BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 06:10 PM

That's probably why he's related.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: M.Ted
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:20 PM

As I have mentioned before, the acrimony of this thread spreads to others. You all, Nickhere, Amos, Bee, Mrrzy, Riginslinger, should think long and hard about where this poisonous discussion is going, and if it is worth the damage that it is doing--

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Nickhere
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 09:33 PM

Yeah, perhaps you're right Ted. I suppose this thread could go on forever to rival the "Mother of all BS threads" Might as well stop somewhere. But it did have interesting moments.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bee
Date: 02 Feb 08 - 10:53 PM

M.Ted, atheists are vastly outnumbered by Christians in North America. A little acrimony in an online discussion may well be worth it if even one or two people are able to at least see the 'other' point of view.

If the content disturbs you, don't read it and don't contribute.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 12:20 PM

Especially as it's only when you can't counter the arguments that you stoop to attacking the messenger... as in the yes-god thread.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 06:14 PM

Maybe there were gods six-thousand-and-one years ago, and the reason we can't find them now is because Mike Huckabee has figured you that the universe is only six-thousand years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 10:22 PM

OK, now, here's a serious question. I know some atheist organization has an actual lobbyist - but how can we get out the atheist *vote*? We outnumber jews nearly 10:1 in the US, but you'd never know it from our political power...
Or is that a whole 'nuther question?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:14 PM

I think it is grounds for a new thread. I certainly do not have an answer!


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Feb 08 - 11:26 PM

Well, this thread has gotten so long, a new one certainly wouldn't hurt.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: john f weldon
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 09:34 AM

Tis a sad truth, but true nonetheless Atheists are a quiet lot.

It's hard to get excited about nothing. We don't have meeting places, or group spirit, or many good songs. (The best we can do is parody gospel songs, I guess. See below.)
We're just not the flag-waving tub-thumping types.

The dumber the ideology, the more excited people get. All we can do is sit back and have a larf.

S A V E D

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:15 AM

Wouldn't it make sense to get more organized so your rights don't get trampled on? It's an issue that worries me. I'm sure there are groups dedicated to athiest's rights but you never seem to hear about them. I'm sure the media needs to accept some of the blame on that one. I know it may sound silly to some but I think if athiest groups made public donations to things like the MD telethon and poiticians willing to accept them that it would raise the awareness level in this country.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:29 AM

The Society for...is it "Rational Humanism"? I forget -- is one.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:34 AM

Google doesn't show any links to a group by that name. How good are they at getting the word out if you don't know the name of the group? That's what I'm talking about. The believers are much better at PR than the athiests. That needs to change - don't you think?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 10:50 AM

I think the basis of the problem is, atheism is rational where religion is not. Therefore, it doesn't make a lot of sense for atheist to feel the need to defend their postition(s).
                Religion, on the other hand, is totally irrational, so it makes a lot of sense for them to feel the need to defend it. The other issue is, because it's irrational, they are always afraid of losing their faith, so their constantly trying to duct-tape the blinders. Reality is a really bad thing to them.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

"What would Pete Seegar do?" Organize.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:06 AM

Sorry -- I must have been thinking of the Secular Humanism organization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:11 AM

Yeah, I'm a member of that group. The "Freedom from Religion Society" is another, I think.
                     The problem with organizing, though (in terms of having rallies and gatherings), as I think I've stated above. The entire thing is so obvious to them, it just doesn't make any sense for them to do that.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:22 AM

I think we may see a wave form in that direction as a result of all the nudges published by Dawkins and others.

I can only hope they don't throw the babies out with the bathwaters.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 11:32 AM

Sad but true that even in this day and age no one is ever "given" their rights. They need to stand up and make a stink. Those who are happy with the way things are won't need to do a thing.

In the meantime I saw this article - which to me - shows a big shift in the thinking of a large group like the Baptists. It sounds like they are thinking about getting behind global warming. A year ago I wouldn't have thought it possible.

