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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here's the analogy, that I referred to:


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

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


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

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

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

GfS

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

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

GfS

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

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

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

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

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

~M~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Therefor, non-belief in God is Spirituality.

Thanks for clearing that up buddy!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Spleen Cringe - PM

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Are you perchance being "rude"? Heheh.

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

Just being honest.

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

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

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

GfS

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

GFS

I think that you may have mentioned that study about the brain scan to stringsinger before because he used in an an argument to show atheists were superior to religious people because their brains do not light up.

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Spleen Cringe - PM"

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

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

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

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

See you down The Beech NS

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

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

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

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

Geddit?

~M~

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

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

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

"Just being honest. "

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

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

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

Dawkins on Ted Talk

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Stringsinger

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

Excellent.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 01:32 AM

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

The right amount of money is "free!" It a has been argued on this forum that the atrocities under Mao and Stalin were NOT the work of atheists because "Stalinism" and "Maoism" were religions. Yes I know that it is not the definition that the Mudcat current atheist usual suspects are using. But then we may be in store for a more thorough whitewashing from Dawkins. Apparently his "foundation" supports communism.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 02:07 AM

>>>From: TheSnail
Date: 19 Apr 13 - 08:49 PM

Stringsinger

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

Excellent. <<<

Two interesting points here. A supposedly would class scientist citing a beloved fantasy writer. Certainly this section is very childlike. "Here is an idea that you're not allowed to say anything bad about. You're just not. Why not? Because you're not." Perhaps Mr Dawkins is more interested in appealing to one's suspension of disbelief than and recalling battles with you parents over bed time than he is with serious analysis.



Above is the Adams quote with more context. There is a huge hole in his logic in " attacking religion." The hole is manifested two ways. Outside of the Adams (simplified reality field (this ia a joke)) religion is not the only topic "you are not allowed to talk about" By which, as he explains with the parable of the light switch, he means one can't talk about it without wondering if someone will take offense. Also fact there are more than a few things you can bring up in the field of science which will draw a lot more umbridge than questioning an orthodox Jew about using light switches on Saturday. In fact as I recall, I had a pleasant conversation about that with an observant Jew on this very forum, about that very subject. I won't accuse Mr. Adams of lying. He is a comedy writer after all.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 12:55 PM

""If we've legislated politeness, and legitimized the idea that disagreeing with somebody could potentially hurt their feelings, why bother to discuss anything?" asks the president of the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE)."

it's a good question and applies here.

One can always appeal to "Big Daddy" to salve bruised feelings. Just pray a little harder. :)

Christianity isn't propaganda? That's news to me. Remember, there are no elected representatives in the pulpit. Same with all the other top down religions.

Science is not involved in bruised feelings. That's the problem of those who suffer from them. Not true apparently with religionists.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 01:10 PM

Dawkins isn't that rich compared to all the rich religious think tanks out there that manufacture their religious propaganda such as the lies that Fox News tells about atheists.

"Tide goes in, tide goes out. All you really need to know."

TheSnail, I thought the statement was applicable here. Thanks.

Some of the statements here have been "re-mock-able".

Steve, good points. Values are best transmitted by parental behavior not preaching or brain-washing their kids.

Religion has done quite a bit of their share of executions. Also, done in the name of god.

MgM, good point also. All of us have been deluded at one time or another. We all make mistakes based on faulty judgement, delusions, and errors. So, if man is made in the Christian god's image, that means that the Christian god must be delusional at least in the minds of man. The more I hear of the notion of god on this thread, the more I realize how much the image resembles mankind.

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

As a point, Christians of every domination seem to have gone to war with other Christians.
History is replete with examples of this. Should anyone in their right mind respect this?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 01:21 PM

Old Dude, the only preaching done on this thread has been to trash certain atheists such as Dawkins because they don't like what he said. It's one thing to disagree with his statements and ideas and another to trash him as a greedy money grubber (a lie) or other epithets, which some have done, not you.

