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

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 10:25 PM

In 1967, Enver Hoxha's regime conducted a campaign to extinguish religious life in Albania; by year's end over two thousand religious buildings were closed or converted to other uses, and religious leaders were imprisoned and executed. Albania was declared to be the world's first atheist country by its leaders, and Article 37 of the Albanian constitution of 1976 stated that "The State recognises no religion, and supports and carries out atheistic propaganda in order to implant a scientific materialistic world outlook in people." Tens of thousands were imprisoned executed

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 09:33 PM

I bet for the right amount of money we can get the church of Dawkins to rewrite those segments of history to blame it on faith ...

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 09:26 PM

and leave us not forget the Christian Mao Zedong in his great leap forward barring religious practices ... murdered tens of millions. Had to be a christian because no atheist would do that

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: olddude
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 09:16 PM

I bet the guy that runs North Korea is a card carrying Christian Strings since that is your only focus. Stalin must have been a Christian also cause certainly no atheist is capable of doing evil deeds right ...

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 08:49 PM

Stringsinger

Another interesting point by Douglas Adams who has given Ted Talks begins by saying that "science works through the testing of hypotheses that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof" and then says "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. Here is an idea that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not."

Excellent.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 04:43 PM

"A Muslim woman was beaten over the Boston bombing which showed a religious bias on the part of the assailants. It is because she was a Muslim. I don't believe that atheists did that.
They don't burn down mosques either. "


Do you think that people carrying around these ideas in their heads could have beaten that woman?

"I regard Islam as one of the great evils in the world,"

"Like Alexandria, like Bamiyan, Timbuktu's priceless manuscript heritage destroyed by Islamic barbarians,"

"Haven't read Koran so couldn't quote chapter & verse like I can for Bible. But often say Islam greatest force for evil today"

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 03:46 PM

A discussion on this topic is not a boxing match or a bar fight. A real discussion talks about the value of ideas, either a defense or a criticism that shares legitimate information.

Just a squabble over who is right or wrong doesn't bring into focus the reasons for the ideas presented.

Some of you may be tired of this thread but this issue is not going away since 30 million people have been cited as being non-believers of some sort.

Also, it may turn out that the recent bombing in Boston has to do with an idea of religion
in the same way that 911 did. These are a couple of reasons why this topic is important.

A Muslim woman was beaten over the Boston bombing which showed a religious bias on the part of the assailants. It is because she was a Muslim. I don't believe that atheists did that.
They don't burn down mosques either.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 01:53 PM

GfS, I personally have had "spiritual experiences" and I've come to realize later in hindsight that they were delusional.

" Also tested were atheists. That area of the brain(frontal lobe) did note light up at all."

I agree that this can happen. You can simulate a "religious" experience through electrodes, mushrooms or other devices. That doesn't mean that it's not delusional.

"because, you actually don't know what you are talking about."

Not true. Delusion does exist. Misinterpretation of psychological events do occur.



"don't let the bad behavior of some church fanatics, or shallow people, turn you off to being curious about a fuller human experience....because it is real!"

I'm sure it seems real to you but is unverifiable scientifically. Until you can prove this experience is not just delusional or misperceived, I'll continue to be skeptical.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 01:30 PM

Dawkins on Ted Talk

I recommend everyone hearing this Ted Talk. It's a fresh breath of sanity.

His thesis is that Darwinism and religion are incompatible. "Evolution is corrosive to religion. And vice versa. A true understanding of Darwinism is deeply corrosive to religious faith. It teaches people to be satisfied with trivial, supernatural non-explanations. It teaches them to accept authority,revelation and faith instead of always insisting on evidence."

"What I want to urge upon you (the audience at Ted Talk) is militant atheism."

When I hear him say this, considering the religious fanaticism in this country, it sounds reasonable in context. There are too many fanatics in the US. He thinks that evolution is essentially "atheistic". You can argue that point and I hope that it can be done without rancor but I'm not holding my breath on this.

A "re-mock-able" statement is made by George W. Bush. "Atheists are not patriots."