Gore's green message to Baptists

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 12:03 PM

I wouldn't call that "doing nothing." If Gore can get Baptists motivated about Global Warming, that forces them to have to deal on a first hand basis with science. It would be just one small step from there to dealing with other aspects of their lives on a realistic basis.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:01 PM

I shudder at the idea of a well-organized 'Atheists' movement almost as much as I worry about the various societal pressures of various religious groups. We do not need some activist, militant group campaigning religion. All we really need is for more people..on both sides...to understand what the issues are, and why some do NOT believe in a God*, and why it is possible to co-exist with those who do. I understand perfectly well why many choose a religious system and feel comforted by it....I am just not sure that too many of them really comprehend why others do not.

       *(note..I say a God just for semantic reasons, as saying "don't believe in God" sounds as though one is acknowledging one, but just rejecting him)

For those who have trouble sorting out all the issues and following the points of quiet, calm non-believers, I can't think of a better, more succinct & clear, place than this:

http://www.infidels.org/ ...which includes this Q&A session

and this section about what logical arguments ARE

and this bit on common objections to atheisim including Pascals Wager, various comments by Einstein, and 'intelligent design'.


take the time, whether you are Christian or atheist, to follow the points being made in the above links. It may not change any minds on either side, but it may help soften the rhetoric and allow us to conduct a less antagonistic discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:04 PM

WHo was it said organizing atheists is like herding cats? But Riginslinger has a good point - we aren't likely to need to defend our point of view, since it's the rational one.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:18 PM

As I said before - Those who are happy with the way things are won't need to do a thing.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:23 PM

Mrrzy... you tend to ignore the ability of minds which are emotionally committed to a viewpoint to USE bad rationality to claim that logic & reason are merely subjective attitudes and no better than their 'personal experience'.
   Until you really comprehend just how 'true belief' feels & works, you cannot conduct any meaningful dialog with them. And 'they' need to understand how non-believers think. That's why I posted those links above.

Honest people on BOTH sides can learn the various rationale for the other's positions...if they will take the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:25 PM

POssibly what we need is amilitant, aggressive group defending the separation of church and state and the right to absolute individual privacy and sovereignty of choice in all religious matters. There is a very clear (to me, anyway) divising line where the freedom of belief ends and the responsibility for the civic commons begins, a space into which religious beliefs should not be entered no matter how much they inform the private mind and its decision-making process.

The reason for "rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's" is not philsophical or religious but practical. Religious considerations have no traction or merit on Caesar's turf, whether it is an empire or a representative republic.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:26 PM

Thanks, BillD - but one slight correction, I don't ignore the bad rationality, I try to challenge it... and not fall into it, myself.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Wesley S
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 02:30 PM

"Possibly what we need is a militant, aggressive group defending the separation of church and state and the right to absolute individual privacy and sovereignty of choice in all religious matters."

CORRECT - and when you find one - sign me up.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 03:35 PM

FFRF = Freedom From Religion Foundation. They are very aggressive in separation of church and state. So is the ACLU, actually. Unfortunately, it's the "privacy" part that gets lost, on both sides - many atheists want believers to acknowledge the irrationality of faith, and many believers want religion in hthe public sphere.

As you can probably tell, I'm more in the former camp than the latter, but if believers WOULD keep their faith private, I might not be. Except for the children, of course. Kids' right to a full education way, way outweighs any parental privilege of freedom of religion.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 04:21 PM

*grin*..well, Mrrzy..you neatly compressed and avoided what I said about rationality. I didn't suggest for a second that YOU 'ignored bad rationality'.....neither do I. I have fought it for many years.
   What I said was "you tend to ignore the ability of minds which are emotionally committed to a viewpoint to USE bad rationality ...etc." ...which is a VERY different point.

It pains me to feel like I need to occasionally critique those I basically agree with, but unless we are content to an interminable "yes you do" "no I don't" shouting match, we need to temper the FORM of our debate a bit.


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Old Peanuts cartoon:


Lucy, talking to Linus: "Change your mind!"
Linus just looks at her.
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND!!
Linus looks more intimidated...
Lucy.."CHANGE YOUR MIND, I SAY!!"

Lucy, walking away, disgruntled and mumbling."Boy, it's hard to get people to change their minds these day!"

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 04 Feb 08 - 06:11 PM

*BG!* Also, critiquing those with whom you agree is usually taken as a favor, IME.

