BS: New things about atheism

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: JohnInKansas
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM

At mudcat thread: What scientists think about

From: JohnInKansas - PM
Date: 22 Jun 07 - 01:03 PM
Evolution, Religion and Free Will?

The post gives a brief description of an article appearing recently in American Scientist.

There is a link there for those who would like to see the full article. Charts and diagrams in the full article do make it much easier to understand.

The article addresses, within a limited area, just how "common" religious belief and non-belief may be within literate subcultures in the US, and may be of interest to those debating the "everybody believes in MY GOD" argument.

(If a few actual facts won't impede the discussion too much.)

John

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 09 Jul 07 - 08:25 AM

It seems as though they should have to demonstrate that they understand the science, which, one would think, would mediate any extreme religious beliefs. In addition to which, planting bombs would seem to work against the basic life purpose of a healer.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 08 Jul 07 - 02:41 PM

Those doctors' beliefs were not necessarily inculcated in the western world. I don't know how it is universally but I do know that an accredited doctor from another country does not have to take the entire study over again in order to be accredited here.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 10:48 PM

"But good control, such as (for example) a doctor prescribing a full and effective course of antibiotics, is not harmful, when it is subscribed to freely."

             I found it very dissapointing to discover that the people behind the latest boming scare in the UK were, in fact, doctors. Not only would one expect them to be men of science, but what happened to the oath--"do no harm?"

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 07 Jul 07 - 12:24 AM

Well said, Amos.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 10:00 PM

Education in its richest sense means a drawing out of the abilities. (e-ducere, Latin, to lead out). The control of a mind by an educator is not bad for the mind's owner, anymore than the control of an intersection by a traffic light is. A good educator demonstrates the necessary control and then returns control to the owner, in the process drawing out and clarifying the individual's own abilitiy to reason about a subject.

This is a world away from the authoritarian version of schooling, which is to shove data into a mind as though into some box, and grade it on its ability to spout out the same information.

The word control is over-burdened with baggage to the point where all control seems wicked or invasive. But good control, such as (for example) a doctor prescribing a full and effective course of antibiotics, is not harmful, when it is subscribed to freely.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 04:30 PM

Too true, Mrzzy. That's why I, as a rather well-read young child, rejected the Bible stories told to me in my first Sunday School class as totally unrealistic, and refused to go back. It's also why I rejected the notion that a healthy democracy can be achieved by choosing between the Democrats and Republicans! Talk about a failed concept... ;-)

Two ridiculous sets of mythology, as far as I could see.

Look, there are very few people who are inclined to doubt or question the things they know are fact, based on direct observation...such as our knowledge of math, chemistry, physics, natural history, geography, geometry, etc...

We all agree on that stuff as long as we know about it, and most of us do know about it. I never had any trouble believing things for which there is known empirical evidence. Most people don't have any trouble believing things like that. They take such things for granted.

On top of that, however, people are usually interested in all sorts of non-material stuff for which empirical evidence is not necessarily available...and that's what they get into loggerheads with other people over. Their religious beliefs, romantic concepts, philosophy, political notions, cultural notions, gender role notions, racial notions, notions of "good taste" and "bad taste", notions of what's funny or entertaining or offensive...all these are subjective matters, open to individual interpretation.

You can't just nail down your whole life and avoid all those non-material things in order to achieve a sense of "certainty". Or can you? ;-) Well, I doubt it.

I know you're objecting to the primitive Christian fundamentalism which is foisted on a lot of kids where you are living. I get that. Okay. No problem. I don't like it any better than you do.

But I don't feel the least bit insecure about it where I live. There is no closet here that an atheist or agnostic has to come out of. It's not a stigma to be known as an atheist or agnostic around here...or to be known as religious either. It's not an issue...except in the minds of a few cranks who have a real big chip on their shoulder about it. Such people are not fun to be around.

As far as I can see, you're reacting to your local social situation, which is very different from the one I grew up in and am living in. So our way of reacting to this issue is different, because of that.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 03:59 PM

Is long as we emphasise the word "attempt."

