 sj |
||
|
||
BS: New things about atheism
|
|
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST, Ebbie Date: 02 Jul 07 - 07:59 PM Ha, I say. Notice I said that I think that churches should pay taxes on their revenue gathering? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jul 07 - 07:54 PM "I don't agree with taxing churches, per se. The people who donated their money to their churches have already paid twice: not only have they been taxed on that money, they also are doing without it." The same thing can be said about somebody who goes to a bar and gets plastered. He's taxed on the money he earned and he goes home without the money he spent in the bar. But then the bar has to turn around and pay taxes on the money they got from the customer. In view of the fact that bars and churches to basically the same things, why is it fair that the bar pays taxes and the church does not? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Jul 07 - 07:40 PM The general population can be defined as being predominantly religious. If atheists were a part of the general population and not isolated by the religious then there would be no problem. Of course the problem is how do you define the "general population"? Is this the majority of people living in the US? No, as everybo0dy in the world. Yes, more people are religious than not. 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. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Ebbie Date: 02 Jul 07 - 02:38 PM I don't agree with taxing churches, per se. The people who donated their money to their churches have already paid twice: not only have they been taxed on that money, they also are doing without it. Why should it be in the negative column a third time? On the other hand, it seems to me that the businesses the churches engage in should be fully taxable: the rentals, the clinics, the restaurants, the concerts and the myriads of other enterprises. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:46 PM "i believe in tolerance. If someone wants to believe something that doesn't hurt others or impinge upon their civil rights, then that's OK by me." And we tax everybody else, so we ought to tax churches. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:44 PM The most important thing about intolerance is that it feeds on anger. Religious anger can trigger a reaction from some atheists which is not necessary. If you don't believe, you don't believe. It should not provoke anger in anyone but unfortunately it does in some. Non-belief doesn't even need a label. As Jonathan Miller has pointed out, you don't have to define a non-belief in witches or goblins. To me this is the point about new "atheism". It doesn't need a label to exist. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Stringsinger Date: 02 Jul 07 - 01:40 PM Mrrzy your point is: "Atheists ARE a part of the general population. If that were more clearly understood, then their perspective wouldn't BE interpreted as some form of hostility. That is EXACTLY the point." The general population can be defined as being predominantly religious. If atheists were a part of the general population and not isolated by the religious then there would be no problem. Of course the problem is how do you define the "general population"? Is this the majority of people living in the US? As long as religious people feel that their views are not being accepted by atheists, there will continue to be hostile reactions because they will feel attacked by those who don't agree with them. Basically, the problem is one of intolerance for views that don't match your own. I have no problem accepting the fact that religious people believe a certain way and I don't have to share their belief. But I don't think that the majority of Americans or perhaps any other countries are atheists. Therefore the general population as I understand it are religious. I fervently wish that intolerance by religious people was not directed toward atheists but unfortunately this isn't the reality. i believe in tolerance. If someone wants to believe something that doesn't hurt others or impinge upon their civil rights, then that's OK by me. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 02 Jul 07 - 08:28 AM On the other hand, atheists don't appear to be part of the general population. It's not that they are necessarilly more intelligent than others but they do have a unique perspective which is usually interpreted as some form of hostility. Atheists ARE a part of the general population. If that were more clearly understood, then their perspective wouldn't BE interpreted as some form of hostility. That is EXACTLY the point. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: JennyO Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:57 AM MWUHAHAHA! All's fair in love and Mudcat :-) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Bill D Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:54 AM Jenny...for SHAME....just because *I* got #18,000 in MOAB! "Good luck, or bad luck?" I guess it depends on your viewpoint. I can't say I would have preferred Mithras to what I see around me, but there are days it's a toss-up. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: JennyO Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:49 AM Good luck! 400! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 01 Jul 07 - 11:32 AM "It was just a matter of luck that Mithras, as god of Ahura Mazda, didn't become the god of choice in Rome..." Good luck, or bad luck? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Bill D Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:15 PM "In the second century it was Christians who were called 'atheists', because they failed to worship the accepted gods." It was just a matter of luck that Mithras, as god of Ahura Mazda, didn't become the god of choice in Rome.....well, as matter of fact he did for many years. Constantine sorta tipped the scales in favor of Christianity. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Jun 07 - 11:03 PM Great lyrics! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,punkfolkrocker Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:55 PM i worship the apple gods of cider.. no i don't.. of course i don't.. that would be silly.. but i do believe next week won't bring in any more profound answers than the week before.. but.. in the meantime.. the apple gods of cider are probably as good a religious basis for denial of hard cold harsh reality as most.. fall to your knees and grovel in worship over the toilet bowl alter of truth.. expurge your demons and flush them away.. so sayeth the apple god of wretching bowel churning wrath.. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Stringsinger Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:50 PM Peace, you said: "I think you give atheists too much credit, Frank. I doubt they are any smarter on average than the general population from which they come." I never said that. You have misinterpreted me. What I think is this, there are different forms of intelligence. There is social intelligence, intellectual intelligence, musical intelligence, business intelligence, mechanical and scientific intelligence etc. "Smarter" indicates that you think I have identified a specific type of intelligence but I haven't. On the other hand, atheists don't appear to be part of the general population. It's not that they are necessarilly more intelligent than others but they do have a unique perspective which is usually interpreted as some form of hostility. They are not always hostile to religion but as in my own case I don't really count religion as being important in my life except when I am attacked for not accepting it. The problem with this whole discussion is about "labels". Dawkins refers to himself as a "spiritual atheist". Einstein's "god" was not a personal one and it's not clear how he defined it. Whenever the label "atheist" is mentioned, it's a hot button kind of like "terrorist" or "communist". Or "democrat" or "republican". I try to get along with everyone whether they are religious or not. In defense of Dawkins, he clearly separates the belief system from his respect for that of the individual and this is what gives his position weight. He does not present "ad hominum" arguments. (BTW, this is a misued term. It means "to the man". The correct term is "contra hominum"...against the man.) I don't care for the label "Bright". Here's where I part company from Dawkins and Dennett. I have found that there are many forms of being bright and they don't come in one package. I don't even like divisive terms to describe anyone. There are too many labels being used as weapons today and that's the problem with all the names that are bandied about. Frank |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 10:30 PM Matriarchal, eh? What role does Father play? *g* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Jun 07 - 09:55 PM My metaphorical personifications are Mother Nature, Lady Luck, and Coyote, hee hee! The first two are deaf to human voices and the third is not on our side. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Ebbie Date: 30 Jun 07 - 05:58 PM Anyone thinking they are going to 'convert' people out of religious belief makes me smile. It is not a new effort. I just dug out the May 21 issue of 'The New Yorker'. It has a great article in it on atheism and the folks who have espoused it over the ages from Hitchens, Dennett, Dawkins and Harris (2007) to Bertrand Russell (1930)to David Hume (1779) to Voltaire (1759) back to Celsus (178 AD). Quote from the article by author Anthony Gottlieb (curious coincidence of a name): "In the second century it was Christians who were called 'atheists', because they failed to worship the accepted gods." Who are your gods? *G* |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 30 Jun 07 - 04:06 PM That's why I'm not calling it anything else, and I'm not trying to organize it, just raise awareness of its existence and normality. Remember, I live in Central Virginia where the assumption is of Xianity unless you're wearing Islamic dress (girls) or a yarmulke (boys). I am reminded of "grenaiums (blue) and delphinium (red)" - anybody know that reference? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:45 AM "I figure if enough people use the word atheism for "no god beliefs" on a regular basis..." Mrrzy - I think you're on to something there. One of the things I find extremely irritating are religious types who continually try to make the case that "secular humanism" is a religion. They make the accusation, and then when you try to reason with them, they spout scripture at you. It's terribly frustrating. I've seen mules who are more articulate. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 30 Jun 07 - 08:40 AM "Well, nothing's stopping you. Go out and start organizing such a program right now. ;-D" D - I was hoping if I came up with the concept, somebody else would pick up the ball and run with it. Besides, I don't know what you'd do when you got to the part about "identifying a force stronger than yourself." What would that be, the Red Chinese Arm, Haliburton, the Mexican American Legal Defense Fund? I guess the list is endless. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:33 PM Right. I meant people who were interested in atheism. And Riginslnger, I figure if enough people use the word atheism for "no god beliefs" on a regular basis, it'll take the hoodoo off the word. You're right that if it were organized according to its beliefs then I'd agree, but this is more of an organized event about something that isn't organized in that way, than an organization of atheism or atheists. (Waiting for the other shoe to drop) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Gza Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:24 PM Yeah, Rinslinger? Well, nothing's stopping you. Go out and start organizing such a program right now. ;-D You never know, this could be your ticket to your own personal five minutes of fame... As for attending a conference on atheism, Mrrzy...(yawn)...naw, I don't think so. It would be almost as tiresome as attending a baptist revival meeting or a gathering of people whose favorite pastime is discussing their ant farm. For me, I mean. Maybe not for you. We all find different things fascinating.