Educated religionists from the Pope on down on firm on evolution but in the US,
this is not true. They are called Creationists and their ideas should not be respected.
Again, as people, the inherent human capacities for love and social constructive behavior should be respected. Not the idea of Creationism which is predicated on a blind canard that "life is too complex to not have been designed by a "creator". Listen to Dawkins' explanation of this.

Kenneth Miller, a devout Christian has written "Finding Darwin's God" is one of the most effective attacks on "Intelligent Design".

This Talk could be the springboard for an intelligent dialogue about this issue as long as it isn't buried with accusations, name-calling, ad hominems and the usual brickbats we've found here.

Another interesting point by Douglas Adams who has given Ted Talks begins by saying that "science works through the testing of hypotheses that are framed to be vulnerable to disproof" and then says "Religion doesn't seem to work like that. It has certain ideas at the heart of it which we call 'sacred' or 'holy'. Here is an idea that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not." That provokes laughter and it should. "Why should it be that it's perfectly legitimate to support the Republicans or Democrats, this model of economics to that version of economics, Macintosh instead of Windows, but to have an opinion about how the universe was created, no that's holy. There's no reason why those ideas shouldn't be open to debate as any other."

Listen to the talk and we'll have something decent to talk about.

Here's a quote for you from Bertand Russell, the British philosopher:

"My own view on religion is that of Lucretius. I regard it as a disease born of fear and as a source of untold misery to the human race."

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 12:01 PM

Will try to get down there soon, Les. Seems I'm either tied up (not literally!) or too tired come Wednesdays these days...

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 10:54 AM

"A good example of what is wrong with Jack's arguments. These two concepts, Jack, are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible to be entirely honest AND very rude simultaneously."

Which is exactly the point I have been making all along. Which is why I made this sarcastic comment.

"Just being honest. "

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 04:35 AM

From: Steve Shaw - PM
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:15 PM
Are you perchance being "rude"? Heheh.

From: Jack the Sailor - PM
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:39 PM
Just being honest.
.,,.
A good example of what is wrong with Jack's arguments. These two concepts, Jack, are not mutually exclusive as you seem to think. It is perfectly possible to be entirely honest AND very rude simultaneously.

He makes a similar sort of category error in his constant assertion that to say someone is 'deluded' in one particular, or that one thing in which a person believes is delusory [as in Dawkins' title] is in every way equivalent to accusing him of being insane ~~ WHICH IT JUST IS NOT, JACK!

Geddit?

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 04:34 AM

What if all the christian faiths got together to agree on what they agree on. No we all know that that is silly.

Just read the God Delusion - it's a great read and very funny

See you down The Beech NS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 02:52 AM

"Spleen Cringe - PM"

Sorry, Jack, I haven't logged in for over a year and I've no idea what my password is. Unless the memory ceases to falter I won't actually see that pm.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 02:50 AM

By all means bring up your children in the value system you believe in. But try and do it in a way that doesn't damage them - take the elements of guilt and fear and so on that seem to permeate so much of mainstream religious thinking out and that would be a start. That's what I wish my folks had done. That's what I'm doing. Try not to let your god be a 'vengeful' god, if you now what I mean. Vengeful doesn't help.

Where do bad folks go when they die?
They don't go to heaven where the angels fly
They go to a lake of fire and fry
Won't see 'em again till the 4th of July

Meat Puppets (to bring some wonderful American music in).

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 11:25 PM

GFS

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've read you describe this before and not quite understood you. Its like the monks and holy men who can change their body temperature or lie on a bed of nails because they use their faith to train their bodies. Are you saying that some people cant train their "pleasure centers" that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 10:28 PM

Stringsinger: "Spirituality is the substitution for a belief in a god. Therefore it is not atheistic.
It assumes an ethereal presence of some sort, undefined and unverifiable."