And it is exactly that ability I thought I was working on! Yikes!

(gotta go, computer guy has finally happened! Wish me luck - (ducking)!)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 09:00 AM

How about all those left over FEMA trailers that never got used after Katrina. Maybe there are some gods in some of those.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:29 PM

OK, maybe now Internet Explorer will stop quitting on me... I'm so glad you wished me luck! Musta worked!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:43 PM

A perfect example of how the deluded make life miserable for the rest of us.

            Mike Huckabee, thinking Mormonism is a cult, and not realizing that Baptism is no different, stays in the Republican race and takes Virginia away from Romney, helping to insure a McCain win for the nomination.

            Huckabee's inability to see that the world is more than six-thousand years old, combined with his failure to grasp the reality that Baptism is a cult too, deprives voters in November from casting a vote for Romney. They get John-all-war-all-the-time-McCain, or a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 04:59 PM

In the present instance, not such a bad situation, fortunately.


Especially if they send in Barack.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 06:37 PM

Frankly, I think if they send in Barack, we'll end up with a Republican president. He would have a better chance running against Romney, I suspect.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 05 Feb 08 - 07:29 PM

HArd-nosed realism, or dour gravid pessimism, hell, I con't tell the differtence at this point. My sense is both tactics miss th emark and misunderestimate the man seriously.

We'll see. HE has legs, is what I think, and enough sand to make a mark, and probably win over McCain. But we are just flashing our respective bilious instincts around at this juncture.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Joe Offer
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 07:14 PM

I guess I have to say I'm tired of all this. I believe in God, and that belief brings a depth to my life that I wouldn't have otherwise. Other people don't believe in God, and a forced belief would make them shallow.

All of these words that have been fired back and forth end up saying the same thing:

• Some believers think nonbelievers are awful, and also feel persecuted by nonbelievers
• Some nonbelievers think believers are awful, and also feel persecuted by believers
• Some people think all of this is really silly. People have a right to their own beliefs and ideas, and should be respected for that.

I have been asked to close this thread because of all the acrimony expressed. I'm unwilling to do that, but I would hope that most Mudcatters fall in the third category. I guess the rest of you in categories one and two are going to continue to duke it out, whether I close this thread or not. So, fight on - but remember that a number of us think you are really quite stupid to be fighting about this.

-Joe Offer-

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 09:35 PM

And Mike Huckabee, who happily announces that he thinks the world is only 6,000 years old, and who is angling for a VP spot behind a candidate who would take the oath of office at the age of 71, is not stupid?
             Let's see, I need to check my dictionary:
            Stupid: 1. Slow to learn or understand; obtuse. 2. Tending to make poor decisions or careless mistakes. 3. Marked by a lack of intelligence...

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Amos
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:36 PM

Well, out of honor to Offer I would like to just add that my fight is not against any sacrament or religion, but against the implicit ill will inherent in rampant and absolutist proselytization.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 10:41 PM

You've got it wrong, Riginslinger, Huckabee says he believes that John McCain is 6,000 years old.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:29 PM

I guess I thought I was the only one who noticed that!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 06 Feb 08 - 11:45 PM

Huckabee is smart--don't let the name fool you.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 07:53 AM

Huckabee might be smart in the sense that he's a good in-fighter, but he's hopelessly addicted to the Baptist religion which renders him incapable of making rational decisions.
                      Substance abuse is a big problem in America.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 09:21 AM

And here I thought this thread was about to fall off the bottom of the page! I am glad to see it back.

I think that the acrimony our darling Joe Offer mentions has been incredibly one-sided - I don't think any of the atheists have said anything insulting to any of the believers other than expressing the idea that having faith in a personal god or any other "higher power" is, at best, just plain silly. On the other hand, I, and probably others in this (and "the other") thread, have been called abusive, accused of attempting single-handedly to shut down the entire mudcat Forum with our meanness, and worse.

