what are your thoughts on atheism?

[mopaul]

most atheists begin life under the religion they inherited from their parents, i was raised to be a christian, but at some point after reaching adulthood, i made a conscious decision to remove christianity from my life. i began looking into other religions, as in hindu and buddhist, and had my first actual, voluntary religious experience. after a few years, i became disillusioned with it, and all organized religion, although i still adhere to many of the eastern principles.

but there seem to be more atheists than ever now. they were rare when i was a kid, and very unpopular, and looked upon as somehow sick or demonic. i have seen more people confess to atheism here in DU than anywhere else in my life. i think millions of liberals were turned off by the reagan christian conservative crowd that popped up in the 80's and hijacked may aspects of our government. they've focused on gaining political power, instead of spreading humility and joy and peace.

and the harder the bornagains push, the more atheists are born.
we are no longer ashamed or afraid to say we are non believers. we are now openly saying that we don't NEED an invisible deity to guide our every move in life. and we are fed up with being looked at like freaks and maniacs. atheists are very level headed people. they are not all cranky like me, many are very compassionate and even spiritual, they just don't let their inherited religions dominate their very lives.

do you automatically have a hate reaction to atheists? do you get into arguments over dogma and virgin births with them, or try to 'convert' them? do you just wish they'd all go away? atheists are even marching on d.c. demanding to be heard and not oppressed by the ever growing minions of fanatics and true believers.

like it or not, atheists are here to stay, and we need some atheist representatives in congress and the senate, etc. there is not one among them who would dare come forward and say it out loud for fear of religious backlash. some atheist with cajones should simply state, 'i don't have a religion, i'm an atheist, deal with it'.
to me, there is no more important goal than to retain the strength of the wall of seperations between church and state. it's the american way.

[Bowser]

1. I don't like atheism...

because I'm a Christian. If you want to be an atheist, though, then it's all good. :)

[harrison]

2. Atheists: Some of the people all of the time. And all of the

people some of the time.

[papau]

6. True - I know none of faith that do not question that faith now and then

Indeed Atheists are included in that group as they seem to me to on occasion question where there their real belief is agnostic,

Atheists - in my opinion - just have another belief/faith -

and as the song says, whatever gets you through the night -


But for the record - I am a Christan - and I am right!

:-)

[trotsky]

12. I assume you don't think that leprechauns exist.

Would your non-belief in leprechauns then constitute a "belief/faith"?

[papau]

43. Non-belief isn't belief, given there was a creation-God didn't is a belief

Problem is that you MUST explain creation, as you can not deny creation.

You need not explain Leprechauns.

However, I do like the silly arguement. Seems to pop up in most such discussions, along with the "you do not believe in these 1000 gods, and I do not believe in these 1001 gods - what is the big difference" - which also fails the creation needs an answer test.

[trotsky]

59. You're not explaining anything, that's the problem.

"God did it" isn't an explanation, since you can't explain god. You just add a layer of complexity, is all.

[papau]

93. Funny how I believe - have faith - that God does explain it!

:-)

[trotsky]

109. If you care to,

read up a bit on Occam's Razor. I'm glad you have convinced yourself, but don't expect it to sway many non-believers.

[papau]

117. Occam's Razor sometimes just does not give the correct answer

see chemistry, atomic, space science

but then I would never expect to sway many non-believers!

So in the end, we agree on that!

hugs and kisses!

peace

:-)

[trotsky]

137. Do you have any examples?

"see chemistry, atomic, space science"

On the contrary, it seems the more we learn, the simpler things get. Instead of the thousands and thousands of substances thought to be unique in ancient times, chemistry has found that everything is a combination of 100 or so elements. (And of course the vast majority of things are made of a tiny subset of those elements.)

On the atomic scale, we find that a small number of quarks (and perhaps, just vibrations of strings) are responsible for all matter and energy in its myriad forms.

And in space, we see how simple universal forces like gravity give us star systems and galaxies.

So I'm not sure where you get the idea that Occam's razor hasn't given a correct answer?

[papau]

172. I guess "simple" is in the eye of the reviewer.

Perhaps we start with the idea that no one knows - or will ever know for certain - the "correct answer" to anything - so to test "Occam's razor" by demanding that it give us the "correct answer" is a bit unfair to "Occam's razor".

The more we learn, the simpler things get, was Einstein's reason for rejecting Quantum.

Indeed 11 dimension vectors where vectors for dimemsion 5 to 11 are only "point" vectors that describe characteristics other than length - this is what string theory is - is a little less than simple, - at least in my opinion.

The Atomic zoo of the 60's and 70's has been nicely compacted by quarks - if only we can in the future duplicate the experiment done in the final days of the EU machine and actually get some proof that a quark prediction can be verified!

"All matter and energy" - where energy can pop into existence, and stay around - - - or where positive matter and negative split up and in general only positive matter remains after a few years -- or dark matter and a force that reverses entropy.

So I'm not sure where you get the idea that Occam's razor hasn't given a correct answer?

Indeed, I do not recall many decisions on "which theory is correct" that were decided by "Occam's razor". I grant you that that simple is better has been a direction that has worked for many fields as we find the approximations that make our lives work - science is what some call this finding an approximation effort - but to say that God as creator is not the result of or in tune with or fits with "Occam's razor" is a bit of logic that seems at odds with the alternative creation theories.

But no matter - Whatever floats your boat.

:-)

[RapidCreek]

282. who created God?

You did....as an answer to all the questions you don't have answers to....

RC

[outinforce]

290. Anyone Who Creates God

Anyone who creates God must be greater than God.

If someone were to create a god in order to answer "all the questions s/he does not have answers to", I would guess that such a person would, in the end, be horribly disappointed.

After all, if someone is truly loooking for things like meaning and signficance or other seemingly unanswerable questions, then how is it, exactly, that creating a god (who would, I think, have no greater knowledge than the person who created him) ever be able to answer those questions? All the person would be left with would be her/his own answers, and that was, I think the whole reason you suggest the person created God.

[RapidCreek]

328. How does creating a God answer those questions?

It answers them with a non-sequitur, the intent of which is to discourage thinking, quite obviously.

You argue against yourself. In one breath you say "Anyone who creates God must be greater than God" (which is, in itself, a fallacy). In the next you suggest that "God could have no greater knowledge than the person who created him" (another fallacy). Interestingly you have generated two fallacies which are at odds with one another....and fail to answer the original question I posed. Who created God? You are left with your own answer to this "unanswerable" question....and that answer is, the unfortunate, obviously illogical conundrum your stumbling quite clearly illustrates, "God did".

RC

[mulethree]

329. not answer, blame

"if someone is truly looking for things like meaning and significance or other seemingly unanswerable questions"

Then he spends far too much time standing around pondering instead of working. So we invent this thing called "God" to have all the answers, and this thing called "priest" to intercede between ponderer and god. The priest can reassure ponderer that there is an answer, and god has it and has decided its best not to reveal it leave it a mystery.