Ah..but you are consummately wrong. I probably have to find my posts about the MRIs....I'll put in a nutshell....
I posted a link, a while ago, that had a video, where they tested people using MRI. Psychedelics (mushrooms in particular), Music, meditation, and sex, all lit up the frontal lobe of the brain...and though they lit up that area, it doesn't mean they all traveled the same paths...so in essence, that area for all those activities, gave a sense of 'euphoria', however each activity had distinct different sensations. Also tested were atheists. That area of the brain(frontal lobe) did note light up at all. True story.
So for all those who never had a spiritual experience, and then come off and say it is a delusion, you don't know that..unless you have something to compare it with..and you don't....neither can you know what someone has experienced, when they utilize a part of their brain, that you don't. The video goes onto say, that that is a reason why spiritually minded people can't understand why atheists 'don't get it', and the reverse is also true..atheists can't figure out why, or what tangible thing is going on, within people who focus onto their spiritual experience.
That being said, I'm NOT a 'religious fanatic'..I only know what I know, and seen what I've seen, and I'm not up for being told by people who have not experienced that, that it doesn't exist....because, you actually don't know what you are talking about.
Now, if you don't like some of the world's religions, I don't blame you...and that includes what some people pass off as 'Christianity'...and that being said, don't let the bad behavior of some church fanatics, or shallow people, turn you off to being curious about a fuller human experience....because it is real!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:39 PM

Just being honest.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:15 PM

Are you perchance being "rude"? Heheh.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 09:06 PM

If you do say that, they are the ones who would be better off not taking in your batcrap crazy opinions.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 08:56 PM

If you can't say that to your Christian friends without 'em taking umbrage, find better friends, chaps.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 08:43 PM

>>Well, you see, Jack, no-one here is disputing that parents should pass on their values to their children. But values is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about telling your children that there is a God, that he came down in the guise of baby Jesus, etcetera etcetera.<<

In case you are wondering cringe this is exactly what I was talking about. I doubt you can say things like that to your Christian friends and still remain friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 08:40 PM

It being called "delusional" and saying that teaching your kids what your values are is "child abuse." that we find disrespectful.

Well, you see, Jack, no-one here is disputing that parents should pass on their values to their children. But values is not what we are talking about here. We are talking about telling your children that there is a God, that he came down in the guise of baby Jesus, etcetera etcetera. As they grow older you will tighten up this message and introduce the notions of sin, guilt and worthlessness in the eyes of a God who will exact retribution if you stray. You will de-emphasise (to put it mildly) the notion that there is a very good chance that this God does not exist. On the contrary, you will make them chant by heart prayers that confirm the certainty of this God's existence and make them sing hymns of praise and attend church services at which this possibly non-existent fellow will be praised and beseeched to do things for us (often at the expense of someone else, a bit like Musket praying that Sheffield Wednesday will beat Burnley, or like me praying that my 95-year-old granny will survive her terminal illness when there are already far too many people using up the resources of this planet). There are plenty of superb values that parents can pass on to their children that are not predicated on faith. That's great. But if you want to include the above with the "values" you want to pass on, then that isn't so great.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:46 PM

Spleen Cringe - PM

>> Please however don't ask me to to respect some of the shit that goes with some belief - homophobia, oppression of women, bombing and killing and all the other things done in someone's god's name. <<

I agree with that, I'll wager that Olddude does too. It being called "delusional" and saying that teaching your kids what your values are is "child abuse." that we find disrespectful.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:41 PM

Orgasms are scientifically verifiable and quite enjoyable because they are real.

Oi, whaddya mean, "quite"? Come now!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Spleen Cringe
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:27 PM

The problem is not one of personal faith or lack of faith. I'm happy to respect your belief or none belief in a god - I respect my religious friends' right to believe, although I also reserve the right to tell them when I think they're talking shit - a right they also reserve for me! Please however don't ask me to to respect some of the shit that goes with some belief - homophobia, oppression of women, bombing and killing and all the other things done in someone's god's name. No-one has any right to expect me to respect that or any right to put me down for refusing to respect it. Also, where I live, two of the five state-funded primary schools are faith schools. I resent that my taxes are being used to pay for this: I don't personally believe there is a god, yet my taxes are used to promote religious teaching. On what level is that acceptable? Surely even believers would accept that non-believers shouldn't subsidise the promotion of their beliefs? This is just one of many example of where religion intrudes into my life, whether I like it or not. That's not about your private, personal faith (which I will happily respect, with the caveat of disagreeing with you when you cross over into promoting oppressive ideas as noted above) but about religion oppressing me. I have the right to object to that and will use it. If in the eyes of Jack, Olddude and some of the other believers here who seem to object to non believers stating their opinions, that makes me some sort of monster, so be it. Boo!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 07:00 PM

Spirituality is the substitution for a belief in a god. Therefore it is not atheistic.
It assumes an ethereal presence of some sort, undefined and unverifiable.
I didn't support GfS's conclusion. They are not different because they both require a "faith" by the person who experiences them.