I have not actually felt insulted by all the insults I've received - I hear challenged assumptions fracturing painfully - nor have I reported to "The Authorities" the kinds of threats and abuse I've been getting in PMs and in the threads. I have to admit that my assumption is that, if anybody wanted this thread closed, it would be the believers who are upset with having their assumptions challenged, but I realize that I have no data behind that assumption. I'd be interested in those data.

However, I have this to say, with a big grin:

Oh, come on. Grow up. If you don't want this thread in your life, don't read it. And stop insulting the messenger when you can't answer the questions in the message. If you want to express your faith, don't be so hurt when others question your expression. It's just a discussion forum, folks.

Lecture off.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:02 AM

Well Mrrzy, Old Bob here was practically forced into atheism by the circumstance of being raised in the Dutch Reformed Triangle. Hellfire and Damnation would have been a welcome alternative to the cold, mean-spirited, atmosphere created by "The Faithful". Anyway, as a sympathetic fellow traveller, let me tell you that you and yours(such as Riginslinger, who ought to change his name to Zingerslinger) have given better than you got.

When you tell "The Faithful" that they are irrational, they are insulted. Now don't get me wrong, a lot of them need to be insulted, but they don't thank you for it.

I had a rather aunt who used to say things like, "You keep a clean house and set a nice table. I can't imagine why your husband left you" , and "A lot of women look dumpy when they move into the plus sizes, but you pull it off."   She was always surprised at the way that people reacted to her honesty.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:13 AM

Zingerslinger - I like that!

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:21 AM

It's a Dutch name;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Mrrzy
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 10:38 AM

Yeah, Mom has those kinds of compliments too. And if you say something like Nice haircut, she gets all Oh, was it awful before?

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bob Pacquin
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 11:16 AM

Did she tell you that she's glad that you aren't threatened by the fact that your siblings are much more successful than you are? If so, we may be related.

Subject: RE: BS: Still no gods 2008 (continued)
From: Bill D
Date: 07 Feb 08 - 12:19 PM

..having faith in a personal god or any other "higher power" is, at best, just plain silly.

Well, Mrrzy...I have to disgree. I am not religious. I am 99+% sure that it is just myth and wishful thinking. But it is far from 'silly'.
The philosophically *1st* question is "why is there something, rather than nothing?"...and humans have puzzled over it as long they could frame the question.
Religion is one way of answering the question and coping with the mystery of it all...and for most of the history of humanity, religious answers were the norm, and only the details were debated. Very complex systems have grown up around some of the attempts to sort it all out, and entire cultures are predicated on various of the answers...with VERY compelling and intense emotional hooks to sustain belief. (who is not impresses by cathedrals and requiem Masses?)

   Now, even though there are, to some of us, clear reasons for doubting the reality of the supposed inspiration for religious systems, they are nevertheless buried deeply in most human psyches....and simply stating that they are 'silly' or 'contrary to logic' is not going to impress someone who has guided their life by the basic concepts.

*IF* you & I are correct in our skepticism, we need to realize that it is close to impossible for most humans to simply 'change their minds', and that only a gradual alteration over generations through education and gentle setting of good examples is likely to be effective.

   In the meantime, we MUST find a way to co-exist with believers....while resisting regular attempts by certain groups to **impose** some religious views and rules on society at large. We must codify and enforce 'separation of church & state'...politely but firmly... while allowing those who are committed to a religious perspective to practice and worship freely, and to respect them as honest people, as long as they are willing to respect us similarly.

Do I see the problems with this? Of course I do! A religion that commands "..go forth and become fishers of men" will have adherents who test our resolve. *wry smile*...but I don't relish trying to restrain them except by orderly means. Remember...they BELIEVE they are doing us a favor!

What more can I say? An aphorism? "You can catch more files with honey...etc"? In any case, ridiculing folks deeply held beliefs only hardens their defenses and creates enmity. People believe...partially...because it feels good; and partially because they are afraid not to. That's a lot to ask folks to give up.

In many ways, 'belief' in a 'heavenly answer' is by FAR the easiest way to cope with misery, poverty, death and the unknown. There are other ways...but not easy ones to explain to those who can barely grasp why you're trying and see you as just a surrogate of the 'devil' they were taught to fear.

It's complicated...and it's important... but there's a lot to be gained by a more compassionate approach.