-Joe Offer- |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:22 PM Mrrzy - I guess I always figured that if you found yourself unable to swallow the whoppers generated by religion, you were just naturally an atheist by default. I'd have to think there was any organized structure to it, I'd have to find something else to call myself. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jun 07 - 06:07 PM If you are interested in what atheism actually is, come to the conference. It's a great opportunity. There will be serious thinkers and writers there to speak their thoughts, and to have them discussed. (ducking and running already so this is said kind of over my shoulder) It's a lot more fun to talk about the failings or strengths of individual atheists and religious individuals on and off this Forum, but atheism itself is worthy of exploration by virtue of its inherent reasonableness, no?) |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 04:33 PM Frankly, I think it would be more productive to develop a twelve-step program to help people to recover to their addiction to religion. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Gza Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:22 PM Everything has value, Rinslinger, to someone, and religion clearly has value to many people. If it doesn't to you...well, so what? You are free, as is anyone else, to choose what to value in your life, and you wouldn't like it if other people implied that you were a fool or an idiot for valuing whatever it is that you value, would you? Religion can play anything from a major role to a minor role to no role at all in the conduct of a government. You could say that about a number of other things too, but to say it has nothing to do with either condemning or praising religion...as it can be used either well or badly. You could say the same of anything else. All things can be used either well or badly. That's what makes it a subtle business assessing human behavior. Since most people would rather not bother with subtleties, they prefer to just think in cardboard stereotypes and divide the world up into "good and evil". That is the thinking seen in both of the following cases: 1. The religious fanatic who condemns all people outside his own religion. 2. The anti-religious fanatic who condemns all religious people simply for being religious. And I say that such fanatical, prejudiced people richly deserve each other. Pity they couldn't all move to some other planet and fight their wars over there instead of here. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 03:18 PM Makes perfectly good sense to me! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Bill D Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:38 PM Yeah...I know. My 'if' was there on purpose. Somehow Pete Seeger's "Waist Deep in the Big Muddy" keeps buzzing in my head. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 02:27 PM Bill D. - It doesn't look to me like we've got a few thousand years. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Bill D Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:56 PM "...if it has no value, why drag it along?" well, most of those who do the dragging wouldn't admit....or can't even comprehend the possibility of it having no value. And, I submit that, whether true or false, religion DOES have some value as long as so many people seem to need a comforting 'answer' to the "why is there pain & suffering" and "why must we die?" questions. I would be terribly afraid of the result if there were some way to suddenly 'prove' that religion is false.... Perhaps in a few thousand years, if we don't kill each other off fighting wars about God, we will come to terms with the universe as it is.....or *grin*...perhaps "God" will shout down some unambiguous instructions. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:42 PM Still, if it has no value, why drag it along? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Gza Date: 29 Jun 07 - 01:32 PM "It could therefore be descrived as simply a useless appendage." In some cases, yes, Rinslinger. In others, no. It would all depend on which government you were talking about, and in which time period. My point was that people find evil ways to justify their attacks on other people with or without the aid of religion, and have done so ever since Og clubbed Mog and dragged Mog's woman off. Likewise, people have done many good and noble things both with and without the aid of religion too. And they continue to do so. You can tell in which way people are prejudiced about it by which side they consistently attack, and which side they consistently blame for everything, as well as by which side's excesses they conveniently turn a blind eye to. If they are not unreasonably prejudiced, then they will see both good and evil in people's use of religion down through the ages, and therefore they will not condemn religion merely because it is not something they themselves subscribe to. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Kipp Date: 29 Jun 07 - 11:34 AM Religiondoes not efect government what about the American revelution the English civil war the American Civil War Religious values certainly had an efect of the people which had an efect on government. Both good and bad the list could go on and on civil rights laws against child labor. Kipp |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 29 Jun 07 - 11:12 AM Ummm - does anybody want to go to the conference? It sounds absolutely fascinating... to me... |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 29 Jun 07 - 08:31 AM "Unscrupulous governments can be just as dangerous when they oppose religion as when they espouse it." It would seem to follow from that, that religion doesn't impact government in any way--good or bad. It could therefore be descrived as simply a useless appendage. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Gza Date: 28 Jun 07 - 11:03 PM Yes, and governments and developers of military technology are also usually supported by unthinking industrial, corporate, and political zealots of every kind too. ;-D Heh! Birds of a feather flock together, don't they? Religion has been used by every unscrupulous government in history (except *** the officially atheistic unscrupulous ones, that is) to cover the real purposes of conquest which are: to take over someone else's land and steal valuable things that don't belong to you. ***The officially atheist unscrupulous governments I refer to would include most of the Communist regimes since the Russian Revolution, namely: the Bolshevikes under Lenin, the Stalinists, the Red Chinese, and the Khymer Rouge.....all of whom made much capital out of opposing religion on principle.) Of these, very few have equalled their record in causing the deaths of innocent people. Unscrupulous governments can be just as dangerous when they oppose religion as when they espouse it. Two sides of the same ugly coin, in fact...the one is as bad as the other. This seems to escape those who only want to see evil on one side of the coin. Why? Well, it doesn't suit their favorite argument, so they'd rather not focus on it. They don't find it emotionally satisfying to be even-handed in their criticism. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Art Thieme Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:59 PM Bill, right; I'm with you there. It's sad atheist folks like that can't be more respectful of seriously held points of view. --- As I am sure I've mentioned, religion and faith, for me, just seems to come down to wishful thinking. And the idea that there is no such thing as an atheist in a foxhole, just comes up when an up against the odds traumatized victim feels the need to cover his bets/butt----much like the deathbed conversion can be likened to desperate fear prompted last minute cramming for finals. Art |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:38 PM "...governments and developers of military technology are far better at killing large numbers of people than a few religious fanatics could ever be..." Governments and developers of military technology are usually supported by unthinking religious zealots. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Bill D Date: 28 Jun 07 - 10:14 PM Did anyone but me see the debate between Christopher Hitchens and Al Sharpton on "Hardball" tonight? WHY can't intelligent, well-intentioned 'atheists' like Hitchens do a better job of combating some of the simplistic arguments of guys like Sharpton?...And why do guys like Hitchens have to be so obnoxious and sarcastic when they DO have a good point? You don't win many |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: GUEST,Gza Date: 28 Jun 07 - 09:01 PM Longtime experience has shown that governments and developers of military technology are far better at killing large numbers of people than a few religious fanatics could ever be...whether or not they stoop to using religious notions to motivate their soldiers. They all fall back on various mythology to justify their actions. It may or may not qualify as religious mythology. It may be cultural or political or racial mythology, with no basis in any religion. They all think that the facts support their viewpoint. This is easily done. You just find those facts that appear to offer you support and ignore or discount those that don't. You give importance to facts that help you. You give no importance to facts that don't. It's so easy and natural to do this that every fool has done it since the world began...including those fools whose particular hobby horse is belly-aching about the perniciousness of "religion" all the livelong day. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Jun 07 - 07:51 PM "Until they start flying airliners into buildings, aye what?" "Shock and Awe" provides a more effective way of killing large numbers of people. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 28 Jun 07 - 07:43 PM "The End of Faith," this could be the start of something big! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 27 Jun 07 - 11:22 PM BIG conference coming up - Dawkins and Dennett and Harris, O My! |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Amos Date: 05 May 07 - 10:55 AM It is a VERY fine practice to sort out the data of time place and event from judgements about that data. I think we have reached a singularity of concordance, Mrrz!!! A |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Mrrzy Date: 05 May 07 - 10:35 AM I'm noty talking about universal truth. I'm talking about facts versus myths. And no, mythology isn't what is harmful; what is harmful is thinking that it's fact. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: frogprince Date: 05 May 07 - 10:24 AM A substantial part of the strictist "Christian" fundamentalist community insists that tolerance of any non-Christian belief is evil in itself, totally unnacceptable. We have posters here saying the same thing about tolerance of any and all religous belief. The more of our population that migrates to either of these extreme polarities, the less chance we have of mantaining a livable society. |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: Riginslinger Date: 05 May 07 - 08:36 AM "For most that means learning to tolerate those who may not be as 'enlightened' and accepting that not everyone perceives the world in the same way." Until they start flying airliners into buildings, aye what? |
|
Subject: RE: BS: New things about atheism From: dianavan Date: 05 May 07 - 03:26 AM Mrrzy - I agree with most of what you say but I do not believe that we have the right to demand that others believe "actual knowledge", whatever that means. The only thing we know for sure is that which we know by experience. Most "actual knowledge" is second-hand information and even if its hard science its subject to change. The same goes for history. In other words, Mrrzy, you do not have access to universal truth - nobody does. The only truth you know is what is true to you. As far as handing down your beliefs to your children, thats what all parents do (or should do). Thats why you have no right to tell others what they can or cannot believe. My dad used to say that the only freedom left was the freedom to raise your children as you see fit. That has since changed but still holds true for loving parents. If, however, you want your children to be successful, they must also be socially successful. Twins are unique in that they have each other but most kids are on their own in the social world of school. For most that means learning to tolerate those who may not be as 'enlightened' and accepting that not everyone perceives the world in the same way. |