It's amazing how much this discussion engenders downright hostility.

Ed, if I'm illogical please inform me how.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:38 PM

"Atheism" has been redefined by its opponents to be something other than it means originally, a non-belief in a god which is opposite of a religious belief.

GfS, that is your opinion when you say "Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'"

Thus using stringsinger logic, spirituality without the belief in God is also the opposite of a religious belief which makes it the same as atheism.

Therefor, non-belief in God is Spirituality.

Thanks for clearing that up buddy!!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:06 PM

Posted too fast, the correct word is "logic" (not logicac) in my last post that read "However, I fail to see the logicac in that post". Sorry to confuse you further:)

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Ed T
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 04:02 PM

Stringsinger, as to (what seems to be a response to an earlier post of mine) your post at 12:18 PM today, I respect your personal opinion. However, I fail to see the logicac in that post.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:41 PM

"Come come, now(pun intended)...it's not all that difficult, is it???
GfS"
.,,.
Yes. I have enough vanity to regard myself as a man of reasonable intelligence and a long [81] year* lifetime of experience.

And I have frankly not the remotest idea what you think you are on about.

~M~

* so you will appreciate that your punning injunction will not be that easy for me to accede to any longer...

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:25 PM

GfS, that is your opinion when you say "Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'" I see it as a substitute for religion. It is scientifically unverifiable. Orgasms are scientifically verifiable and quite enjoyable because they are real.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:01 PM

MtheGm: "No, they can't, can they? Why, here is one who has popped up to tell us that God is in some way [how? how? tell us! please!] analagous to an orgasm. I am really having a non-orgasmic ball trying to get my poor, non-deluded, head round that one!"

Here's the analogy, that I referred to:


Subject: RE: BS: Who are the editors here?
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 11:11 AM

Again, spirituality is different from 'religion'...and unless you've had a substantial spiritual experience, it would be like trying to 'explain' an orgasm to a virgin...and in like manner, listening to a virgin say there is no such thing as an orgasm, and therefore saying they don't exist is just silly to those who know differently!
Now there might be different reasons for a person NOT experiencing and orgasm, such as fear and insecurity about having one, and those people, often women, may group together and 'discuss' every aspect of being 'fulfilled' and coming to a consensus of how they are above it all..but the fact remains, they haven't had one, and for them to tell other women, who have had one, that having an orgasm with their husband doesn't really exist is just them explaining that they have missed out on something, that they have no idea about. Those who have had one can remember, what it was like before they had one...likewise, those who are frigid, can only 'play down' any 'need' for one.
Some women will 'fake' them...some people will also act like they are as good as experienced, but never had one. It's one of those things, that if you're willing not to 'fake it', and willing to be vulnerable, that all you have to do, is explain it to your husband, and ask him.
It's not a matter of 'believing things ABOUT' an orgasm, like belonging to a 'church', but rather, having the actual experience...and there isn't a way around it in this life.
Having a spiritual experience or having an orgasm is something that is available to everyone in this lifetime, and your husband would LOVE to accommodate your request...much like God regards his people as his Bride!!
..you'd just have to be there!