Ponderer has some trouble with this, he's now pondering why someone with the answer would choose not to reveal it. He ponders and ponders till his ponderizer gets sore and goes back to the priest who explains a concept called faith. This really confuses ponderer, he puts it into his ponderizer which spits it back out over and over till he's convinced that his ponderizer must be broken.

So he asks his brother who has already accepted faith and tells him that the answer to faith is - faith. That his ponderizer will keep spitting out faith until he makes faith into a part of his ponderizer. The key is to disable the anti-virus protections before you feed faith into your ponderizer. You'll be so glad you did, it makes pondering such a breeze that you'll hardly even notice you're pondering any more.

And so the ponderer tries it. Then he feeds in one of his previously unanswerable questions but his ponderizer still gets sore. So he goes to the priest and asks how do I use this faith thing, I've gotten it installed but my ponderizer still can't come up with an answer. So the priest tells him that for the low low price of 1/10th of your income, I will initialize your faith and maintain it for you. Don't worry about the cost, after we get the faith running properly you will save so much time on pondering that you can spend that time working and more than make up for the cost of the maintenence.

So he goes through the initialization process where the priest inputs a load of nonsense questions and conditions his ponderizer to fall into the faith subroutine any time a ponderization exceeds 20 seconds of ponder time. But even 20 seconds of pondering can be a bit uncomfortable. So he asks the priest if the faith routine can't be upgraded. And the priest tells him to come back on sunday and he will reveal the word of god, and now that his faith is working it will start to make sense.

So he returns sunday to find many other people there to receive their maintenance. The priest has some music played to relax the people, has them sing together to build the herd mentality, then begins to read the upgrade script. Its lovely, and reassuring, and sleep-inducing. Now, the trance having been induced, we feed in right answers.

.... but I tire of writing this, anyone want to pick it up from here?

[FiveGoodMen]

300. A-f***ing-men!

[JNelson6563]

89. You're working from an assumption

Non-belief isn't belief, given there was a creation-God didn't is a belief

This is working from the assumption there is a god. "God didn't" means the person believes there is a god but denies the god created the world.

You have to start from the very beginning. The universe came into being. This is the only fact. All else is supposition unless there is hard, factual evidence to support it. This is irrefutable.

What you choose to suppose happened is your choice. You claiming the argument is silly does not indicate open-mindedness, much less respect, for views that are unlike your own.

Julie

[papau]

102. Nope - Silly word play - God exists but didn't create world - one is

allowed to notice that it is silly.

I agree that one can not debate with those that think otherwise - that refuse to admit it is silly.

And therefore much of atheist posting comes down to assertions that they are afraid to test - I guess they lack a lot of faith!

Peace -

just having a bit of fun

Again - anything that gets you through the night is good - and if for you that means believing that believing there is no God does not require faith - so be it.

peace

:-)

[JNelson6563]

245. not believing-no faith

believing-faith. It has nothing to do with whatever "gets you through the night". I see no proof of any god therefore I believe in other things. Science. Mankind's ability and inability and the greater good.

:toast:

Julie

[datasuspect]

143. you cannot deny creation?

is it because creation is a manifest truth?

or is it because the bible says so, therefore IT must be true?

god is santa claus for adults.

anyway, i think bakunin said that if god DID exist, it would be necessary to abolish his capricious ambiguous butt

[Az]

How do you know Leprechauns did not create the universe

I mean as long as you are leveraging the creation thing why do you get to mandate the cause of it?

Perhaps the answer is we do not know yet. Why do you have to posit an answer that doesn't answer any questions. By insisting that god created the universe you leave the question open because we do not know where god came from. Thus who created god?

There is nothing to suggest that an all powerful entity need to have popped into existance in order for the universe to pop into existance. This is a perfect fit for Occam's razor. Its an unneeded level of complexity. If you feel comfortable saying god always existed why cannot you not assume the universe always existed. It seems simpler to me.

[Beaker]

226. in that case- who created the creator? and who created that creator...?

etc. etc, ad infinitum...
if you are going to suggest the the universe was "created" by some type of a "creator", then you need to explain the origins of said creator.
and to merely say that the creator has always existed is obviously NOT an answer.

[gpandas]

241. created

far easier to believe that the universe was ALWAYS HERE than to think something was created from nothing, so why MUST i explain creation

[Hemprus]

320. You don't believe

in leprechauns? Lets have some green beer and talk about it.:eyes: :toast:

[trotsky]

336. I'll tell you this:

I think the evidence for leprechauns is a lot stronger than the evidence for a god as described in the bible. ;-)

[Hemprus]

343. I agree..

there is more believable things in the fairy tales i read to my kids at night. The bible might have an underlying great theme that we should respect and love each other, but with this message there is alot of contradictions also.

[liberalhistorian]

36. That's certainly true about

questioning faith, I've gone through those moments myself and my own pastor has said that any Christian, or a devotee of any other religion for that matter, who doesn't question or have doubts once in awhile should be viewed with suspicion.

I'll say it again, live and let live. I don't have a problem with atheists if they don't have a problem with me and my being a Christian. I won't shove my beliefs down their throats if they won't tell me what a simpleton I am for believing in God and throw me the "you're educated, why do you want to be so silly" line.

[papau]

104. Amen to that thought!

:-)

[GiovanniC]

3. I'm An Atheist

Or at least, agnostic. I don't claim to have all the answers.

I also have some desire to get into public office at some point, but being non-Judeo-Christian makes that pretty hard. If you don't have an invisible man telling you what to do, you're not good enough.

[Hemprus]

322. I think

that they use the invisible man (God or whatever your believe is) as an excuse for the things they do.

[Az]

4. They weren't rare, they were just oppressed

There have always been those that reject the indoctrination of various religions. Its just that at various times the oppression was a bit more strident and your social life depended on maintaining the illusion of devotion.

Here's the thing. We are a diverse society. But at one time that diversity was limited in its expression if not reality. Way back when people with different opinions and beliefs were expected to keep their mouth shut and stay out of sight. People with different ways of living were not welcome in society. Those in the majority of course felt this was a golden time. Everything was right with the world. As far as they could see.

As our society has grown we have found out that there was depth to our society we did not realize. This has forced us to change the status quo. Those who used to be the guardians of civilization see this as the pollution of society. Their voice is now just one of many. No longer a solo. Now they must learn to sing with the choir. Some of them are not so willing to give up their lead position. They continue to insist that those who are different from them should get their act together and be like them. Well its not happening. Get used to us. We are not going away.

[liberalhistorian]

45. That's very true, as I've said above,

I don't really think there are any more atheists now than there used to be, they're just more comfortable coming out, so to speak. But even now, especially in the middle of a major culture war, things still aren't as comfortable for atheists or even agnostics as they should be.