It's quite another to examine his ideas and make intelligent criticisms of his statements without lumping him into the same category as "televangelists". This is not only patently unfair but ignoring the reason for his audience. For so long now, religion has tried to stuff its ideas down everyone else's throats sometimes with violent brute force. If there is a reaction to this, can anyone be surprised?

Where is the humility here that some Christians claim to have? Some Christians and other religions demand respect but they do so without humility and mostly with arrogance, rancor, ad hominem arguments and false accusations.

Or yes, in mocking tones. Some mockers should practice what they preach.

Can it be any wonder that less and less people are satisfied by going to churches?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 02:01 PM

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

Yes, the idea that you need Spirituality or Religion to do this indeed specious. Well said,
Blindiver. I enjoy reading your posts.

"Pondering Theology can be great fun - like pondering Myth & Folklore, none of which is actually true, but nevertheless tells us something about the sort of beings we are and the sort of journey we've had in getting to where we are today."

Yes, there is a cultural value in knowing about what the bible(s) say (says). Once you know it, you can see how delusional it is.


" To take such things literally is, I fear, not just to them a considerable disservice, but also ourselves, and (perhaps most importantly) our children by clouding their innocent brains with the darkness of an ancestral ignorance that has no more 'reality' than Quatermass or the Cybermen, and a good deal less entertainment value to boot."

Man, I wish I could express myself as well as you. "The darkness of ancestral ignorance" is poetic and applicable to today's religious belief system.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 04:20 PM

The tired old Stalin/Mao chestnut rears its ugly head again, I see. Now I have no time for these two men nor their stinking regimes. But they did not kill anyone "in the name of atheism" any more than Hitler killed people in "the name of God". You wanna argue that point? Great, fire away, but, be warned, there is a far closer connection with specific faiths involved with Catholic Hitler and the Holocaust, so be careful what you wish for. And, I hasten to add, it is not a point I would ever try to argue: I'm simply asking you to think this through before you get all black and white about it. For all I know, Stalin and Mao might have killed people because of their adherence to a particular organised religion. On the whole, organised religion got in the way of their brand of "communism". Also, many others were killed because they were seen as opposing the communist ideal. Many of the people who were killed under Stalin and Mao were killed because they got in the way of a particularly severe case of one-track-mind zeal, in their case, for state communism. You can't commit atrocities "in the name of atheism" because atheism is not a creed, philosophy or belief system that you do things "in the name of" (state communism is, of course, so don't get confused). And I'd remind you that I have expressed caution many times before on this forum - more that all the other atheists who post here, I'll bet - against rushing too easily to the accusation that atrocities are committed "in the name of religion". Most of the ones so characterised are actually committed in the name of greed for land or resources or in the cause of downright bloody-minded imperialism. It's fine to oppose religion or atheism, as long as we do it for the right reasons. Anything else, olddude, is just brainless demonisation.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 04:28 PM

Relax Steve Shaw. No one wants to argue that point with you.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 04:44 PM

I'm so relaxed I'm almost asleep. Or am I in fact getting confused? Am I falling asleep because of the predictably unchallenging nature of your posts, I ask myself?

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 04:54 PM

Some posts up, these remarks appeared:

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

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

Dan, that's just silly. No one is making such a claim. These are straw men in an argument that has gone on far longer than one would expect it to.

"Morality" is not a christian concept, it is a philosophical concept appropriated by religious sects. Individuals can have a robust moral compass without reference to the undue influence of "spiritual leaders." Religion has played a role in cultural development, in human behavior in order to survive in any given place. Some religions leapt the banks of the rivers where they originally flowed and place strict instructions on people who no longer live in the way or the place where the religions arose. Christianity is one of those religions that has extended its reach too far, but others are equally controlling, if individuals will let them.

Humans who recognize that they have free-will and autonomy are perfectly capable of living peacefully in communities without reference to individuals who would control others through religion. But there will always be adherents who can't understand how some can live outside the constraints of religion. That is their problem, but they refuse to understand and continue to try to influence others to join the fold.

I know of many famous atheists but I don't read a great deal of their writing. I don't need them to justify my lack of belief in someone's creation story and mores and folkways that have no ties to a reasonable civil existence.