...........and here is the other one!:

"From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 14 Apr 13 - 01:11 PM

What is 'spirit', is spirit..what is flesh or material is material. Of the two, the spiritual experience is FAR more...umm..'awakening' than a physical orgasm...and actually lights up more areas of the brain, than a physical orgasm...the frontal lobe of the brain lights up, and more neurons are activated, than those who don't have that experience.
Now the brain can access different sensations of awareness, that unless you have experienced that, is really hard to explain...but one thing for sure, is that during a spiritual experience both 'time' and 'matter' take on a completely different sense of properties...and the experience is said to give the 'participant' a different view of what is considered to be the 'known reality'...so much, that often their 'reality' cannot be explained within the parameters of what we know, from this dimension....but rather this dimension has similar 'manifestations' that are indicative of ,as Crosby Still and Nash, described as, "...what is going on, down under you".
A lot of people, clergy especially, interpret 'spirituality' as 'another place in another time'...it's not. If it excluded 'now' it would not be 'eternal' or infinite...but to those who only count the physical experience as the 'ultimate', are limiting what they actually have access to. I cannot 'give' you that experience by explaining anything..nor can people give it to themselves, no matter how much they study the dogmas of 'religion', or adhere to the tenets of a particular sect of religion....or obey the 'rules' set forth by any 'religious' order....but your awareness, of things much larger and fuller, not subject to time fuses into your consciousness...and it's impossible, as far as I know, to discount it....as time goes on, there are reminders all along the way...that just keeps proving itself. Things fall into order...not an order that you can figure out, nor can you configure them out....but they make sense, as they unfold. That's one reason, people outside the experience can clamor all they want about a subject, that SEEMS to make sense to them...but it is only temporary, and in a short time is obsolete.
All I can say, respectfully, is it is like stepping into another dimension where your brain(for lack of a better analogy), sends and receives input far different than we do normally...and during one of these experiences, you have NO control, as to what is coming to you...hence the analogy of an orgasm is perfect!
Another thing to remember, is the experience is not just physical, nor mental...and is FAR greater than an orgasm. It is both 'great and terrible'!...and if there wasn't anything else attached to it, you wouldn't want one....only problem is, there is.
If you want to talk about it more, all I can do, respectfully is share what I know...but on this subject, I have no doubt.
When I went through mine, more than 40 years ago, and some subsequent to that, the things I saw and experienced, I have watched unfold as time went by up to the present, and as far as I can tell, beyond. It caused me to search out different writings to find consistencies,and lo and behold, they are there.
Without going into a lot of details, I will say that in music, for those who can compose, there is a wealth of info to process into sound!!
Originally, I was steered to the Mudcat Forum, by a world renown musician who, in her experience, shared a similar experience, and a common denominator that blew our minds...considering that we came from different cultures, almost half way around the planet.
Of course, I know I've been seen as somewhat of an oddball...but then, you should see it from my point of viewing!!
Anyway, I've answered you honestly and respectfully (this time..*grinning*..) and hope you receive it in the spirit that is intended.

GfS

MtheGM: "I am really having a non-orgasmic ball trying to get my poor, non-deluded, head round that one!"

Come come, now(pun intended)...it's not all that difficult, is it???

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 03:00 PM

"All the science in the world is open to all the people - it's all consistant - no contradictions - except right at the edge of knowledge and understanding. That is Dawkins point."

Right as rain, Les! That's why non-belief can't be a religion. There's no certainty there, no faith. It's consistent because its tenets are provable unlike an airy fairy spirituality or a dogmatic clinging to an anachronistic religion.

The delusion is not about individuals at every plane of their lives, but only about their belief systems, particularly if they defend it by putting non-believers down. The act of degrading a non-believer such as Dawkins or any other because somehow you have a '"hurt feeling" about what they say is not rational. It's one thing to offer a debatable defense of religion but quite another to trash someone for emotional reasons because you don't like what they say. This "taking personal offense" is where religionists cry victimhood and destroy a debatable dialogue.

Many "experiences" are common hallucinations in mental wards. They are unverifiable.
This is where science steps in and reality begins.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:43 PM

Century mark!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: TheSnail
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:35 PM

Steve Shaw

Well, I have this weakness, you see, Snail. I don't mind someone giving me a lusty argument or even telling me that I'm deluded (though I do like to have their reason for thinking it). But when someone constantly nit-picks because of some wacky secret agenda they appear to have (let's call it "a chip on the shoulder"), or misrepresents what I've said in order to have a go, I bite back. If I think you're being silly there is a severe risk that I might tell you so (and I expect the same back). The thing is, I type my posts carefully and review them thoroughly before hitting send. If you want to have a bash at something I've said, but you seem not to be applying similar rigour, then you've got it coming. I haven't got all day to be tirelessly diplomatic with someone for whom that approach doesn't work.