I'm a Christian, but live and let live. If you don't put me down for believing in God and practicing my religion, then I have no problem at all with you being an atheist or agnostic and will not try to shove my beliefs and practices down your throats and codify them in the laws governing you (unfortunately, the wingnut fundies, the American Taliban, will never make such a promise). Religion MUST MUST MUST be separate from the state.

[Az]

67. Sounds to me like we are on the same side

But then I kind of knew that :)

[kiahzero]

193. Why must religion "indoctrinate"?

Decentralized religions, such as the one I am a member of, lack a figure of authority - does that mean that I have indoctrinated myself?

:grin:

I'd like to see more atheists in government, so long as they refrained from evangelizing - calling religion "the Santa Clause of adults" (as a previous poster said) in mind is no better than insisting that Jesus is the only way.

[Az]

200. Its the nature of the beast

The religions that survive are the ones that are effective at surviving. Its evolution.

Thus the religions that are very effective at propogating and keeping their host society alive while spreading will be the ones that dominate an environment. Competition with other social constructs create a struggle for resources. The rise of humanism about 500 years ago during the age of enlightenment created an opening for a host of splinter groups of religions to begin to grow.

Thus we see a wide array of religious groupings. Each with their own means of propogation and their own balance of representation. The less aggressive finding a place with those that reject the more aggressive sects.

[outinforce]

5. I Don't Understand Them

I do not at all understand atheism.

I completely understand agnostics. Agnostics are folks who say that they really do not know whether or not there is a deity. Agnostics do not say that there is no deity. They simply say that there might be a deity, and they are open to that possibility.

Atheist, as least so far as I understand it, say that there is no deity.

What I do not understand is how it is possible for someone to arrive at that conclusion. How does an atheist prove the non-existence of a deity? How have they arrived at a position which states, with some certainy, that no deity exists?

It seems to me that, at least as far as I understand what atheist believe, that there notion of the non-existence of a deity has to be based on at least as much faith as the notion that beleivers have in the existance of a deity.

[mopaul]

10. who is your deity, & where is he?

if you can show him/her to me, i might become a believer. it seems we don't understand each other here, it's a matter of perspective.

mark twain told a short funny story about two men seeing the grand canyon for the first time. the first man, a deeply religious person, fell to his knees, thanking god for the magnificent spectacle before his eyes and weeped aloud, while the second man, an atheist simply said, 'well i'll be goddamned!'

a matter of perception.

[outinforce]

21. Please Re-Read My Post

I think, if you re--read my post, that you will see that I take no position regarding the existence of any diety -- mine or anyone else's.

And I think you might also notice that my post does not ask you or anyone else to become a believer.

You asked, when you started this thread, what people thought about atheism.

I think I responded to that question. And I think I did so without positing the existence of any diety. And I am pretty sure I refrained from requesting anyone to become a believer.

I trust this responds to your request for me to show you my deity.

[Dhalgren]

177. How about this?

You point to a horse, slowly grazing in a pasture. You say, "There is a man on that horse's back." I say "No there isn't." You say, "Yes there is. You can't see him, but I know he is there." I say, "Well, I don't see him and I do not think that there is a man on that horse."

Believers think that they have all sorts of "proof" that god or gods exist - believers have always believed this. Non-believers, do not give any creadence to this "proof" and so dismiss the belief. No one has to "prove" that god or gods do not exist, because there is no evidence that any do. Now, believers know that there is no evidence, otherwise, "belief" would not be necessary.

[Spentastic]

11. Er?

"How does an atheist prove the non-existence of a deity"

How does an atheist prove the non - existence of Goblins/ The Easter bunny etc etc.

Ye sit is faith to a degree but it is not blind faith.

[Az]

23. The argument

The problem with trying disprove god is that you don't know which god you are being asked to disprove. Furthermore it violates to flow of logic. Look at the word disprove. It is formed by prove and dis, meaning to refute. In order to disprove a thing a proof must have been offered to refute. If no argument for god is presented then no argument against it can be made.

This is why the positive claimant must provide their evidence. Asking for a blanket disproval of god does not satisfy the logical necessity to have presented evidence of a god to disprove. Without such evidence presented this enables the skeptic to create their own concept of god to dismantle which could easily be the god that makes all rocks float in mid air.

The flow of the argument is as such:

Theist presents claim for god and evidence supporting claim

Atheist presents refutation of evidence thus dismantling the claim

Theist acknowledges flaw with claim and gives up their claim for god

Of course this is not how it ever pans out. The argument is about belief. And belief does not always come from logic or reason.

[Az]

17. Not quite

Look at the words. A theist is a person who believes in god or gods. The prefix 'a' means without. Thus an atheist at their most basic is simply someone without a belief in god or gods.

The word gnostic means someone that knows a thing. To know. This is an absolute concept. Again the prefix 'a' meaning without means that an agnostic is simply someone that is without this level of knowledge. They do not know for absolute certain.

Arguments about the definitions of words aside a person simply does or does not believe in god at any given moment. They cannot be of two minds about it at that moment. They may be able to change their minds frequently or be very uncertain about what they believe. But if they do not believe in a god or gods then they are an atheist.

Belief and knowledge are two different things. One is binary in nature and the other a gradient. You cannot both believe in god and not believe in god. The concepts are by definition exclusionary. You can have a varying degree of certainty behind what you believe (with gnosticism being the extreme).

Now there are phrases within the atheist community for the various arguments and positions. Someone that claims there are absolutely no gods would be called a strong atheist. Someone that claims they do not believe in gods but does not claim to know for certain and maintains an open mind to any evidence would be called weak atheist. Of course human nature being what it is there are positions strewn all over the place between these guide posts.

[trotsky]

24. Very well said.

I have read many clarifications of strong/weak atheism, but that's got to be one of the best.

[outinforce]

30. Do I Have This Correct?

Thanks for your posts, Az.

I do have a question for you.

You say: "You can have a varying degree of certainty behind what you believe (with gnosticism being the extreme).

Now there are phrases within the atheist community for the various arguments and positions. Someone that claims there are absolutely no gods would be called a strong atheist."

I think I understand now.

Someone who professes certainty in the belief in a diety is, to use your word, "extreme".

But someone who professes that certainy in the belief that there are "
absolutely no gods" is not extreme -- just a "strong" atheist.

Is there any position within the atheist community that you would call "extreme"?

[Az]

48. Extremes

A gnostic position is a claim that you have absolute knowledge of an issue. In the case of theism/atheism a gnostic would be someone that had absolute knowledge of the existance/nonexistance of god. Both cases are tenuous at best. And both are logical extremes.