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 06 Jul 07 - 03:51 PM

Little Hawk - what is education but the attempt to control the minds of young'uns? Isn't that what civilization is all about?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:53 PM

Hey, Bill, to paraphrase what you said...I staunchly resist attempts by ANYONE to gain any more control of me, my mind, my community, my country or my pocketbook. That would include all political groups, individuals, commercial groups, other special interest groups, and religious groups of the more aggressive type.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:36 PM

That was supposed to be preference with accents aigus on the e's. é?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 11:35 PM

What did I say that was different? Not feeling called on, just clarification please.
And I can back up my convictions with data - they aren't just "beliefs."
And it is exactly to avoid van-pelting them (great allusion, that!) that I just casually mention my atheism whenever their religion comes up in casual conversation. Then I go on with the conversation to ensure that it remains a casual mention. No one should feel pelted.
So on the one hand, I am for atheists coming out of the closet and not being afraid to call themselves what they are, out of misplaced respect for the god-fearing, or the believers of non-facts, or whatever your term de pr&eaiguf&eaigurence.
But on the other hand, I also think that the threat (in the sense of threat assessment) from religion by now so far outweighs any good that can't be accomplished without religion that it's time not to respect the outward manifestation of belief in the supernatural. What you believe in your core is your issue; if you talk about your mythology as if it were reality, uncloseted atheists everywhere would just laugh at how absurd and silly that is- which to me is the sensible, rational, normal response anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 10:33 PM

"...there is a lot of "respect" being paid to the teaching of mythology as science in this country, which does, actually and demonstrably, do harm."

The thing is Mrrzy, most of those who disagree with your viewpoint are quite sincere and convinced that they are justified in their beliefs. Thus, when *I* 'pay respect', it is to the person, not the belief, per se. There is much in organized religion, some in general, but more in particular, that does little or no demonstrable harm. I have worked for many years to keep all this in perspective, and to clarify the point for 'believers', not just to those in the choir *I* preach to...*wry grin*.

Some aspects of organized religion, especially as practiced seem to me to indeed cross the line into harmful activity, and those should be watched and called to account. But, being ever the pragmitist, I see no win in screamimg at them, like Lucy Van Pelt in "Peanuts"..."Change your mind! Change your mind, I say!"...she walks away mumbling, "I wonder why it's so hard to get people to change their minds?"
I find it easier to lay out better ways of thinking and hope they eventually DO change their minds, feeling like it was their own idea.

   In the meantime, I staunchly resist attempts BY religion or religious cause supporters to gain any more control of me, my mind, my community, my country or my pocketbook.

**IF** they are gonna be around for awhile...and it sure does seem like it...we gotta find ways to coexist that are the least hassle to both camps....neither one will be totally happy, but maybe we can avoid all-out war.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 09:42 PM

Good man, Amos. ;-) Confuse 'em till they don't know whether they're up, down, or sideways! (I agree with you, by the way.)

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Amos
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 09:32 PM

There is unfortunately no "demonstrably false" value in the individual viewpoint -- only in the commonly shared one which generates the space-time structure. Where individuals are concerned with their own perceptions, a different set of mechanics is in play, to a large degree.

A

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bee
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 09:27 PM

"The mythology that is being taught in the USA that worries me the most is their political mythology. " - Little Hawk

I think I can agree with you on that, LH. Over the last few years I've read extensively on the larger American political forums, left and right, and there is an overwhelming amount of mythologising going on. I found it amazing how information was manipulated until it was impossible to tell what was actually true, what was a lie, or what was wishful thinking. Political figures on both sides are described as saints or demons, with as much religious fervour as the most passionate bible waving fundamentalist.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 08:30 PM

My father was a man utterly wedded to the material...even when confronted with things that did not fit his viewpoint. He was a mechanical engineer with a Phd in Thermodynamics. He had no interest in things that cannot be materially proven and dealt with. Nonetheless, he reportedly saw men's souls leaving their bodies during combat situations in WWII. Did this stir any interest in him regarding possibilities of an afterlife? Goodness sakes, no! (grin) He said he figured that their souls, which he had clearly seen when they died right in front of him, probably just "dispersed and vanished after a few seconds".

He also saw and had a brief conversation with his dead brother a few months after the brother's death. The conversation made sense. It was regarding the brother's concern about his will and his children. Did this stir any interest in my father regarding the possiblity of an afterlife? No.

My father simply did not want to think about anything that isn't materially based in the here and now, no matter what he was confronted with. He had no intention of wasting any valuable time thinking about things he couldn't touch.

So he didn't. He passed away last year at age 82. I wonder if he found out anything new in the process...or did he just "disperse and vanish after a few seconds". We'll probably never know.

