BS: True Test of an Atheist

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:14 PM

QUOTE
Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'......
UNQUOTE

You cannot discuss Science with someone who does not understand any of its basic concepts. Eg, "What causes them to re-act - What system?" - Science merely says - the 'desire of the universe to tend towards a lower state of energy - entropy. Hey - 'entropy' is 'just one of the convenient explanations we have for things we can't fully explain, yet'

"Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'"

That is clearly outside the bounds of 'Science' - by the very definition of what 'Science' is - so that's where 'matters of faith and belief' - usually referred to as 'religious matters' take over. I don't particularly CARE WHAT anyone believes as 'the origin', personally it doesn't matter to me - and most 'atheists' also just aren't too obsessed or worried - but 'the religious' DO have 'a need' for a 'simple' explanation, such as 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy did it'.

If that 'belief' makes people happy, and easier to live with in a cooperative society in general, fine - atheists are fairly pragmatic, but definitely do get annoyed when those who believe in their own particular 'magical invisible sky fairy' insist - for their own personal psychological reasons - on everyone ELSE following the alleged dictates of this 'magical invisible sky fairy'... it's called 'dominating others' - 'politics' etc, ... it gets REALLY annoying when it turns into 'my very own personal magical invisible sky fairy talks to me all the time and nobody but me can hear him and you must all do what I say!' - atheists just wait patiently for the day (that pragmatically will probably never dawn) when all those who profess that are just considered mental patients ...

:-)

Oh, and referring to various comments by others, when those making such controlling demands of society definitely 'say one thing and do another contrary to what they publicly profess', then try to hide from the very consequences they demand of others when exposed, the limits of Tolerance by Atheists do get rather close to the limit ...

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:54 PM

QUOTE
"Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' "

I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward.
UNQUOTE

There is nothing wrong with having ideas about the possible future discoveries of 'Science' (just don't smear it into our current 'Reality') - people have done that for ages - it's now officially called 'Science Fiction' though... :-) Where we are, is where we are - for example 'Science' has not said that FTL travel 'is impossible' (although a few ignorant self important clowns in the past tried to say things like 'heavier than air flight is impossible' - even though birds did it ...), but merely that a few 'back of the envelope' calculations to move mass X at Y times the speed of light over Z lights years distance in a given perceived period of 'current physical Earth based Solar time' is ... mumble, mumble, .... Holy F*** Batman! That's a LOT of energy! We certainly can't handle that amount per second right now ... :-)

Hence all the cute gobbledegook terms invented for the SF genre - they almost always fall back on just 'reversing the polarity' to fix the current scenario problem though ... :-P (I'm not making that up, you know!)

Thank You Mr Spock!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:52 PM

"True Test of an Atheist"
When you boil it down, there is no test neccessary for the non-belief in gods, ghosts, fairies, honest politicians or any other mythical manisfestations you care to name - the burden of proof rests entirely on the shoulders of the believer - not much more to be said really.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

Foolestroupe, If you are saying that the combination of chemicals create energy, then I think you are in error. What causes them to re-act? What system? ....and where did that come from??..More re-action from....? Somewhere, along the line, there is an 'origin'......

...Oh, and by the way, if you are saying they are 'self-existing'... then you just translated the Hebrew word, Yahweh,...(self existing one)...which means God, (the giver of life)...or the 'I Am'.

I knew you were just kidding! You just had the wrong words!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:51 PM

Slag said:

My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God.

Wrong! Atheism indicates the rejection of ANY god or gods.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:39 PM

"Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God"

This is the view held by Christians and those of the branch of religions that stem from the 'Abrahamic Faith Systems', and of course any other of the other groups that also believe in Monotheism, including Zoroastrians, follows of Aten, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, etc.

Atheism just rejects the idea of the existence of any magical invisible sky fairy beings (at all, at all, at all!) with any powers outside those able to be exercised by anyone who understands how those powers work - there is no 'being outside the system', no 'miracles (things that cannot be explained inside the system)' - it has nothing to do with any number of gods in any pantheon, thus logically it also cannot accept just One of them either! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:28 PM

Bugger - wrong button ...

QUOTE
"Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)"
UNQUOTE

Tiredness and being asked to share the computer before I finish cleaning up what I am in the process of explaining. As I seem to remember I went on to talk about how the energy to run that process was 'created by chemical energy' i.e. 'was sourced from chemical energy' which is just another transformation. "There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion." Thus the 'energy of consciousness' doesn't go anywhere when the organism ceases to function, i.e. 'continue to precess transformations of energy' that end up being perceived by external observers as a 'state of consciousness'. I suspect you really understood, but are just trying to have fun by 'misunderstanding' - either that or you are genuinely confused between 'hard science' and 'layman misrepresentation of semantic objects' :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:26 PM

I have some specific comments which I hope to get out later. However:

Religion and politics, those perennial favorites, cover the entire arena of human activity. To address either category as a specific entirely misses what either category is about. To say you are against religion because group A does this and group B does that and then make a blanket dismissal of the "category" merely demostrates ignorance of the subject. The same is true for "politics". So then you begin to discuss a specific religion and that hits you wrong because it can often be offensive to others folks and other religious orders hence the "true path" vs all other paths comes into play and with out focus any calm, rational discussion evaporates into the ionosphere!

Clearly, if one religion advocates peace, soft answers, loving your enemies, going the extra mile, etc. it is fundamentally different from one that says "kill your enemies, your doing God a favor" or another that tells its adherents to turn their minds inward to discover truth. Religion, the ways people have of being religious and how they use religion and how religion uses people, in my opinion, is a fascinating topic, worthy of study. And again the same is virtually true of the political arena as well.