It's time to go outside and play, and leave this silly argument behind. No one is going to convince anyone to change their minds.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: GUEST,pete from seven stars link
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 04:56 PM

seems to me that communist regimes were political ideologies,but definitely encompassed atheistic and evolutionary dogmatic enforcement.though most atheists dont go round murdering,i fail to see how these tyrants disposal of political or religious dissenters was inconsistent with atheistic and evolutionary worldview.
there have of course been "christian "attrocities " and i leave that to you to decide if such things are consistent wth the example of Jesus.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Steve Shaw
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 05:04 PM

Well, pete, I regard that post of yours as a sort of Christian atrocity. I wouldn't mind betting that a good few Christians, when they see it, will be clenching their buttocks tight. As for me, I'm going to have to go and buy a new corset now.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Amos
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 05:11 PM

It is perfectly okay to dispute, reject, and counter-argue against any piece of dogma, high or low.

But to roundly dismiss the human instinct for reaching into the infinite, contacting the divine, or otherwise seeking connection with the ultimate Cause in the universe, is a very dull-witted thing to do.Even an atheist keeps on looking. And the collection of impulses articulated by our species over the last four thousand years concerning source, ultimate Cause, and similar topics, is evidence that something about the question is important to the human heart, and should not be trampled on.

Why step on the soul just because you want to eliminate superstition?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 07:04 PM

Those who criticize Dawkins as a shallow money grabber are doing ad hominem.
Christians Tim LeHaye and Jerry jenkins have made far more money in their "Left Behind" series than Dawkins could ever make. Their Christian doctrine has sold a million or more. I don't see any religious person on this thread going after them.

I think contacting the divine or an Ultimate Cause has to be looked at objectively. Trampling on science and knowledge is far worse. What is important to the human heart is honesty and integrity.

Souls are theologically based. They are a form of superstition. No one has ever measured one in a laboratory. An ontological or cosmological argument is refutable because,
1. Evidence for a soul has to be shown to exist and 2. The ultimate Cause argument is refuted by the fact that even an ultimate Cause has to be caused by something else.

The criticism of religion is not trampling on anyone personally unless they choose to take it that way which is irrational. A discussion shouldn't be contingent on someone taking an offense at a different idea. Attacking a person in an ad hominem way is offensive.

I agree that even an atheist keeps on looking for truth, but not looking for some vague misty entity such as an ultimate Cause.

Eliminating superstition would mean that people would be less susceptible to witch-burning, homophobia, persecution by religious people, and the development of a rational behavior that would recognize the value of every human being regardless of what they believe and the capacity for questioning beliefs that are outmoded and not useful to society.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 07:25 PM

Jim Carroll has a wise statement to be heeded, here.

"does that mean that to be 'religious' is a bad thing, or just that it is 'bad' not to ascribe to the same religion as they do - do tell?"

Suppose that atheism is considered a religion, (I don't think it's true),
wouldn't it be intolerant and bigoted not to accept it as equal to any other religion?

If it is considered "fundamentalist" then those who make that accusation should examine their role in enabling Christian fundamentalists or fundamentalists of any denomination including Judaism and Islam.

There are some Christians who speak out against the fundamentalist aspects of their religion and do it well. Instead of going after atheists, Christians, Jews, Islamists, Spiritualists or whatever would do well to go after those in their own religion(s) who they consider fundamentalists and leave atheists alone, including Dawkins who has been misrepresented here. Most of those who criticize him have never read his books. He has stated his views succinctly and no one is required to accept them without examination. But ad hominem attacks against the man is doing a disservice by polluting the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Non-belief in a god is not a religion
From: Stringsinger
Date: 20 Apr 13 - 07:32 PM

" In the broad sense, their Atheism is indeed a religion."

Eliza, I would say that it is more of a movement than a religion. There are no gods to worship. More and more non-believers are speaking their mind and criticizing the role of religion in society particularly when it claims to have a corner on the market of morality.
I doubt very much whether religious people are hated or reviled by non-believers. Quite the contrary. Many have come from the ranks of religious denominations and are sympathetic
to the religious having been there once themselves.