Fairly mild by Steve's standard but I think it proves my point.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:17 PM

No, they can't, can they? Why, here is one who has popped up to tell us that God is in some way [how? how? tell us! please!] analagous to an orgasm. I am really having a non-orgasmic ball trying to get my poor, non-deluded, head round that one!

~M~

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:06 PM

All the science in the world is open to all the people - it's all consistant - no contradictions - except right at the edge of knowledge and understanding. That is Dawkins point.

You christians can't even agree amongst your selves never mind agree with all the other relgions - but why should you?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 02:01 PM

Jack the Sailor: "Blind faith is a wonder to behold! LOL LOL!"

Ever meet a virgin that has it ALL figured out?? They can be bossy little bitches, ordering everyone around....but then when they get laid, and it rocks their world....but then they still might be bossy little bitches, and never get a clue....because they ignored the big one..and then act as if they are the only ones who ever got it good!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:44 PM

" The cover quote is "I lay out the evidence and people are free to ignore it or be fascinated by it.""

Just because Dawkins says it, it must be so eh? I wish my faith was as unshakable as yours ;-) Blind faith is a wonder to behold! LOL LOL!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Musket sans cookie
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 01:09 PM

But you are a sailor and therefore your knowledge of anything doesn't get beyond knowing how to tie knots.

Or as you put it. (wholly inaccurately) Dawkins is a zoologist. The silly inference is the same.

Interestingly I have just got to my hotel room and the glossy magazine in my lounge area has on its cover a quote from an article by Dawkins as he is speaking at a literary festival here soon. The cover quote is "I lay out the evidence and people are free to ignore it or be fascinated by it."

Mmmm. Doesn't sound like an angry jealous god to me. Are you SURE you aren't reading Betty Swollocks books again Jack?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:40 PM

That clears it up, then. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:32 PM

Hey, Either you have it or you don't. God does not exist merely because people 'believe' that there is one. Nor does one not exist, because some people haven't got close enough to 'feel' one.
God is NOT a religion, nor is physics null and void, just because you might not know about physics! You aren't going to read a book of physics, and understand all of it, nor are you going to read a 'religious' book, and understand all of it, either.
Having 'knowledge of' and 'knowing' are two different things altogether.
'Having knowledge of' is more of an academic exercise, while 'knowing' entails an experience in which you 'become one with the experience'...and like I posted earlier, but it might have been on one of NINE related threads, you can read about an orgasm..but it doesn't mean that you've experienced one...however, once you do, your perspective, gained only by learning behavior and symptoms goes right out the window....and likewise, those who have not had the experience of either God or an orgasm, sound like fools, trying to tell others that neither one can be. All you are saying is that you have not experienced one or the other, to really know what you are talking about...and to those who HAVE had one of those experiences, all you are saying, you say out of naivete. No matter what pedantic rhetoric you may wish inflict on other people, you really sound like a gaggle of young teenage girls tittering about what you think your first kiss should be like!.....Once one of them get their first orgasm, it changes their whole perspective, from 'theory' to 'practice'. Same can be said about a genuine spiritual experience...and both tend to change lives, forever.
...and like some babbling little school girls, who pretend to 'know it all', and act so self assured, the fact is, they don't know squat about what they titter about. They may have been frightened off from being intimate with a man, because they got the wrong impression, from a jerk....same with God.....you might have been 'put off' by some cleric, or group of other 'titterers' who said one thing, but really didn't know what they were talking about, by practice....and so that just re-enforces one's disbelief, that anything is 'out there' besides your limited understanding coupled with your frigidity.....it doesn't mean that you've experienced the depth of the human existence, it just means you haven't got laid..either physically or spiritually!
So you make up all these excuses, as to 'why' getting laid is either bad, or not that big of a deal, or having a genuine spiritual experience is either a delusion, or it doesn't exist...and in reality, what doesn't exist, is yourself in that experience....and then we have to sit through these semi-literate diatribes, by naive blathers, who have not even had that part of their brains 'lit up'...and yet feel compelled to tell us others, how their limited consciousness is all that exists...for everyone!!!
...and it is so obvious......and hopefully someday, you have that experience (either one or the other), and you flash on what an imbecile sounds like!!...and to make matters worse...you heard it from your own lips!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:31 PM

Non-belief in God is to embrace the truly awesome wonderment of universal mystery during the brief time we have the chance to do so.