My thread title tended to narrow down the subject a little as Atheism indicates the rejection of the idea of one God. The reasons for rejecting this concept are also many and varied and the proof of that is in the above posts. A most lively discussion! Yes, the title is provocative, as I intended it to be. I think it is a little more inticing than "Tell Me Why You Are An Atheist" and a little shorter too. It also let's me tell you the questions that came to my mind on the other thread about the survey which, had I voiced it over there, would have been major thread drift. But Hey! The 'Cat never dissappoints!

Clearer is to say something like, "I am opposed to a religon that____!" Or that, "if it does not satisfy "reason" per se, then I reject it out of hand." That is a good, valid argument. One thing really amazes me here is how much emotion is brought to the topic, strong feelings from many directions and, like Mrrzy's posts, not without cause! I believe I did state my very narrow view on my own religion, care of the needy, and that I am generally not in favor of highly organized religions, but I DO understand them. It has been said that religion is Man's way of reaching out to God (that is, when it is not fraud or has been a tool of evil here on Earth) but I would be a little broader by saying religion is one way Man reaches out for something beyond Himself. Hence science can be a religion (Mill's Method of Scientific Reasoning in particular). Sexual fetishes and practices not only can be a religion but they ARE as in the Kama Sutra. Religion is a huge topic.

It has also been said that when a man talks to God, that is called prayer. When God talks to a man, that is called Schizophrenia! Perhaps! When you are talking about THE God represented in the book commonly called the Bible then you have a more focused target for discussion as, that is what most folks in the Westernized world think of when God is mentioned and indeed, that was what I had in mind from the beginning. Judaism and Christianity are called a "revealed" religion. God and all that follows is an assertion. It is a faith proposition to be believed or reject by the individual listener. No argument or reason is put forth and therefore it purports having a knowledge of a different order and since the God set forth is a personal God (that is, not "the Force" or some other concept of deity) the knowledge is of a personal nature. And that is to say, you know OF Him or know Him directly. Such knowledge can only be compared with the internal picture of God as presented in the Bible. Is it a consistent picture? Does it contradict the character of God as set forth in the Bible? To claim to have this knowledge of God is to claim that you have somehow met this being becasue He has revealed Himself to you and that is the question at hand.

If you claim to know Mr. Snuffaluffagus (of Sesame Street fame) and someone else denys his existence, you have a delima! Short of having Mr. S meet the denier how do you prove his existence? And that was the gist of the story line in the TV series. To an atheist who set human reason forth as the standard whereby to judge all things, there is no God in the picture and that little voice one claims to hear inside is the "Sky Fairy" or some such. And I understand why this can be maddening, to hear someone go on about God is an insult to reason! The Apostle, Paul says "...the Greeks seek after wisdom (reason)... and to the Greeks (Christ) is foolishness..." (see I Cor 1, 17-31). And that is, to me, the crux of the whole issue: is there more than one type of knowledge?

In legal courst across America there is recognized more than one type of "truth". There is a "preponderance" of the evidence which is in line with inductive reasoning. There is also "conclusive" proof or truth where no other explanation is possible (deductive reasoning). Stephen Hawking would have some fun with this! And then there is the evidence offered by an eyewitness. The latter almost always has to have collaborating testimony or evidenceto be considered valid or worthy of consideration by a jury.

I see the foregoing as the parameters of the discussion but I'm always open to any new arguments or ideas. I'll post those individual comments a little later on. Thanks for listening!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:19 PM

QUOTE
"Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)"
UNQUOTE

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:16 PM

"We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!!"

Now brothers, the sauce for today is ... what? a schism already?

Oh no!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:38 PM

Not going to have time for this - off to Sligo tomorrow.
"Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith."
There is nothing whatever 'wrong' with religious faith; it is the imposition of the 'laws' of that faith that does the damage. Religion should be a private choice, but once it gains any sorty of credance and influence in society, that ceases to be the case; the church holding the reins quickly sees to that.
People should be free to believe what they wish to believe, but not force those beliefs on others, nor to take advantage of the power that sometimes come with the the status any given religion may achieve, brings with it (the root of many of todays problems here in Ireland).
I was accused earlier of basing my stance on "narrow and anecdotal information".
All knowledge of and opinions on religion is based on such information; society tends to lock up people who claim to have spoken directly to god.
I find it impossible to separate religion and the church - they are the self-appointed carriers of 'the word' and we all know, to our cost, that they are capable of allthe evils going.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:23 PM

Three laws of progress by The science fiction writer Arthur C Clarke, who wrote '2001: A Space Odyssey':


First law: When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

Second law: The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

Third law: Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:47 PM

"Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' "

I submit that this may be a current science, but likely not the last science word on that, for eternity that is, as you seem to be putting forward.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:21 PM

"You've got that slightly arse about face..."

No, that was the point of my post. They have 'no more than an agnostic' is intended to say that they have none, and 'usually' don't try to claim any.

'Proof' is just not relevant when belief is the issue.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mrrzy
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:10 PM

Thank you for reading my long-ass post, many of you.

It is hard to discuss the whole faith/god/religion thang (as we say here) without the inevitable fallout from all the evil that happens and is happening and will happen again in its name.

O and thank you much for the link to I Ain't Afraid, too. I don't see how they can remain unafraid of the mosques/churches/temples/gods, given their fear of what is best taught there. I mean, it would be a lot harder to teach anywhere else. Not to mention that if you rise above the god/religion/faith thing, why would you then have to search for yet another higher power? Couldn't you just relax?

The obverse, of course, is that all the *good* that people can do through community effort can be done by good people without religion/faith/gods, all it takes is community spirit. Look at the masses of people who went to Obama's inauguration or the midnight release of the latest Harry Potter book. Wouldn't it be nice to see all those people united for something like, oh, say, poverty?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:59 PM

Joe Offer, That was a really good, well thought out post!..as was the one from Slag!!