The mythology that is being taught in the USA that worries me the most is their political mythology.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 06:47 PM

Which is very different, indeed, from what you said before, Mrrzy.

I'm curious. Were your parents as wedded to the material as you? That's an actual question, by the way. I'm just wondering how a person gets to be as sure as you are.

Darn. It sounds like I'm calling you on something- and I'm not.

Eb

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 06:39 PM

The line was, When you start to use words like "right" and "wrong" you run the risk of intolerance. - but i have re-read what I was about to post, and it would not do justice to the tone of this discussion, so, kind of, never mind.

Suffice it to say that there is a lot of "respect" being paid to the teaching of mythology as science in this country, which does, actually and demonstrably, do harm.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 04:43 PM

Yeah, that's what I was thinking too, Bill. How would one, for example, go about proving that a belief in the immortal soul is "demonstrably false". ;-)

I see no particular reason to accept ANY religious creed as being right about everything...but then, I wasn't raised in any religious creed, so why would I? When people are raised with a given set of ideas around them which are accepted by their family and community, they usually tend to take them for granted. That's natural.

American Indians, for example, took it for granted that there were powerful Nature Spirits of various kinds around them, and that one had to avoid offending them. How would one go about proving that their belief in those Nature Spirits was "demonstrably false"? One can believe something like that or not believe it, but there's no way of either proving or disproving it in any material fashion. It remains a matter of opinion, a matter of personal faith.

If such faith is useful to a people in guiding their lives, and it doesn't harm me, why would I go and tell them it's "wrong"? I don't, in point of fact, know that it is wrong, I just know it's different from what I believe.

The Christian missionaries made a point of telling the Indians that everything they believed was wrong! And the Indians didn't like that, specially since their approach to new religious ideas was usually open-minded curiosity rather than hostile rejection. This led to violent acts being committed against some of those Christian missionaries, and I'd have to say they probably had it coming. They were arrogant in the extreme in assuming that their way was "the only way".

I don't much like it when anyone insists that their way is "the only way". What business do they have doing other people's thinking for them?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 04:31 PM

I prefer to point out the incongruities and inconsistencies in various religious claims and note that they cannot ALL be correct, and that therefore I choose not to accept ANY of them.....it is a mere side issue that I 'suspect' that none of them are correct about most claims.

It 'is' possible that some claim of some particular church **might** be correct, and I am aware that peer pressure, wishful thinking and history make it very hard for some to even consider doubting, so I tend to stick to pointing out bad logic and egregious behavior.

It is very hard to explain how a belief is 'demonstrably false' when that is usually reserved for syllogisms and laws of math & physics.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 03:49 PM

I don't see any objection to calling a demonstrably false thing "wrong". But in regards to what, for example?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Mrrzy
Date: 05 Jul 07 - 02:46 PM

Umm - to an earlier comment - why not call it "wrong" when it's demonstrably false, as are many myths?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:19 PM

"We live on a planet that is drunk on its own mythologies ...and..."

                     Yeah, I would agree. The current economic values are maybe as scary as the religious ones, if not more so.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 08:41 PM

Hmm. Well, you may be right about that, McGrath. I guess some further reading of Tom Paine could probably clear it up. True enough, the Ottoman Empire was a powerful player at that time, and right up until the end of WWI.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 08:19 PM

I think it'd be pretty certain that when Tom Paine wrote about the Turkish church he'd have been referring to Islam, the religion of the mighty Ottoman Empire The Turks still loomed pretty large in European consciousness in Tom Paine's day, and remember Tom Paine was a European, not an American.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 08:11 PM

Kids in American society are brought up to believe that all you need to have real democracy is to arbitrarily divide a society up into 2 competitive political parties, trot out 2 sets of stuffed dummies at regular intervals, and pick the dummy of your choice. I remember how it was set up in our student council elections (when I was living in New York state)...a carbon copy of the 2-party system...and about equally stupid. We were being primed to go out as adults and naively vote for Republicans or Democrats.

What good does it do when the same huge vested corporate interests fund and own both those parties, as well as funding and owning the few huge media chains that dominate TV?

It's almost meaningless...although it is still true that one party's candidate may be somewhat preferable to the other party's candidate at any given moment (sigh).

But in the end it makes about as much difference as choosing between a liberal communist and a conservative communist candidate in the old Soviet system. The $ySStem still rules, regardless. Only the curtains get changed on the windows.