Exactly. What a shame it is to believe that an inexplicably complex and law-breaking being created everything. An answer in a nutshell that actually answers nothing at all. Worse, there's the danger that this will stop you from looking. Even worse, from enjoying. The commonplace all around us is the most wonderful stuff any of us will ever know, and we all have mighty brains with which to explore it, untrammelled by lame "explanations". God is a brain-killer!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:21 PM

"The God Delusion" is part of the dogma of Dawkins. Maybe being someone who spreads his words is not part of a religion. But the are using dogma. Whether that dogma is religious or not. It is used to reinforce as specific illogical, divisive belief and it is defended by people like Steve Shaw as if it were Gospel.

This is just more goading, I'm afraid. Dogma requires certainty. Both Richard Dawkins and Steve Shaw (that is, me: I love the way Jack always lumps us two together: what an honour!) state loud and clear that they do not know whether God exists or not. To rattle on all the time about uncertainty equating to dogma is to point you out as, at best, semi-literate. And I'm not saying that (that would be "rude"). You do it all by yourself.

By the way, Gospel truth is no kind of real truth at all!

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:18 PM

There are plenty of Americans Ed that are simultaneously preachy and nasty to each other and you, as a perceptive human being, must be able to recognize them by their behavior.

I have mentioned earlier that I can respect people inherently but not for ugly behavior or nonsensical ideas. Would you find it in your heart to respect Hitler or Stalin's behavior?

I respect some Christians, Ed, but not Christianity in itself. I respect science far more.
The history of any religion is fraught with bloodshed, wars, intransigence, rationales for ugly behavior and I don't think you can say that for science which is not a religion.
You might argue that the atomic blasts in Hiroshima or Nagasaki was a product of science but here, the general use of how it was used was not to be respected but as you say a product of ugly behavior. History of Christianity and other religions show that it inculcated nasty behavior by the belief system in ways science never could.

A religion by necessity creates a boundary line between people. You are either this or that.
You are inside or outside and the joke is that there is no evidence for its existence.

What I think can be separated is how a person behaves and what they purport to believe from their intrinsic worth as a human being. This is not relegated to religious "morality" but a basic core value as de Waal points out, that doesn't emanate from the "top down",
Big Daddy in the Sky (which I don't respect) but from the "bottom up", an evolutionary
behavior of compassion and empathy which predates religion which I do respect.

If anything, religion(s) tend to diminish compassion and empathy in many people.

Just as alcohol makes some people violent and aggressive. They are both used as soporifics.

Hence I have little respect for either.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:14 PM

pat yourself on the back, claim victory and enjoy the friends you have left if any

I can't take this shit anymore ... see ya

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:12 PM

"Stringsinger says: What's to respect here (with christianity)? "

Everyone.

I think this pretty much confirms my point about him.

He is clearly disrespectful. He makes no bones about it, though he does sometimes tries to cloak that in long winded, tedious, third person insults.

You don't have to call that being "rude" if you don't want to. Call it what you want. Just recognize that it exists and believe me that I don't have a problem is not with atheists. It is with people who are disrespectful. It is with people who do not want to live and let live. It is with people who read books by disrespectful people so that they can pass that disrespect on to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,olddude
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:11 PM

whats to respect?
that pretty much says it all doesn't it

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 18 Apr 13 - 12:06 PM

Is it true that most religions don't believe the other religions are really religous?

If this is true, then follow Dawkin's advice and stop believing that the one most of you were brought up in is anything other than a rag bag of old stories and make-believe.

Best wishes