Foolestroup: "...energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another...."

If you would have CAREFULLY read my post, I said the Same thing, (you phrased it, "it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another"....

Then I posed the question, based on that premise, that the very 'life force', is just that...to which you disagreed!?!

Also, you got into ""what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.
..."

Those things, of which you speak, PROCESS, not CREATE energy. You've effectively contradicted yourself, but at least it SOUNDED impressive, as if you knew what you were talking about....It's a common mistake...I forgive you..that being said, you might want to re-examine your thoughts on the matter! (wink)

Jim Carroll: "Why am I interested in matters religious? Because I have witnessed its malign influence; from afar as a member of the general public, and up close on a personal level, with the effect upon my family and friends."

(Jim, My following is not argumentative in nature to you, so when you read it, try not to project a hostile difference, or contention)

I think it was in one of your (I could be wrong, about yours) posts, that you also mentioned, the quote, about, 'Give me a child under five and he'll be (something), all his life" (something to that effect, I scrolled back, and couldn't find it, nonetheless, its somewhere, there).
That quote is most often quoted by Roman Catholics...I've heard it before, and coupled with your other quote(which I cut and pasted), and the tone of other posts you've posted, it sounds to me that you have a deep hurt, and/or disillusion with the Catholic Church, possibly something you grew out of, but still carry the scars, in the form of (a)hostility...which I can understand. Plus all the bad PR that the church has accrued, with all the child abuse scandals, tend to re-reinforce your personal bitterness. (Safe to say?) Then the CC puts a thing on your head, that to hear about Jesus/God/anything 'religious', outside of the CC is a 'heresy'..because the CC is the ONLY 'true representative' of the 'correct' teachings of Jesus, and they are the ONLY true church...correct? The reason that I'm inquiring, is because in your posts, there comes through a DEFINITE anger, and closed mind on the issue...Which, I can empathize with, ok?.......Let me know if I'm correct, so far, ok?
I have NO intention of 'jumping your case'...'or getting in your face'.....However, as my mom used to say, "Try not to run from something(Bad), but rather, to GO to something good, but let go of the hurt"......It does not do a lot of good, to kill a poisonous snake that bit you...if the venom, is still in you.
Hopefully this was received, in the right intention, that I sent it.

Regards,
GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:54 PM

Atheists don't seek or acquire or need evidence. You've got that slightly arse about face. It isn't atheists who make hugely improbable assertions then sit back and say all we need is faith. I like the rest of your post though. Atheists who do little except bang on about dirty clerics or suicide bombers give the rest of us a bad name (of course, there is an appropriate context for banging on about such things). The core atheist arguments are very simple and they don't need religions to have bad men to make them more sound.

I'm waiting for someone to chime in and tell us that God works in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Bill D
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:43 PM

I think militant atheism in more an 'attitude' than a position about 'knowing' anything. Most intelligent atheists realize that "you can't prove a negative", so the militant ones are usually just against what they see as problems in religion....they have no more evidence than a vacillating agnostic.

...and Fergus posted above.."The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple; would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"?

I think most would...but they would demand a pretty strong 'proof'....like the clouds parting and glowing letters apperaing in the sky in all languages saying" "I TOLD you to stop that stuff!"...or maybe the same message beamed into everyone's head all at once. After all, an all-powerful diety would have no problems with that...hmmm?

To me, the strangest claim of certain religions is that an all-powerful Creator issued, to a weak, fallible people, commands about our behavior...once...under strange circumstances....to ONE individual..then expected the billions who followed to make sense of all the varied interpretations.
Any creator who CARED about being followed and/or worshiped should be aware that we would need many, many reminders, and that "free will" was a two-pronged 'gift'.

(and no...floods & earthquakes are NOT 'signs from God', no matter what certain religious leaders, like Pat Robertson, say.)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

"...anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is"

Ignoring the faintly pejorative tone of that, that isn't what happens. Taking issue with some of the nasty things that goes on among some clerics is not saying how wrong religion is. Making cogent arguments against the existence of God is also not saying how wrong religion is. I happen to think that all religion is predicated on a deluded belief, but that doesn't mean that everything ever done in religion's name is wrong. There are religious people who have done a damn sight more good in this world than I ever have, but good things don't need religion in order to get done and never have. As for jumping in, that is not fair. There is no rule as far as I know that says certain topics should be a closed book to certain factions. I've never touched a flute in my life but I've just posted something in a flute thread on another forum. No-one's telling me to bugger off and stop jumping in. This is the internet, and we're not a dedicated-to-worship website or a prayer meeting. Nearly every thread I've ever posted anywhere that's lasted more than a few posts has been sidetracked. It's the nature of the beast. Cheer up and live with it.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 01:11 PM

Joe, you said "even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith". The point of that "religious knowledge" survey was to look at just that -- information -- without any judgement as to what's necessary to faith. Stephen Prothero's book, "Religious Literacy: What Every American Needs to Know – And Doesn't" does make that such literacy is important in American life. There was no good data, however, and that's what the survey was meant to correct. I don't think either Pew or Prothero judged it as a "necessary aspect of religious faith".

From the Preface to the report:

"...we also decided that, no matter what the results, we would not give the public an 'A,' an 'F' or any other grade because we have no objective way of determining how much the public should know about religion. Moreover, we could have designed harder questions, or easier ones. As it happens, through a combination of good survey design and good luck, the results were an almost perfect bell curve in which the average score was exactly half of the 32 possible correct answers, and very few people got all questions right or all questions wrong. Readers can decide for themselves whether this justifies Prothero's conclusion or not."

~ Becky in Long Beach
(who's going to copy some of this to the other thread!)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:55 PM

"Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe"."