In the case of the theist they would have to have direct experience of god. While this is possible if there is a god the ability to relate this knowledge to others is flawed. Our view of their experience has to take into consideration the possibility of delusions and other mental aberations. Thus we cannot know whether they truly are gnostic on the subject or are deluded about the nature of their experience.

The gnostic atheist is more problematic. Someone claiming this position does not likely understand the logic of their stance. In order to be a gnostic atheist one would have to have absolute knowledge of the universe. This is the only way to have knowledge of the absense of something within the universe. This is a logically unsupportible position.

Of course the problem here is judging the validity of one's own position. Claimants of either extreme are often giving insite into their own need to believe their cases. A true gnostic of either extreme is virtually impossible to verify.

[outinforce]

54. Exactly

"Claimants of either extreme are often giving insite into their own need to believe their cases. A true gnostic of either extreme is virtually impossible to verify."

Both of the extremes that you mention -- the notion that someone is absolutely certain that there is a deity AND the notion that somoene is absolutely certain that there is no deity -- are impossible to verify.

They both must rely on faith.

[BiggJawn]

65. Guess I'm a "weak" Atheist then...

Because while I still hold that there is NO god, I will admit that I don't know for certain. I have no proof of NO god, anymore than a theist has proof OF a god.

How would an Atheist explain Creation? That's a good question, how would a Theist explain it WITHOUT relying on Genesis? Why should my thesis of "Random Chance" have any less creedence that a Theist's story about a omnipotent god "playing in his workshop"? I do wonder about that. How could things come together randomly to form a sunflower? What kind of mind could conceive of something as complex as a little finger, right down to the mitochondria in the muscles?

If I didn't have to waste so damn much time on the question of "What're we gonna do when Bush steals the White House AGAIN?" i might have more time to think about such things.

I do know, however, from personal experience and observation that, as has been said, "Nothing Fails like Prayer", so to me, this is a partial proof, if not of God's non-existence, then it's partial proof that the old boy has gone deaf and doesn't listen for us anymore. I seem to recall many more instances of Him talking to us in the old testament days.

[qb]

26. A-theism = Without god belief.

As an atheist, I don't claim to have any proof of non-existence of a god. I just can find no reason for believing in one. Unbelief is not some arrogant "I have all the answers" attitude, it is merely unbelief.

[DIKB]

29. The realization . . .

of the creation of God. This is what makes many jump the fence into atheism so to speak. When it dawns on someone that the mere concept of God is foolish, that omnipotence/omnipresence/omnibenevolence, that these concepts are ludicrous, they are summarily rejected.

I make no statement that there isn't something higher, I just reject the concept of the Judeo-christian God, or rather he contradicts himself with his own word and actions, or lack thereof. Which leads to the conclusion that either he doesn't exist, or he is a lunatic, and not in any way worthy of our worship.

I like the idea of a higher Force/Energy/Order, but I refuse to characterize it as a God with intentions. That in some ways would belittle it. "God" is the personalization and limitation of that which is beyond our understanding.

Call me atheist, call me agnostic, I frankly don't care.

[BigMcLargehuge]

37. since it's impossible to prove a negative...

our non-belief stems from theists inability to prove the existence of their diety of choice. Its not that we actively seek to disbelieve, it's that we haven't seen anything to make us believe. Atheists are also unafraid to answer "I don't know" when presented with the question, "how did the universe come to be?" and "how did we get here?" But we cannot attribute that existence to any supernatural force because no verifyable evidence of that force, or that force's influence, can be shown to exist.

I am an atheist.

[outinforce]

41. What, To Your Way of Thinking...

What, to your way of thinking, distinguishes your notion of a deity from that of an agnostic?

[BigMcLargehuge]

77. agnostics do not "know" god

that is they don't purport to know whether or not God exists. Atheist do not purport to a belive in the existence of God. They say "I don't know, maybe," we say, "there is not evidence to support the existence of God, this no God exists."

[BillZBubb]

80. Maybe this will help you understand...

Atheists are like scientists in that they don't believe something until the weight of the evidence suggests it is so. Even then they still seek absolute proof. It is a different mindset from having faith.

Proof of negative existence is, in general, not possible. One cannot disprove the existence of God. That doesn't diminish the position of an atheist.

I do not believe you are a murderer. But, I cannot prove it.
I do not believe you are a Republican. But, I cannot prove it.
I do not believe you've ever met someone named Joe Banyansky, but I can't prove it.

All of these beliefs are probability based. To a very high degree, all are likely true. Just because I can't prove any of them doesn't change my belief. Give me contrary evidence and I will change my belief immediately.

So, the weigth of evidence is key here. There is NO evidence for the existence of God. There are things we do not yet understand, where God may have been involved, but it is more likely there are less exalted explanations. Historically that has been the undeniable trend--things attributed to one god or another have been shown to be of natural origin. That gives the weight of evidence exclusively to the atheist thus far. Ergo, their "faith" is much, much less speculative than a believer's.

[liberalhistorian]

144. Go to the Black Hills

in South Dakota, and I guarantee you'd find it hard to not believe in God!

[BillZBubb]

198. I've been to the Black Hills, so what?

Your point is?

[liberalhistorian]

211. If you really have to even ask,

then never mind!

[truthspeaker]

251. So you guarantee a certain reaction, but when it isn't forthcoming

you break off all discussion?

[Az]

254. I have seen many wonders in this world

I have watched clouds pour over the tops of Mountains like a flood crashing upon a plain. I have seen the harmony of humans and nature in wonderous places like Stratford. I have seen the deepest mysteries of space. In all these things I found beauty and wonder. But I did not find god in any of them.

In fact to me (this is just my opinion) the idea that some god just put these things there somehow diminishes their beauty. That we are able to percieve these things and that nature is capable of such things is a wonder and joy to me. But hey, thats just my take on it. Some people believed that Issac Newton destroyed the beauty of the Rainbow when he discovered its nature. They claimed he had unwoven the rainbow. To me it is as beautiful as ever and our understanding of its nature has lead us to discover even more beauty because of it.

[truthspeaker]

234. Been there, loved it, still don't believe in God

But I did feel a little sorrier that my country stole the land from the Lakota.

[JNelson6563]

114. Well it's simple, really.

Let us start with a clean slate. The natural state of a human coming into the world is of course as an unbeliever. They do not "believe" there is or isn't a god, the concept has not yet been introduced.

That is where it begins, with the assertion there is a god. Most accept this assertion unquestionably when very young. It is something most are told all their lives. It is usually later in life people would question this assertion they first heard long ago. They may re-examine what evidence there is that would back up the assertion. If they feel they do not find adequate evidence to support this claim it is a natural step to no longer believe it.