It's called "divide and conquer". If you can fool one half of the people into fighting with the other half over which set of curtains gets put on the windows, you've got them distracted enough that they won't notice what you're really up to, which is robbing them of their country.

The political infighting between different religious groups within Christianity or within Islam (Shiites and Sunnis) is similarly divisive, similarly pointless, and similarly effective in keeping their general public distracted and caught up in endlessly fighting with one another to their mutual detriment, instead of questioning the whole basic premise.

What needs to be done is to question the whole basic premise. It's a false premise. This is true of most organized religion and it's true of our mainstream political systems as well. It's also true of the economic systems we are presently accustomed to. We live on a planet that is drunk on its own mythologies...and not just the religious ones. There is mythology at every level.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 07:09 PM

On the other hand, I keep seeing the talking heads on television telling the public that a third party has never been sucessul in America, but the last time I went to the polls I didn't see any Federalists, Democratic-Republicans, or Whigs on the ballot.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:53 PM

Yeah. ;-) That's one of the really serious problems with the political situation in the USA. It's a phony 2-party monopoly, controlled by Big Money, and sustained by Big Media. A choice between those parties is not much of a choice at all. I think even a fair number of Americans are beginning to realize it.

I don't expect to see any good solution for it in my lifetime, but at least I can still remain free in my own being...by not believing the mythologies that the $ySStem would foist upon me.

This is the same in the political arena as it is in the religious arena. Don't let others do your thinking for you. Don't follow the herd as they march in lockstep toward the cliff, the corral or the slaughterhouse.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 04:18 PM

"(And by the way, if you move that same argument into a political context, then to be a free thinker politically means....to be free of party affiliation."

            A agree completely with your message here, but in the US, a man without a party is virtually a man without a voice. Even the larger minor parties don't get much press. So in the political context, if you have to way to address and influence people, it doesn't seem like there would be much of a future for you.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 02:20 PM

I think he is probably referring to the Eastern Orthodox wing of Christianity, the Byzantine Church. I doubt that he would have given much thought to Islam, because the Islamic world would hardly have impinged on North American society at all at that point in history.

Anyway, I like how he words it. I feel much the same way as what he expresses. I have a certain mystical sense that my life is part of some greater spiritual existence all around me (and within me), but I have no interest in adopting any existing religious creed or being a part of some church hierarchy. Life itself is sacred, and I'm a part of life, as is everyone else. So to me, life = God. That doesn't mean that God is an individual, does it? It doesn't mean that God judges, condemns, or demands anything of anyone. It means that God is a totality of existence, and all that lives is part of that totality.

Belonging to no creed, I am a free thinker, as was Tom Paine.

You see, you don't have to not believe in "God" to be a free thinker. You just have to not believe in the established religious creeds and all the complex rules and restrictions that go with belonging to them. You have to trust your own judgement rather than someone else's. You have to trust your own mind, rather than letting a "holy" book or a Pope or a man in a robe make your decisions for you.

(And by the way, if you move that same argument into a political context, then to be a free thinker politically means....to be free of party affiliation. I have never belonged to any political party either. For the same basic reason. I wish to be free and independent in my thinking.)

Mind you, I'm always willing to listen to someone else's viewpoint....and then make my own decision according to my own best judgement. Other people's viewpoints can be quite useful, specially if their experience is greater than one's own.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Jul 07 - 09:11 AM

What is he talking about when he mentions the Turkish Church. Is that Islam, or were they some kind of Eastern Orthodox at that time?

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 07:45 PM

Tom Paine makes for interesting reading. Here's a quote from his book "The Age of Reason":

"As several of my colleagues and others of my fellow-citizens of France have given me the example of making their voluntary and individual profession of faith, I also will make mine; and I do this with all that sincerity and frankness with which the mind of man communicates with itself.

I believe in one God, and no more; and I hope for happiness beyond this life.

I believe in the equality of man; and I believe that religious duties consist in doing justice, loving mercy, and endeavoring to make our fellow-creatures happy.

But, lest it should be supposed that I believe in many other things in addition to these, I shall, in the progress of this work, declare the things I do not believe, and my reasons for not believing them.

I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church.

All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.

I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man, that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe."


Pretty good stuff. I find myself much in sympathy with Mr Paine. He is not at odds with God or with the concept of God...he is at odds with human duplicity and power seeking in all its nasty guises, and we find much human duplicity and power seeking in people's uses of organized religion.