Really? Show me an atheist who "knows." I've never met one in spite of years mixing in atheistic circles. Tosh!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:40 PM

Ok, Olddude, although we don't have Walmart here in the UK, (we do in a way, they own Asda.) Some things you can buy, and smaller private street corner shops have a cop out but large department shops can only open so many hours and have browse but can't reach the checkout hour before they officially open. One place (Ikea) the lady told me she wasn't allowed by law (!) to talk to me before the tills open....

I too have joined a religion!!! I do work for the government and on their monitoring forms want to know my religion. I went on the internet to find a religion (true this..) and signed up to The Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, just like foolstroupe did.

We are fellow Pastafarians!! Right on bro!!!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,999
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:37 PM

General Herbert Norman Schwarzkopf said (words to the effect) when asked about forgiving those who were responsible for the destruction and death of September 11: It is God`s province to forgive them. It is OUR job to arrange the meeting.

Possibly one difference is that atheists do not blame or praise God,
G-d, god for things that go wrong or right. The common area for so-called TV Evangelists, some Imams, some Rabbis (etc) seems to be that they speak for their heavenly leader and one can`t help wondering how the Boss talks to THEM.

Also, possibly atheists in order to get away from childhood teachings actually study various of the world`s holy books and in the course of doing so find holes. And when they do, they rightfully get POed. The Bible was edited, usually for the benefit of the various churches. I suspect so to were other so-called holy books. The Book of Mormon: `It was revealed.` Yeah, right.

Even a cursory glance at the schisms in Christianity, Islam and Judaism attest to the shakiness of the whole structure. For those who believe, good for you. For those who don`t, may the same good fall on you, too.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:16 PM

Uncle Dave brings up a good point. I have heard people who claim the love of Christ say things that appalled me about gays about people of non faith ... you hear it on TV with some Preachers talking like those of no faith are right there next to Hitler or something ... One thing I know for certain in this life is hate spawns hate which spawns more hate and so it goes ... Again what ever happened to live and let live. Free will is so important, the right to choose ones path in this life without interference from any other person or group .. For me, my faith makes sense, I don't want to go through life thinking cosmic accident and I have had too many things happen to me that made me believe in my faith ... and yet I too challenge it all the time and one should .. the challenge only makes my faith stronger. However those who choose a different path that doesn't conflict with me in any manner at all. As long as they do not infringe on my rights. All too often I have seen and heard way too many messages of hate against other groups who choose different. That is why there is such a difference between faith and religion I think. I could never do that nor anyone I know who believes in God

I suspect Uncle Dave hit it on the head here

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Mr Red
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 12:08 PM

One is that agnostics and atheists seem to know as much or more about "religion" than adherents and believers.

Athiests "Know" and the religious "Believe".

But not necessarily the same data.

Mr Red (Moth)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Uncle_DaveO
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:49 AM

Part of the question raised by this thread is, essentially, "Why do so many atheists display not just interest or concern about religion and the religious, but an undertone (at least) of hostility to religion and the religious?"

Having spent some time in examining my own attitudes and those of certain other atheists about that question, I believe a good part of the answer is "reciprocation".

I discovered early in life that many, many religious bodies and religious persons are hostile toward anyone they can characterize (correctly or incorrectly) as atheists; and conversely, that anyone who expresses "wrong" concepts is, ipso facto, to be so characterized as that hated enemy, an atheist, even though those concepts do not exclusively pertain to atheism.

So, reciprocate: Since you threaten or attack me, on specious grounds, I'll tend to hate or attack you. Or at least see you as ridiculous.

q.e.d.

None of which, of course, deals with the actual subject at issue.

Dave Oesterreich

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: olddude
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:47 AM

Steamin
suggest you go to Walmart they are open till 10 in every state that I know of .. got lots of screws thats what I do. Store hours are set by the owners and my local hardware ma and paw store ain't open on Sunday. I suspect cause they work 6 other days .. Blue laws in the past were ruled unconstitutional and it wasn't because of "church" it was the theory that people back then worked 6 days a week and they thought it good for society in general for a working person to have a day with their families and spend family time. Didn't work out too well. There is no law in the States based solely on religion. When was the last time you were arrested for not attending service?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: theleveller
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 11:08 AM

"The greatest enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it is the illusion of knowledge." Stephen Hawking

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Joe Offer
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 10:25 AM

I typed most of this twelve hours ago. When I tried to post it, Mudcat was shut down. Good thing I save it....or not.

I wanted to say something about the very thoughtful posts from Mrrzy and Slag (original post and others), but what I wanted to say has already been said. Posts like those are the reason I have so much respect for you.



But other people have other statements that I disagree with:

• Atheists question - believers accept without question.
  Religion is taught as a fact; believers swallow it wholesale, atheists look for a rationale.
  
• The true test of an atheist, I suspect, is death and clearly discovering whether he/she is right or wrong?
  
• Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct....

All of these statements view religion from what I would call an absolutist perspective of religious belief. This perspective assumes that religion is acceptance and adherence to of a code of religious "truths" (doctrines) and a moral code, and often involving obedience to some sort of religious authority. This may hold true as a definition of fundamentalist religious faith, but even fundamentalism is more complex than that. Interestingly, fundamentalists and anti-religious atheists seem to share this absolutist perspective of religious faith. This perspective is almost obsessed with dualism - what's right and what's wrong, what's true and what's false, what's black and what's white, and so on.

But many deeply religious people are not like that at all. Even St. Paul allows for lack of certitude (and perhaps even doubt) in the famous "through a glass darkly" verse, 1 Corinthinans 13:12). For some people, religious faith is an exploration of the questions of life and of what is beyond, with hope of achieving perspectives without absolute answers. For others, religious faith is an expression of who they are and what is deep inside them, with very little emphasis on information or doctrine - Islam is a good example of this, and so are Polish Catholics and many other ethnic Catholic groups. Mystics go beyond doctrine and simply seek union with the divine.