Julie

[datasuspect]

153. understanding . . .

for some people, it is impossible to believe something that is not real.

as an adult, i do not believe there is a santa claus.

i can explore the issue rationally, look for evidence that he exists, come up with some experiment to verify his capability to traverse all of christendom in ONE night to deliver presents . . . if the answers i come up with don't satisfy me, i can conclude that there is no santa claus.

this is not value loaded. i can have faith that santa exists, but this is simply a waste of time.

kinda like having faith that 500 dollars will magically appear in my checking account.

some people don't have faith. i know how hard it is for a believer to comprehend this, but an atheist deals with what is evident. god simply is not an issue, god is an absurdity. the trouble comes in having to deal with all these believers.

[outinforce]

168. I Never Felt Sorry for An Atheist

until now.

And I hope you will excuse me for assuming that you are an atheist.

I do know what you mean (or at least I accept on my own faith that I know what you mean) when you say, "for some people, it is impossible to believe something that is not real"

I believe in things like regret, love, anger, fear, and lust.

And yet I accept the fact that none of those things are real. I cannot touch them or feel them with my hands, or smell them, or taste them, or hear them. Like god, they are, in the end, simply abusrdities -- names given to things that people need to give names to and things which people foolishly believe are real, but things which do not really exist.

And, like god, the world would be such a much better place if people simply acknowleged the fact that things like regret, love, anger, fear, and lust are not real and, since they are not real, no one should ever act based on these foolish, non-existent non-things.

But that is not why I feel sorry.

I feel sorry that anyone would ever say something like this:

"the trouble comes in having to deal with all these believers."

In my view, anyone who holds such an opinion is worthy not of scorn, but of pity.

[BillZBubb]

206. Wrong, Wrong, Wrong!

Regret, love, anger, fear, and lust are very real. They are just as real as a rock, water, the earth. Do you believe that when you are angry, it's not REAL? I know emotions are real and it can be verified experimentally. Trying to equate belief in human emotions with a belief in God is preposterous.

Your argument is without merit.

As for dealing with believers, I think the statement needs modification: The trouble comes with having to deal with fundamentalists of any religion.

[outinforce]

233. Wrong? Wrong?? Wrong?????

"Regret, love, anger fear, and lust are very real. They are just as real as a rock, water, the earth."

Really?

I can at least one of my five senses -- touch, smell, hearing, sight, and taste -- to know the reality of a rock or water or the earth.

I have never touched, smelled, tasted, heard, or seen love, anger, fear, or lust.

So how is it, exactly, that love and the rest are "just as real" as a rock?

I think I am correct when I say that emotions cannot, in fact, be verified experimentally. What can be verified experimentally as a persons's reactions to stimuli. But that does not verify emotions, it merelt verified that people have certain physical reactions to outside stimuli.

YOu say that trying to equate belief in human emotions with a belief in God is "preposterous".

I disagree. I know of several people whose belief in God is based upon what they say God has done in their lives. In other words, they say that the demonstrable reaction they say that they have had to God proves the existence of God.

If you wish to suggest that the demonstrable reactions that people have to things you call love, anger, lust, and fear prove the exiastence of love, anger, lust, and fear, then how would you respond to people who say that their own changed lives proves that God exists?

[Az]

237. Your argument is flawed

Emotions are a demonstrable aspect of human nature. We may have to resort to indirect means of understanding them in a clinical sense. But this does not preclude us from both experiencing them and describing them as a real phenomena.

There is nothing to indicate that god exists because someone feels it. In fact there are studies and experiments that have demonstrated that the feeling of communing with god can be created in a laboratory. Studies at the University of California on epyleptics has shown that various locations in the brain can be shorted out leaving the brain incapable of identifying itself. This state of mind leaves the brain functioning but incapable of identifying where the stream of consciousness is coming from. Learned cultural definitions are applied to this percieved communication and thus people believe they are in communion with god.

This state of mind can be entered into by a number of means. Meditation, drugs, sex, physical exertion, starvation, dehydration, nearly any disruption to the normal function of the brain can trigger this kind of experience. The study was initiated on epyletpics because they reported having an excess occurrece of these "Religious" experiences.

Thus, it is demonstrable that people experience emotions. It is demonstrable that these emotions can be correlated with neurological activity. It can be demonstrated that people claim to experience communion with god. There is no evidence to suggest that god exists and it can be demonstrated that these experiences can be created in lab conditions. This is by no means a refutation of god. But it certainly does indicate that perhaps the experiences associated with some aspects of god can be explained through natural occurrence.

[pop goes the weasel]

221. proof of non-existence is impossible

To be an atheist, all one needs is to see that there is no proof of god's existence. I don't believe in god in the same way that I did not believe in WMD in Iraq--no proof of existence. Could there have been WMD in Iraq? There was the off-chance, but there was no proof. What about god? Again, an off chance, but no proof.

The big difference between believers and non-believers (atheists and agnostics both) is that believers tolerate a much lower standard of factual evidence than to non-believers. I can't believe in a deity based on someone else's feelings. And believers come down to basing their belief on emotional experiences, which they insist is all the proof they need. And thus there will always be believers and non-believers, with the believers thinking that the non-believers are having whatever emotional experience they are having but rejecting it, and non-believers thinking the believers are suffering from delusions. People don't generally switch from one to the other based on reasoning, but on emotional, or lack of emotional, experience.

[Az]

224. Smurfs

Prove they don't exist. Personally I am an asmurfist.

[IrateCitizen]

7. It's a predictable evolution from Western enlightenment thought

If you have ever listened or saw Bill Moyers' series with Joseph Campbell titled "The Power of Myth", you might understand what I'm talking about a little more easily, but I'll try to sum it up in a short post.

Human beings created myths in order to explain the unknown around them. These myths took different forms in different cultures. For instance, in Native American cultures, animals and the earth were basically seen to be the same as "God", and were sacred. According to the Abrahamic traditions, nature was separate from God and man -- it could even be said was AGAINST God and man -- and this meant that people following these traditions would have a much different approach toward the world around them.

I don't know enough about Eastern religions and philosophies to comment too much, outside of the fact that they seem to much more acknowledge the idea that man is part of nature, rather than separate from it.

The enlightenment threw all of these myths for a loop, because it placed SCIENCE rather than RELIGION in emphasis. Over time, we have become able to explain nearly everything we see in our earth and universe through scientific means -- and even many things that we CANNOT see. As such, it means that we no longer need these myths -- and therefore, many feel that they no longer need the traditions and trappings of religion.

I'm a Unitarian Universalist, and I have many atheists in my congregation. But atheism does nothing for me personally, because it does nothing to help give me a sense of meaning. And, IMHO, that is the source from which all of these "myths" have sprung, and the thing that separates us from the rest of the species on earth -- our need for a sense of "meaning" in the greater world around us.

It is quite possible to have both science AND spirituality/religion. I find it short-sighted to focus on only one at the exclusion of the other, no matter which side you are speaking of (atheists or fundamentalists).