I would echo his statement: "My own mind is my own church." Amen to that.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 07:34 PM

Yes, it's Robert Ingersoll, not Ralph.

Other good works:

"Why I Am Not a Christian" by Bertrand Russell.

"The Age of Reason" by Thomas Paine.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 07:11 PM

I think what happened in America was, major capital players wanted to change the way things were done here, but they didn't have the political clout to pull it off. They discovered if they could just get the Christian community to go along with them, they could get things change, so they back Ronald Reagan--or groomed him, might be a better way to say it--and with the whakked out religious right, they were able to get the changes they wanted.
            The US and Europe started in different directions when Reagan came to power.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:57 PM

You know, Bill, that could go pretty far in explaining the difference between the nations' views. We are one step, or more, removed from the Crusades and the numbteen wars with their banner waving.

Otherwise, it does seem odd to me that there is such a great difference. It seems that in the UK and in Europe churches have become cathedrals on tourist display rather than places of worship.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:41 PM

I wonder...if we'd had a thousand years of religious wars over here, maybe we'd be a bit tired of it all and more suspicious of religious claims. As it is, some of our founders were pretty strong religious fundamentalists, and they still have serious influence here.

I can see that having Muslim fundamentalists as a growing issue in the UK, as well as other European countries, is a tricky issue to cope with. If religion has NOT been a major deal for decades, it seems to be now....even though it is not Christianity.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Roughyed
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 05:15 PM

Yes indeed it is wider than just Christian, you are quite right and I respect all religions. As a friend of mine just put it 'It's not what you do within your church/temple/mosque, it's what you do outside that counts.

I still find it quite fascinating seeing the difference between the US and England when it comes to religion. We have a pop star over here called Cliff Richard who is overtly Christian but is considered a bit odd for saying so. I don't think he would have raised an eyebrow in the US (except for his lousy music!). It makes me feel very European!

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:33 PM

I agree, Roughyed, but of course I was speaking to the christian part of the phrase. I think we would all agree that it is religious, just not necessarily Christian.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Roughyed
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:25 PM

Ebbie, I probably shouldn't interfere in a US debate but God may well be interpreted as including 'Great Spirit, Yahweh and Allah' but that doesnt help followers of non-theist religions such as Buddhism and Taoism or indeed atheists and agnostics.

In England we have the oddly opposite situation where we have a head of state who is head of the established religion - i.e. Church of England - but where the majority of people have no real concept or knowledge of religion and there are no particular sanctions to being a declared atheist. In fact Blair is seen as a little wierd over here because he actually brings his 'religion' into his politics. It's been 'don't ask and we won't lie' for decades in England.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 04:08 PM

lol

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: GUEST,michaelr
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 03:23 PM

If evolution is outlawed, only outlaws will evolve.

Cheers,
Michael

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Stringsinger
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 02:45 PM

"My point is, the nonreligious are just as much people as anybody else.
And it isn't just the atheists who don't accept religious points of view, it's other religious points of view as well. And data don't support any of'm.
Someone once said, there is really only a very small difference between adherents to one religion and atheists; the former think all points of view but theirs are wrong, and the atheist just goes one point of view farther."

When you start to use words like "right" and "wrong" you run the risk of intolerance. The question remains, that when you use these terms, the debate is open for judgement and criticism. As a non-believer, I don't think there's a right and a wrong here. I think the behavior is more to the point than the belief system. I can handle someone having a personal belief that doesn't concur with my own. When the behavior is such that the personal belief of the other attacks my own, then I think we can use such words as "right" and "wrong". (IE: it's wrong to attack someone elses views if they're not hurting anyone) I tend to take a relativist view of the subject. As long as your religion doesn't get in my way, you are welcome to it. I don't want to be lumped into the category of a freethinker who says others are wrong.

The non-believers are now in the minority. I hope that this will change. The general US population supports believers over non-believers and that is reflected in our political system. Atheists don't get elected. They are virtually second-class citizens. Bush would like to physically do away with them and he and his father have stated this.

"Right" and "wrong" as relativistic terms are benign and when applied as absolutes they become dangerous. The problem is that non-believers are usually not accepted as people by the "general population". This has to change. In the meantime, the Christian Dominionist Taliban is becoming more potent and those who are inclined toward religiousity often enable these extremists by going after atheists and freethinkers.