Here at Mudcat, it is well-nigh impossible to carry on a discussion of religious issues because the anti-religious absolutists always feel compelled to jump in and say how wrong religion is, never stopping to think that "right and wrong" may not be the question. That's what happened in the thread on the U.S. Religious Knowledge Survey - although I note that even a reputable organization like the Pew trust, seems to emphasize information as a necessary aspect of religious faith.

So, anyhow, the question persists: how can we have the freedom to carry on a discussion of a religious topic without always getting bogged down in a "right-and-wrong" argument? Most other forums are dominated by the absolutists on both sides of any issue - isn't it possible for us to find a way do a more open discussion, rather than squabbling about right and wrong all the time?

Another thing that stops a lot of discussion here, is the constant dwelling on what's wrong with religious faith. Jim Carroll's comments are a good example, as are those of Fionn. What they say is the absolute truth - there is much that is evil that is done in the name of religion. But a good many religious people deplore that evil just as much as Jim and Fionn do. The trouble with religions groups, is that they are human institutions. In every human institution, we have to deal with some people who are evil, many who are mediocre, and some that are extraordinarily good. It is the good and the evil people who have the greatest effect. Now, we can dwell on the evil side of things and paralyze ourselves, or we can do our best to combat the evil while still carrying on with the good side of life. But Jim and Fionn, I think it's unfair of you to insist that vast numbers of religious people condone the evil that takes place in their churches - that just doesn't happen.

So, acknowledging the bad side of things, couldn't it be possible to carry on at least some religious discussions without dwelling on evil? There is evil everywhere, and it can stop us dead in our tracks if we let it. I prefer not to do that.

-Joe-

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 09:50 AM

And I suppose if someone was to declare that they were a Paganist would they be accused of Devil worship and Witchcraft or Atheism?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Fergie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 08:05 AM

The test of an athiest is in my opinion very simple;
would an athiest change her/his fundamental belief when confronted with objective proof for the existance of a "diety"?

Believers must accept that there is not a scintilla of objective evidence of any kind, that a diety exists.

Fergus

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:52 AM

Actually, I'm NOT an Atheist.

I'm a 'non-spiritualist'.

And apparently that hurts too many heads who can't get around that, so many think I'm just an Atheist...

:-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:47 AM

Slag, I basically agree with your opinion of what 'real religion' is, mostly, which is why I am so disappointed with what many hypocrites claim ...

I was being a little satirical too - didn't expect that you wanted a real factual documented position. :-)

In the church I was brought up in, we DID spend weeks on basic theology and the history of theological things that led to the current day including the merges and schisms of the Lutheran Church - I have forgotten most of that now! - the pastor was quite elucidatory about the areas I mentioned ... Martin WAS a reformer, but Politics as exercised by real world Princes (of which the Pope was just another! what with running around with armies and all that!) took over and steered his legacy in directions that he had no control over. He did love a good drink (go away Conrad!), nosh up and sing session, and many other 'mortal things'.

I studied many other 'paths' - for instance I found that Buddhism was more a tool of social control - many of its 'wisdoms' seemed to be such useful tools as 'respect your elders', etc. I am aware of various pantheisms too. But, I live in a culture that is mainly swamped by a Monotheistic dominated religious base (and I believe that you do too). Hence I am surrounded by ""Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "" ..

"defining religion as a "path" to the divine?" - well I have been swamped with this all the time during my life... and endlessly told that the current flavor of the ranter is the 'only path' by people knocking on my door ... :-0


"Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study."

It only took me about 30 years to get there, mate... :-) I'll accept donations if you found it 'helpful' ... :-P


"And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?"

If a 'Supreme Deity' has revealed 'the only absolute path to salvation' - as I am constantly brainwashed here, and am informed that it is even stronger in the USA - daily mass incantations of 'for God and Country', etc... then logically ANY other contrary idea is heresy, and must be evil and destroyed.... :-)

"do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak"

Well many of these ranters claim that they do - AND he speaks direct to them and them only, personally I think they've got SOMETHING in their pocket ... :-P


"You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians."

Well I see this and similar 'madcap' questions pop up all the time in the R&S section - you CAN take the logical reverse concept if you want (I didn't say that - you inferred it!) - my point is that you can't HAVE Protestants, WITHOUT the original that they are protesting against - what with Peter of Rome and all that baggage... :-) In other words they want to reject/deny their own documented historical path to where they are today... as if that gives them some sort of 'moral superiority'.

I'm only 'concerned with religion' because I was brainwashed with it when little (no choice) and also so much of society is saturated with the 'magic sky fairies' thinking (and he will destroy his 'empire' and take all the good bunnies to live with him in fluffy cotton wool for ever and ever and ever!), and it seriously interferes with much of the functioning of society, including insisting on a level of ignorance in scientific matters (people and dinosaurs living together, denying 'evolution' or as least as the bigoted misunderstand it!, etc), pushing the USA (and all of its politically subjugated minions!) to become eventually one of the most backward nations on earth, once all the foreign scientists go home ... :-)

Me, I've recently become a follower of the Flying Spaghetti Monster Religion. It's perfectly logical, I understand it's origins, and it makes just as much sense as any other 'religion' - i.e. matter of 'faith and belief'... :-) And now I too 'have found religion'! :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:25 AM

Excellent Steve! And your name isn't even Foolestroupe! I'm sure he'll appreciate the assist.

Simple, yep. I see your point... but, alas, to bed. It will be new world tomorrow and I will see how it all looks then! Night all!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 07:20 AM

"Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong?"