[Spentastic]

8. I like it

Suits me fine.

[trotsky]

9. My thoughts are all positive.

Atheism finally made me feel complete. Odd, isn't it? But not having to try and fit in this "god" (who never responded anyway) into a world where one isn't needed was just so refreshing.

The Internet has made a HUGE difference. Because of religious bigotry, it's not often publicly acceptable to just talk about it. But being online, with its relative degree of anonymity, has been such a boon for freethought. Oh, and the resources. I became an atheist when I knew the bible only had a couple of errors. Now I know the thing is chock full! Thank GOD for the Internet! ;-)

[pop goes the weasel]

227. me too

"Atheism finally made me feel complete. Odd, isn't it? But not having to try and fit in this "god" (who never responded anyway) into a world where one isn't needed was just so refreshing."

It was a huge relief to shake off religion, to no longer be trying to feel what I did not feel or think what I did not think. To be able to accept myself, in the words of the hymn, "just as I am, without one plea" and to do it without any "buts." No "blood shed for me," no mystical convolutions necessary to make me acceptable. What a relief.

[Catfight]

13. thank God I'm an atheist

Interesting observation, just this past weekend, I was talking politics with my father, we disagree on just about everything, except, religion. He is your typical Italian, Catholic bonehead, however, he said religion has been the downfall of society and society would be better off without it. I was amazed we agreed and proud for a moment to be his progeny..for a MOMENT!LOL
As a seeker of truth and meaning in life myself, I have gone through the "I needed to be saved" to get to heaven, to questioning the existence of God because a true God would never allow such atrocities and unbalance to exist in reality. I think society can see that history has proven the dangers of religion and the hypocrisy of it. I think as I've gotten older, life tends to take on a different meaning, one in which I've become more philosophical in understanding nothing is going to save me from destiny, which is ultimately, death. Religion gives that hope for the beyond, but my mind was never satisfied with this illogical observation, to just believe. And because I witness such realities of hatred and oppression in the name of God, I turn away from the dichotomy of God being a loving God.
I would love to see an atheist President someday, because I believe in the Constitution and the ideas of it more so than any deity. But there has always been a perplexing concern for me regarding atheist, how can you claim to not believe in God when at the very same time you are acknowledging God's existence? If anyone was a true atheist, then the argument regarding God would not be necessary, it would be a non-arguement. That's like saying, I deny my own existence, when in fact, I've just acknowledged it by denying it. True atheist are people who've never heard of a God, therefore, they have nothing to not believe in or pounder. That's why I've always found it funny to say, "thank God I'm an atheist."

[RebelOne]

185. Amen to that.

[Ajoda]

14. I feel sorry for them

Sadly, most atheists I know have fallen into the trap of adopting a life without rules, thinking they are going to find freedom and fulfillment. What they don't realize is that rules are in place for a reason. They work! Beings a lot smarter than you or I thought them up, and it is a testament to their validity that they are still followed thousands of years later.
Sadly, these atheists who thought an undisciplined life would lead them to freedom find themselves imprisoned by the very consequences of a life without direction.
Rules apply to everyone whether you believe in them or not. Case in point, if you slip on a banana peel, whether or not you believe in the laws of gravity....you still fall on your bum just the same.

[mopaul]

18. gravity can be proven, god cannot

gravity is not a theory, and neither is evolution. god exists only theoretically, and cannot be proven to me, even though i exist

[Ajoda]

33. Prove that you exist.

Touche! (Pardon me if I snicker a tad. I am fairly well known for my rejoinders)

[mopaul]

38. i stink......therefore, i am

i know i'm sitting here right now, and i just posted here, so, i must actually exist huh? but now, you got me thinking....maybe i don't really exist afterall. i'm gonna need a few minutes alone now.

[dpibel]

303. Pride is a sin

And you must run in some very small circles.

[sangh0]

34. Gravity is theoretical

http://www.phy.ohiou.edu/~dutta/notes/node17.html

"Newton's theory of gravity is one of the most significant triumphs of scientific effort. Its predictions are vindicated by observations with extraordinary accuracy. When Adams in England and Le Verrier in France used the motion of Uranus to predict the existence of Neptune they were expressing the trust people have come to place on Newtonian gravitation as a very good approximation to reality. However as with any theory there are regimes where it is no longer applicable. For example the perihelion of Mercury is observed to precess at the rate of 43 arc-seconds every century. This ``fast'' precession cannot be explained by Newtonian gravitation. Another issue that came back to haunt Newton's theory of gravity was its ``action at a distance'' nature. Following the success of Maxwell's field theory of electromagnetic forces it was becoming increasingly necessary to find a similar field theory for gravitation. It was to meet this challenge that Einstein's theory of gravitation rose. It is an even better approximation to physical reality than Newton's theory, and reduces to Newton's theory when applied to the regime where Newton's theory is expected to work. Perhaps even more importantly it provides a geometric understanding of gravitation, which makes it more satisfying than the action at a distance nature of Newtonian gravitation. "

Science doesn't prove facts. Science proves theories.

[Guaranteed]

47. That's why it's called faith.

On edit: And, by the way, NO, gravity can not be "proven." Hume showed that it is entirely possible for one to imagine gravity not working, and one can not predict the future with knowledge a posteriori- so, therefore, one can not prove that gravity must be in effect tomorrow, or the next day.

[lapislzi]

22. A deity is not required for moral clarity

Rules should be followed because they are sensible and contribute to the well-being of society, not because a supernatural being issues an edict.

[DemExpat]

25. I go along with most of the basic values of the Ten Commnandments

as rules for society, as rules thought up by wise men for guidance.

But I certainly do not see religious rules as the only source of direction in this world!

DemEx

[The empressof all]

31. Must not know many atheists

Atheist as a group have a lower divorce rate and are the least likely to commit violent crime.

I think you need to do a little more research.

[Ajoda]

39. Lower divorce rates?

Could it be because most atheists don't bother getting married? Please don't throw out that red herring. It's insulting.

[Az]

51. To who

It is a true statistic. As is the lower percentage of atheists in prison per capita. Sorry if it bothers you. Atheists get a bit tired of having god rubbed in their noses as some sign of higher moral standards when we know full and well that we lead very moral lives ourselves.

These are some simple statistics concerning atheists:

Tend to have a higher income
Tend to have a higher level of education
Have a lower divorce rate as sampled by a percentage of those married
Have a lower per capita representation in prison population as compared to representation in society at large

Make of the numbers what you will. I make no claims based on them.

[liberalhistorian]

53. Excuse me??????????????

Where the hell would you get the notion that "most atheists don't bother getting married?" I'm a Christian, I know plenty of both Christians AND atheists, and there was an equal mix of both singles and marrieds in each group.

