://www.richarddawkins.net/

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:11 AM

'I've tried to keep personalities out of this discussion. I think I've covered everything that I've had to say. I think it's delusional and futile for me to continue to argue about something that isn't there.

If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize for that, though I am convinced more than ever that this discussion needs to continue. Dawkins will continue in spite of being slandered
by prejudice and ignorance. That has been the pattern of religious people for as long as there has been a history.

I give up. The dialogue has deteriorated to name calling and denigration of ideas.
No more from me on this issue except to say that because of the nastiness on the part of some here, I am more convinced that Dawkins is right.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:40 AM

Please note folks that a week or two Steve Shaw was saying that Atheists, including and especially Dawkins do not evangelize.

He was constantly calling me "Jacko, and Whacko" and he said that he was doing that to "prod" and "rib" me.

I guess name calling and nastiness is only wrong when it is directed at his side?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:47 AM

I am sorry. I confused Stringsinger and Shaw. Though everything but "Jacko, and Whacko" still stands.

Stringsinger lost the argument "Militant Atheism has become a Religion" So he started "Non-belief in a god is not a religion " in hopes I guess, of moving the discussion to firmer ground.

At least he is no longer laboring under the delusion that atheists do not evangelize.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 10:48 AM

Yep. I said it is perfectly acceptable to say you are a Christian in order to ensure your children get accepted in a certain school. Even if you don't believe in all that nonsense.

A bit like the vicars and church goers who happen to be divorced. They attested in their church to be together till death, in sickness and in health. I know. My first marriage was in a church. But when we decided to split, do you know what? just like every other hypocritical person, the promises made in church to an imaginary god meant sweet FA.
Lying, double standards and promising moon shine to achieve your aims are as much part and parcel of religious clubs as they are in any other arena.

With two differences. With religion we can add hypocrisy to the charge sheet and with my school example I said it is wrong we have to go to that length just to keep superstition happy. I don't see many churches questioning their stance. ..

Sometimes you just have to spell it out. If Sailor Boy thinks that is persecution give me a hammer and nails. I'll show you how to really persecute the smug buggers.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 11:08 AM

You are saying that there is no difference between saying something and changing your mind and lying in advance with clear intent to deceive. I pointed that out to the others to indicate that your words have no value here other than taunts and clumsy attempts at humor because. If you freely say that you would lie on an official form, there is next to zero chance that you would bother to even try to imagine the truth to tell it to us.

Why think things through for yourself when a regurgitated Dawkins meme will do just as well? Say what is easiest. Say what gets the biggest rise.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 12:31 PM

Stringsinger: "If I have hurt anyone's feelings, I apologize for that, though I am convinced more than ever that this discussion needs to continue."

THAT is one of the most coolest things posted, I've seen in quite a while!!!!!
I hope that is honored!!


Keep in mind, that the part of the brain that analyzes data, is different than the intuitive part. What seems to be a delusion to one part, may not 'compute' the same way to another part...and vice verse!!

Perhaps being open to the possibilities, and welcoming the possibilities when they start, and come a knockin', may cause the intuitive part to show you that the analytical part is the deluded side....all I can say, is that stay open to new music!!


Highest regards to you!!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans sailor seaman
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

And why think for yourself when the little baby jesus can do it for you? Breaking promises made to your God are irrelevant but you still believe in him? Supposing he still believes in you afterwards. If you notice I was complaining that you have to go through the charade just to do the best by your children. Unlike the unsavoury biblical bloke who was about to sacrifice his son. Do you honestly believe that the congregation who repeat the chants back to the vicar at a wedding even think about what they are promising? or indeed that a fairly rational vicar believes they do?

Have you ever tried reading the tripe you write before you press submit?

Oh and by the way, its humour not humor.....

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 02:04 PM

Who are you blathering to??..or are you just blathering??

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans the good professor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 02:24 PM

Woof! Woof!

Grrrrr...

Woof!

Hi Goofus! Read any good comics lately?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 02:49 PM

>>And why think for yourself when the little baby jesus can do it for you? Breaking promises made to your God are irrelevant but you still believe in him?<<

We are all sinners. All of those who believe in sin, at leats. Do you think that anyone keeps all the Commandments all the time. You would certainly have a lot less to complain about if you had any idea what you are talking about?

At least you seem to be admitting that you aren't thinking for yourself. That is an encouraging step.

I am not pointing out that you endorse lying to morally chastise you or any such thing. I am just saying that it makes debating with you nothing more than idle banter.

Tripe is in the eyes of the beholder. Lies are just lies.

"Oh and by the way, its humour not humor."

Yes, of course it is. But where you are concerned it is neither :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans sin
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 04:51 PM

But I'm not a sinner so stop saying we all are.

That's one of the funny things about the hypocrisy of superstition. You can claim to follow a faith and believe all that nonsense but when you realise some of it is utter bollocks you can ignore it and claim to be a sinner. Pathetic.

Telling innocent children they are sinners eh? No they aren't and no amount of child abuse can convince me otherwise.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 22 Apr 13 - 05:01 PM

We are all sinners. All of those who believe in sin, at least.

There would be a lot more disagreements if you would read more carefully.