Well the biggest ones certainly seem to. Witness the common references to infidels and one true faith, etc. But it would be a fairly unwise generalisation to make.

"Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted?"

No. Atheism is not a creed. It isn't complicated. The Pope may well not speak for all Catholics, but then Catholicism is riddled with all sorts of complicated rules and doctrines. Atheism is simple. There may be differences in the ways atheists like to say things, but it is much easier to speak, as an atheist, for all atheists that it would be for someone adhering to a huge body of dogma. Over the years I must have posted thousands of posts about my atheism all over the place, but not once has any atheist come back at me to complain that I wasn't speaking for them.

"And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted?"

No. It's self-evident, that's why. An invisible being who breaks all the laws of physics, whom there's no evidence for and who can't be explained must have been invented. As an atheist I can't prove that he isn't there but I've concluded, rationally I think, that the chances of his existence are vanishingly small. So it isn't "bigoted" to say he was knowingly invented. It's an eminently reasonable (though perhaps not a particularly diplomatic) thing to say.   

"By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?"

Well you call it God and we call it the sky fairy. As I don't think fairies exist and I equally don't think God exists (note: I don't know he doesn't so we're not actually in the realms of fact here) it's not an unreasonable soubriquet to my mind, though again not diplomatic.

Oddly, I never feel like being diplomatic about religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:47 AM

"While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we? "

Yep, that that sort of belief is defined as 'magic'.... since it is already defined as being beyond the capabilities of 'Science' - a 'belief system' based on clear observations and 'easily' reproducible results. One can thus speculate in this way endlessly, and it is difficult to refute any of it, because any refutation is of itself merely more speculation ... :-)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:38 AM

"Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?"

This displays a misunderstanding of Science, a layman's mungling of terms that have precise meanings in Science and often are assigned various sorts of semantic gibberish by the scientifically untrained.

"energy cannot be created nor destroyed" - it however can be converted endlessly from one manifestation to another.

"what about conscious energy" - there is no such thing! (manifestion of energy) as "conscious energy". There is something scientifically vague we call (a state of) 'consciousness', which is the observed emergent result of complex electrical currents in the neurons. When that current flow stops, so does the consciousness -> oblivion.

The 'energy' doesn't 'go anywhere', because what happens is that the source of the energy (chemical reactions) just stops when the organism ceases to function ...


"Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing"

This reminds me of a Star Trek episode plot .... a nice piece of entertaining fiction (and may even provide some warm comfy feelings to many), but has no basis in currently known scientific fact...

... a nice touchy feelie idea that "one's consciousness (you mean some sort of Alien Energy Field, Spock?) merges with all the other ones floating around in empty space"

... Beam me up Scotty!

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Slag
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:37 AM

You may have noted in the original post that the word "religion" is set apart in quotes. I also made a distinction between adherents to a religion and believers. I also left believers as a vague, general term. I asked a QUESTION which was related to the other thread about a religious survey which caused me to wonder as I did? And quite contrary to many of your perceptions of me about what you THINK you know about my beliefs I am not a big supporter of organized religion. I have a very narrow view of religion. I am in agreement with the writer of James. To him, true religion is the caring for widows and orphans within the Christian community and without as Christ demonstrated who a person's neighbor is in the story of the Good Samaritan. All the horrendous acts that Mrrzy listed and all the awful acts he could have listed are, to my way of thinking, horrible abuses of the religions involved and the doctrines of peace espoused by many of them.

Whether it is a religious movement or a political movement there seem to always be those who will corrupt the intent or goal of either for their own evil purposes. And there always seems to be a mindless cadre that will follow the corrupt to oblivion while never catching on to the truth about either or seeking out answers for themselves. It doesn't mean there is no God nor does it prove there is a God. It is, perhaps, a true picture of the state of Man and an indicator of how far we have to go.

I could argue from a Christian perspective that God shares your concerns and understands your criticisms as He voiced similar concerns over those who were supposed to be His people. I believe God hates most all the same evils you hate but not those who perpetrate the same. I can argue this from scripture but somehow, I don't get the impression that many are willing to endure such, here and now. Closed systems of understanding our world and the folks in it are intolerable, be they political or religious or some other specie. Shame to the person who allows someone else to do their thinking for them. Not only is the unexamined life not worth living, it is downright dangerous to those about.

Religion can be a response to a spiritual awakening or epiphany or it can be a cop-out. It can be a way for making business contacts or it can be a means of fleecing people. It can be a pathway of psychoses as in the Jones Town incident or it can be a political tool. Is it any wonder why religion cannot be ignored?

Guest David E. (whose given name means, in the Hebrew "Beloved") thinks that humanism was already in place before religion but doesn't bother to demonstrate how he knows this. It is an unsubstantiated claim. Humanism as it is understood today as a movement began in the 1800's AD that is. I think religion, in the general term has been around a little longer than that. I would hold that Mankind and religion grew up together and that religion, his ability to question that which he did not understand, was the impetus for all that has followed. Earliest man is always found in proximity with those things which are considered religious.

To address Foolestroupe's list of concerns:

My response to Jim Carroll's statement was to the point and logical. He made a blanket declaration against "religion" based on narrow and anecdotal information at best and regardless of the ABUSES of religion it still does not touch in any meaningful way the phenomenon of religion or faith or belief in a supreme deity or many deities nor does it address any object of many Far Eastern religions. And yet how many of you looked at his post and unquestioningly agreed with him? I find THAT scary.

And to which Foolestroupe somehow discerns that I must be talking about how many angels could dance on the head of a pin. Which, you will note is NOT an ARGUMENT. It is, rather, a question. Even if this were an attempt to set up a straw man argument, it is a non sequitur to what has gone before. But just for fun, I'd like to answer anyway. If the entire universe could fit inside the seminal infinitesimal that preceded the "Big Bang", why all of them AND none of them!