Atheists and agnostics marry at the same rates as any other group, including Christians. Christians do NOT have a lock on marriage, and fundies have a higher divorce rate than any other group in the country.

o please don't throw out that insult about how atheists and agnostics don't marry because they have no "morals", or crap like that. Marriage is just as much secular as it is religious.

[Ajoda]

70. Why would atheists embrace

a ceremony that is, as you say, equal parts religion and secularism? You're tripping over your own feet, honey. Saying atheists 'have a lower divorce rate' is like saying Minnesotans suffer fewer alligator attacks than Floridians. On the other hand, 'fundies', as you disparaging refer to certain Christians at least bother to get married instead of just shacking up. BTW, do you possibly have any evidence backing your claim about 'fundies'? I am curious how that derogatory term would be defined in any kind of research.

[The empressof all]

Oh Honey

My husband and I have been married for 19 years. I married him because I love him and we wanted to make statement of committment about our love. We were married by a judge and frankly don't recall God being mentioned at all. We have both been faithful and committed to each other throughout this time and I have every reason to believe will remain so until one of us dies.

May I suggest you brush up on what Jesus really preached by reading the Bible instead of listening to what other folks tell you to think.

My discussion with you is now over

God Bless

[apnu]

344. My wife and I did the same thing

We've been together for 10 years and we're both atheists. We had a ceremony to get her parents to quit bitching at us about getting married (mine are brain dead). That, and all the nice loot you get along with a marriage, having an arbitrary day to celebrate your love, have a laugh and a good party with friends and family and get stinking drunk while were having that laugh.

Nothing wrong with it, and there's no over hanging 3rd party to our marriage. We don't have to answer to anybody about our marriage but ourselves, and that makes my marriage stronger IMO.

[MissB]

87. Why on earth do you think that atheists

Need religion to get married? As an atheist, I can tell you that my dh and I were married in a non-religious ceremony. One does not need the word "God" to get married. I find it interesting that you have implied through your various posts that atheists are somehow immoral. Is that what you believe? I wouldn't want to make assumptions about your beliefs.

You haven't effectively refuted the statistics. Your own personal views on atheists show that you have a great deal to learn about them. Are you interested in learning about atheists, or just disparaging them?

[liberalhistorian]

101. Um, no, I did NOT

say that marriage is equal parts religion and secular, please do not put words in my mouth.

There is secular marriage and religious marriage. You can be married by a judge and that marriage is just as valid as if you were married by a pastor/rabbi/imam, etc., in a church setting. Many people who are married in a civil setting would not be able to be married in a church, and many people married in a church wouldn't want to be married in a civil setting, but that doesn't make either marriage any less valid.

And most atheists I know are married, not "shacked up." And are you really saying that it's better to be married to ANYONE, even if it's the wrong person, and end up divorced than to just be "shacked up" (which is very insulting to the innumerable couples, and I know several, who are far more devoted to each other than many married couples)?

Maybe that's why the divorce rate for evangelicals is statistically higher than for non-Christians (I don't have the link to the study and statistic handy, but I will try to find it. If anyone else has it, please post it). They get married just to get married, only it's to the wrong person. I used to attend an evangelical church, and I saw that happen all the time. And I'm a never-married single parent, if you're so keen on everyone in the world being married, you're welcome to try to find a husband for me if it bothers you that much.

And yes, I will most certainly call them "fundies", because these American Taliban fundamentalist extremist evangelicals have hijacked and are ruining my religion, and are trying to ruin this country as well. They want a theocratic dictatorship, fine, then they can go form their own country.

[muriel_volestrangler]

113. If you don't get married to someone

and then you split up, you're not breaking a solemn promise. To an atheist, this is a more moral way to behave than promising to stay married for your whole (joint) life, and then breaking that promise.
This is why the divorce rate is a very valid statistic - it is evidence of how trustworthy atheists and theists are.

You, on the other hand, seem to be advocating swearing before ones god that you'll stay together forever, even if you don't truly have that intent, just because you feel like a bit of rumpy-pumpy. Do you have a religion? If so, what's its position on breaking holy oaths?

[trotsky]

154. It's true. Atheists have lower divorce rates.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_dira.htm

Variation in divorce rates by religion:
Religion % have been divorced
Jews 30%
Born-again Christians 27%
Other Christians 24%
Atheists, Agnostics 21%

Ron Barrier, Spokespersonn for American Atheists remarked on these findings with some rather caustic comments against organized religion. He said: "These findings confirm what I have been saying these last five years. Since Atheist ethics are of a higher calibre than religious morals, it stands to reason that our families would be dedicated more to each other than to some invisible monitor in the sky. With Atheism, women and men are equally responsible for a healthy marriage. There is no room in Atheist ethics for the type of 'submissive' nonsense preached by Baptists and other Christian and/or Jewish groups. Atheists reject, and rightly so, the primitive patriarchal attitudes so prevalent in many religions with respect to marriage."

[Ajoda]

160. Duh? People call themselves whatever they want. Does it make it so?

My family's god resides in a salt shaker. There are 7 in my family. None of us has ever been imprisoned, divorced, or been convicted of even a misdemeanor. Therefore, my religion, the Saltshakarians, are more moral than antheists.
Retarded, isn't it?
But it mirrors this so-called 'research' perfectly

[muriel_volestrangler]

204. So you mean that we should assume

that 'Christians' are actually lying about believing, and atheists and agnostics are the honest people?

[Ajoda]

210. The better way to say it would be that

some who claim to be Christians are probably atheists in practice, just like a bunch of those folks who fill up our prisons.

[trotsky]

239. Amazing.

I had no idea that you possess the ability to know what a person truly thinks.

This is awesome - maybe I have the power, too?

I bet I do! Let me try it... "Any Christian who commits a crime is actually an atheist who is lying."

It worked!

[outinforce]

247. Simply Amazing!

I think I know exactly what you mean, trotsky.

I have had folks on other threads here on DU tell me what I truly think and how I truly feel.

I usually try, first, to compliment them on their amazing skill.

Then I aks how they acquired the skill, or if it was innate.

And I ask them how I, too, may acquire this skill.

For some reason, I often do not get any reply at all.

One person, though, apparently hit the alert button and had my post deleted -- I guess s/he figured it was some sort of personal attack.

I don't, for the life of me, understand.

I'll try to let you know, though, if in the future any of the people with this most remarkable skill share with me the secret for acquiring it.

[Ajoda]

250. Yep. That's probably the case more often than it's not.

I don't usually go by what inmates in prisons say. I generally go by their backgrounds and what can be shown. And from the research I was encouraged to perform by another member on this thread, I found that the average inmate serving time in our federal prisons has had no affiliation with religion, at least in terms of past attendance or verifiable membership. And since criminal actions are not consistent with the values of most religions including Christianity, I a great case can be made that these prisoners are closer to be atheists than not.