Ergo, atheists are not accepted as part of the "general population" by the general population.

The role of a "new atheism" in my view should be toward more tolerance and less anger although it's appropriate to protest when religious views are inflicted on young children who have not the capacity as of yet to make up their own minds or when my tax money goes to support "faith-based iniatives" that I disagree with totally. I also have the right to protest when the walls of Separation of Church and State are ignored and reviled. But these are positions of my ideology and don't reflect negatively on the beliefs of others who are rational and tolerant.

Frank

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 02:14 PM

I am totally against the added line in the pledge of allegiance. It wasn't put in until 1953, at the height of the Red Scare so I was well out of elementary school before it came along.

It should be taken out- I think the pledge alone is bad enough.

However, the line "one nation, under God", imo needn't be taken as referring to a "Christian God". I should think that most thinking people accept that Great Spirit, Yahweh and Allah all refer to one God.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 01:54 PM

"Yelling at them and insulting them only hardens their conviction that you ...ummm...'need' saving."


             Bill - I suppose you're right about that. Maybe I got a little carried away.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Bill D
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 12:56 PM

" Under the guise of "good deeds" they are actively trying to increase the size of their constituency, ..."

Well, 'guise' is not exactly the word I'd use. There's no particular onus in making good deeds part of one's life. IF one does believe in the details of the Christian religion, doing good deeds is part of the manual....as is evangelism. If you do a search for the phrase "fishers of men" it will be obvious just how thoroughly the idea of recruiting is embedded in the history of the church and the practice of the religion.

Some sects do it with more...ummmm...'fervor' than others, including knocking on your door....others, perhaps recognizing the negative reactions to overt evangelism, stick mostly to setting a good example and hoping to attract followers that way..(along with 'educating' their children).

So here we have the dilemma...at least in the US. We have a constitution that allows 'freedom of religion', yet officially does not endorse any particular one...even though a Christian 'God' is stuck into the Pledge of Allegience, onto the money and into prayers at the beginning of meetings and sports events..etc.

We allow freedom of religion, and de facto favor one which exhorts its followers to "fish for men"...while telling folks they are not required to belong....just don't try to run for president UNLESS you belong, no matter how competent and smart you are or how many good deeds you do.

I do not know how to make the point that being religious or not should NOT be a matter of majority rule, and that "freedom OF religion" must include "freedom FROM religion" for those who wish it....This is America, and if there were only 27 Christians in the whole country, they should be allowed to practice and pray freely...and run for office if they wish. But if there were only 27 atheists, THEY should be left alone and not be subject to evangelism, and should be considered for office without regard to their religion of lack therof.
   Do I think any of these ideals are likely? HA! I am a pragmitist, and we tend no to be too optimistic about that kind of thing.

When you give freedom to a religion- one of whose core beliefs is that they are the 'correct' one, and should actively recruit others, you set up the awkward situation we have here.

The ONLY real answer is to convince 'believers' to adopt a personal policy of not pushing the issue, and hope the concept takes hold. Yelling at them and insulting them only hardens their conviction that you ...ummm...'need' saving.

I personally know devout Christians who do NOT attempt to change me...and thus, I am able to respect their practices, whether or not I agree with their beliefs of logic....and many of them DO a lot of good thru their churches.
If asked, I will explain why I am not religious...and if MY lifestyle and non-belief is challenged, I may explain without being asked.

We have to ,at a minimum, co-exist.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 11:25 AM

"As for property taxes, perhaps the reasoning is that churches, et al, serve the community..."

    Actually, they make things worse for the community. Under the guise of "good deeds" they are actively trying to increase the size of their constituency, but in the end they encourage people to fly airplanes into buildings and support degenerative politicians like Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Ebbie
Date: 03 Jul 07 - 03:03 AM

"Okay! I would extend that to include property taxes and payroll taxes." Riginsling

They most definitely do pay payroll taxes. I work for a church.

As for property taxes, perhaps the reasoning is that churches, et al, serve the community in somewhat the same way as the arts community, the governments and the state bodies.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 11:59 PM

"Ha, I say. Notice I said that I think that churches should pay taxes on their revenue gathering?"


                   Okay! I would extend that to include property taxes and payroll taxes.

Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism
From: dick greenhaus
Date: 02 Jul 07 - 08:35 PM

It's been said that atheism is the application of Occam's Razor to agnosticism. Makes sense to me.