"To the non-believer in any religion, all religions ARE merely offshoots of the same basic belief, the only argument being which one is supreme over all the others! Because since almost every religion claims that it IS the Supreme one and all others are merely 'mistaken beliefs' and 'you should come over to their side'."

Again it is the informal fallacy of the hasty generalization. You do a great disservice to many religions that do NOT believe in ONE supreme being. You do a historical disservice to many polytheistic religions. You need to check out Sufism, Baha'i, Rosicrucian and some other religions I could name. They are NOT all the same and their followers would be the first to tell you so.

"I was raised a Lutheran and well schooled in the subtleties and history of the RC church from day one. What he was searching for was not that God did not exist (he was never an agnostic!), but that his own particular invisible magical sky fairy that spoke in his ear had said that he was the only one right and everyone from the Pope down was wrong, that they 'had lost the true path'."

I'm sure many Lutherans would be dismayed at your portrayal of their faith. I never said he was agnostic, YOU did. It is so much easier to shoot down a lame argument of your own design, isn't it? And you were studying Roman Catholicism and it's subtleties? I thought you were raised Lutheran!! (yes facetious, sort of). Nor did Martin Luther believe in magical sky fairies. I have read his life story from different authors and no one mentioned sky fairies. I know he did learn Greek, Hebrew and Latin and the discrepancies between what he read and what the Roman Catholic Church was putting forth at the time cause him to QUESTION the church and later to seek to REFORM the same. You see, you need to get your facts straight before you launch out with an "argument" otherwise, you look kind of foolish to the honest inquirer.

"What causes me to fall about in laughter is the widespread strongly held delusion by many Americans - just read Yahoo Answers for a while - that some how Catholics are not Christians.... thereby showing that many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith. What are they 'protesting' about? The original Protestants were protesting that oh, here we go again, the RC had 'lost the true path'...."

This next comment assumes that "many Americans" are delusional and you cite that most learned and prestigious institute of higher education "Yahoo Answers" to substantiate all that follows: "that some how Catholics are not Christians". You don't say WHY anyone might hold this view but you do tend to imply that the reverse is true, that Catholics (Roman?) are true Christians. Now if YOU are an atheist this is a most extraordinary statement! How can you tell? You are an unbeliever! Nonetheless, you conclude from the article that "many US Protestants are raised in total ignorance of the history of their 'Protestant' Faith." How so? Luther was not a Protestant but a Reformer. For his efforts the Bishop of Roman tried to have him silenced by that age old, tried and true Christian method: murder. You know, the same one that was used against, uh, Christ! His protege, Philip Melanchthon was more responsible for the German Protestant movement. Nowhere did Luther or Melanchthon say that Catholic people were not Christian but everywhere that the Church was not correct in it's teachings in all things. And yet you would have us believe that Yahoo has the inside story. Where are your FACTS?

"Ignorance is not bliss for a 'believer', but ignorance by your followers is definitely bliss for a dictator, religious or secular"

Finally a point upon which we may agree. I'm certainly glad YOU are not ignorant, my friend.

"Religious Intolerance is inevitably caused by the bigoted delusion that only one approved set of religious beliefs is 'correct' - the atheist simply says - it's all just made up by people, no divine inspiration is possible, because there is no magic sky fairy, so none is correct .... "

Shall we discuss bigoted delusion? Could it be delusional and bigoted to assume that everyone's religion teaches that all other religions are wrong? Could it possibly be that you do not speak for ALL atheists? Isn't that bigoted? And that religionists and believers knowingly "made up" religions and "God"? Isn't THAT bigoted? And somehow (and you don't say how) you just know there is no divine inspiration because there is no sky fairy? By the way I am really curious about this "Sky Fairy" religion. I've never come across it in my studies. Could you sarcastically be using that as a substitute for deity? History and most of the world is wrong but you, the enlightened one KNOW there is no God. And that is a FACT?

"Religious Tolerance is thus only a wimpy cop out, because if you say that others may also be correct, then you admit that no path is 'Supreme' and thus no others can be correct.... "

And this is your stunning conclusion. First, nothing was made mention about religious tolerance or intolerance. But that aside your "ergo" your conclusion is, that if one were to admit that someone else in some aspect of their beliefs were correct then no other path is "Supreme" (whatever that may mean) and then your second conclusion "thus no others can be correct..." I'm really having a hard time following you logic here. Thus you are defining religion as a "path" to the divine? The breadth and scope of your understanding of religion simply amazes me. Had I know that, I could have foregone 7 years of intensive study. Oh well, you live and you learn. And how does it follow that no others can be correct. Do you mean inside knowledge on the pathway to the divine(s)? Or do you mean having God in your pocket, so to speak?

Well, at any rate, thanks for clearing all that up for us. And I hope none of you will fault me too much for MY sarcasm (I expect yours) but so much that passes here, unquestioned as logic , just isn't so. I could go on but I bet you are kinda tired of it by now. I know I am. I'll check back with you all later.

But hey! I really am learning what and why atheists and agnostics are so concerned about religion. Many valid points have been made and for that I thank you all.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: MGM·Lion
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:22 AM

"Intelligent design" always strikes me as a most inapposite phrase when I think of, say, childbirth. "Unintelligent design" seems to me to fit the case much better. I mean, what sort of Loving God would have designed his Creations with the inconvenient necessity of constant pissing and shitting? Surely he could have done better than that, with just a bit of intelligent thought? It's a design fault which should have been corrected as he created more and more models before culminating in this one ~ that's what one would have expected in any other area of design: we don't still have to use a cranking handle to start our cars, do we?

~Michael~

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Ed T
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:21 AM

"they also believe in just oblivion when the hardware shuts down"

Not necessarily true, even if there were no God, in the religious sense.

While the physical hardware shuts down from our perspective, I suspect there are other possibilities that could evolve from the human energy. Some of these one could speculate on, others are likely beyond our current knowledge. We really do not know, now do we?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 06:03 AM

Moral code...

if ants and termites don't work together and sacrifice themselves for the good of the community, the community doesn't survive.

Technically, the genes don't get to use living creatures as hosts.

I suppose that to say altruism is hard wired into us is, to those grasping at facts to support belief; proof of intelligent design. If so, I hate to tell you this, but we weren't built in his image, chromosomes were...   And I for one wouldn't buy one a drink with a view to losing all my money by marrying it....

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:40 AM

Atheists with sound "moral codes" are living proof, surely, that moral codes don't come from religion. In fact, what an admission of failure it is to say that your moral code comes from your religion.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: TheSnail
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:36 AM

Mrrzy

It's The Harm.

I Ain't Afraid

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:11 AM

"Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others."
Sums it up perfickly for me!
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 05:09 AM

The original post is just well-written, patronising tosh. Atheists discuss religion because religion is a big part of this planet. It's the default position even in countries that are allegedly secular. Religion influences billions of people and that is not unimportant and easy to dismiss. Outrages such as the indoctrination of millions of children in schools and families, almost from birth, are rife. We have to look at religious icons wherever we go. The mindset of that post is the same as the one that emerged in that survey thread: get out of my bloody thread, was the basic message, unless you want to join in with the rest of us cosy band of believers. The poster here betrays the usual believer attitude to atheists: we're just an irritating, argumentative and, er, slightly threatening bunch. Hows about we put this the other way round. If believers are so secure in their faith, and really do embrace the certainties that their prayers contain, why bother arguing with us atheists at all? Laugh us off! Er, not so easy, is it?

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 04:34 AM

Oldude wants to know of a law based on religion. try buying a pack of screws from B&Q after 4.00pm on a Sunday.

The original post was thought provoking but misses the point that if agnostic / atheist / irreligious people are what they say, why do they get hot & bothered over religion?

Probably because having an imaginary friend seems to give some people the right to exert their moral codes on others. We have Bishops scrutinising laws and voting on them in The House of Lords, public money spent on schools based on faith and charitable status for organisations that preach charity whilst ... I could go on.

In a fit of agreeing with Jim Carroll, I found no problem with the "Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same." I do, it's easier that way.

Mind you as I have always said, if we didn't have religion, we would end up inventing it. (Which of course we did...)

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 03:55 AM

"Thank you for your most critical and in-depth analysis, Jim!"
And thank you for ignoring the single greatest harm perpetrated against our children by Christians sheltering under god's umbrella, certainly in my lifetime - it confirms the hypocricy that appears to go with many religions.
My non-belief in a god is my own business, just as the faith of others is theirs, and I am more than happy to keep it that way. But when religious belief infects the everyday lives of all, believer or non-believer, to the extent that it has with the systematic and long-term rape and abuse of children, and the cover up of same by officers of a universal Christian church, then it becomes the business of us all.
I ask again - if there is a god, where was he/she when the children were being raped by his/her representitives on Earth, and where is he/she now when all but a few scapegoats continue to avoid having to face their crimes as the criminals they are?
"Jim Carroll lumps all religions as the same"
I make no distinction between the Christian savages who serially raped children and those who strap themselves up with bombs and go off to slaughter in the name of Allah, except, of course, the latter show more than a little more committment and courage than do their Christian counterparts who continue to take sanctuary behind their vestments and the power of their holy church.
Why am I interested in matters religious? Because I have witnessed its malign influence; from afar as a member of the general public, and up close on a personal level, with the effect upon my family and friends.
You want your religious views and practices respected - then keep them to yourself as a private matter and stay out of our lives - oh, and don't start crass threads such as this one.
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Gervase
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:56 AM

Perhaps the true test of a libertarian would be to ignore the actions of oppressive states and ideologies; to simply shrug and walk on by when, say, neo-nazis are on the rise, or when tyrannical regimes repress their populations.
Perhaps the true test of a good person and a humanitarian would be to ignore the manifest injustices and suffering in the world.
I'm an atheist and I find religion fascinating. The good and ill that have been done in its name I carry in my genes, from the vespers of Monteverdi to the pogroms of the Ukraine. It's too big a subject to be ignored.
So the argument of the original post doesn't hold water for me.

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: GUEST,Guest from Sanity
Date: 30 Sep 10 - 02:09 AM

Foolestroupe: "...But if the atheist is also a non-spiritualist, and believes that the human personality (and all the ideas that it creates, including magical sky fairy religions and various forms of eternal life)...?

I guess I could have picked a number of posts, to comment on, but there is something in this one, that pops out...and has a lot to do with people's concept of 'religion' verses 'truth'.

In the beginning, God created man after his own image....and ever since, man has been trying to return the favor!

Maybe, the whole of everything, is bigger than your imagination.

As to 'the true test' (thread topic, lest we forget), I guess you could shut up the argument, in your own head.....if you can. Who's arguing? Probably your sense of reality, versus the way you want it to be!.....Then, one of the 'voices' will still be with you, and one won't...when you 'die'....Being as energy cannot be created nor destroyed, what about conscious energy?....Is yours an unattached island, in a sea of nothing??
Don't drown!

GfS

Subject: RE: BS: True Test of an Atheist
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 29 Sep 10 - 11:46 PM

Can't we all just get along? :-)

(For those who are not LOLCat fans, "Basement cat", the/a black one, and generally portrayed as the personification of evil.) (or is that catification?) (For example...