[MissB]

253. I'm sure you can provide a link to your research, then

Kudos to the person who encouraged you to do the research. Since you've probably just completed the research, how about sharing the link?

[Ajoda]

260. I don't do people's homework for them,

sweets. I explain why on post #256.

[MissB]

287. What homework?

You claim to have read some studies, and yet you won't link to those studies when requested. That rather leads one to believe that you have found no studies to back up your assertions.

Avoidance isn't the best tactic. Perhaps you could just admit that there are no studies that prove your assertions?

[Az]

259. Um, atheism tells you nothing about their value system

You know nothing about a persons moral compass if you only know that they are an atheist. Just as you know nothing about a person's morality based on just knowing that they are a theist.

Atheism is not a philosophy. It is not a group. It is not a religion. It is not a society. It is just a singular peace of information about one aspect of a person's belief set. And it is only interesting because of the presense of a mutlitude of theists in this world. If there were few or no theists then there would be no need to designate ourselves as atheists. An atheist in its simplest sense simply tells you that the person is not a theist.

Buddhists are generally atheists.

Taoists are atheists.

Unitarian Universalists can be atheists.

Secular Humanists are atheists.

You need to know more about a person to determine what their moral foundations are based on. You cannot simply dismiss them based on one factor.

[trotsky]

277. Actually, your position is demolished by one simple fact.

As a population, the U.S. is much more religious than any of the European secular democracies. And yet we have incarceration rates much higher than they do.

How do you explain that? Are all the atheists in Europe really just Christians who are lying?

[MissB]

288. That must be it

;)

[trotsky]

279. Look up the "No true Scotsman" fallacy sometime.

I think you would find it enlightening.

[Az]

296. Its all about the quiche

No true Scotsman would eat Quiche.

[Az]

32. Direction

I have never met an atheist that thought that the world would blossom with purpose and direction for them once they shed their belief in god. Most I know see their freedom as laden with responsibility. They do not see this as the burden you seem to believe it to be. They see it as part of their humanity. That they can determine what is meaningful to them. They have to strive to build the society that they can thrive in along with others.

As to abiding by rules I am sure you will be hard pressed to find an atheist that does not recognise the laws of nature. It is the imaginary laws of god that they reject. That some coincide with the moral concepts that they adopt is not to be suprising. Religions have had centuries to evolve. If they did not get some of the rules right they simply would not have survived.

[muriel_volestrangler]

52. Do you mean that gods were necessary

so someone clever invented them a long time ago?

What if you think you've seen through the invention? Are you just meant to still claim to believe, to encourage others to? Since that would be deceitful, which is against most religious moral codes, is this a situation where you're meant to hold yourself above the moral codes you want others to follow?

[qb]

58. Do you follow ALL of the rules in your holy book?

Or just the ones that make sense in this day and age?

Humans have the capacity to set their own rules and codes of ethics.

I get tired of seeing atheists repeatedly slandered in the media because without religioun they must be incapable of distinguishing between ethical and unethical behavior.

[BigMcLargehuge]

75. what makes you think atheist live life without rules or direction?

your statement is simply idiotic. To assert that only those with a belief in a diety can live fulfilling or law abiding lives is absolutely silly. The fact that the "rules" you describe are old does not in any way suggest that they are of extra-natural or extra-terrestrial origin. They are the product of groups of dissimilar people living in a confined space. The fact that men like Hammurabi attribute the laws of Babylon as handed down by Ishtar in no way proves that they weren't anything but a creation of his assessment of society's need at that time.

Do a little research and see how many Atheists reside in American prisons, how many are murderers, how many are dictators, and I think you'll find that throughout history Atheists have proven that they can and do often work for the betterment of mankind rather than self aggrandizement or simply to appeal to the good side of a chosen diety.

[Ajoda]

115. You ask me to do research on atheists

Tell me how you would define an atheist? Or a Christian? Do you rely on what people say about their beliefs? Is that the basis for 'research' that you want me to do? My feeling is that someone's adherence to religion is more recognizable by what they do, rather than their words. Hitler claimed to be a Christian, yet did his deeds reflect the teachings of any religion?
You want me to research prisoners? OK. The average prisoner is black, dropped out of school at age 14, and was reared in no religious tradition. I would contend this is more in line with an atheistic belief system. Or are you basing your claim on what prisoners say they believe? Do you define an 'atheist' as one who actively denies the existence of God, and everyone else is religious by default? I suspect these prisoners think that saying they are believers in God sounds better to the interviewer. I suspect many of them don't have any thoughts about God at all, one way or the other.
How could you possibly have reliable research to back your claims about atheists?

[BigMcLargehuge]

136. uh... simple

Atheist = person without belief inexistence of God(s)
Christian = person with belief in God as set down in the Bible (old and new testament) and the character and history of Jesus Christ as recorded in the New Testament.

I agree, any asshole can say anything about their belief if they think it will help them win friends and influence people, particularly in prison where "faith based" seems to be the chosen method of non-governmentally imposed reform.

You still haven't addressed my initial point, that your argument is stupid.

[FlaGranny]

78. I REALLY have to disagree with THAT statement

"most atheists I know have fallen into the trap of adopting a life without rules" - that is totally untrue. My atheist rules have prevented me from stealing, killing, or harming others in any way, they make me respect the earth, her resources, and her animal and plant life. My rules make me honest and ethical. They make me respect the ideas and lifestyles of others. I could go on and on. I do know some people who call themselves Christians who could not hold a candle to my values. Thank you.

Edit: I agree with the person above - we have always been here, but we only feel free to admit disbelief in god on this faceless internet. In fact, most people I know think I'm a Christian, because of my values and my ability to expound on the views of Jesus. I don't lie about it, I just don't come out and say I'm an atheist.

[Vladimir]

82. What rules are followed?

all of morality is a social construct, changing as humanity changes over time. And us Marxists have a direction in life without god anyway...

V

[MissB]

95. Which rules are you talking about, exactly?

Our society has plenty of rules. As an atheist, I have to say that I have yet to meet another atheist that appears to be living a life without rules. Many of them are the most fulfilled people that I have come across.

Expand on which rules you feel these poor atheists are not following.

[Ajoda]

155. I would have to say the biggest one is probably sex outside marriage

I don't think I have ever met an antheist who followed the time-proven rule that sex outside of marriage is destructive to the individual and to society as a whole.
People seem unable to see the truth of this basic edict. So, they often take the easier route. In order to be able to do as they please without feeling hypocritical, they'll just say they don't believe in the being that made these inconvenient rule.
And as I said before, whether or not you say you believe in a law, if it is violated, you suffer the undeniable consequences just the same.
BTW, all you atheists who think sex outside of marriage is not OK, please raise your hands.
No one? That's what I thought.
Point made.

[trotsky]

156. How many Christians don't follow that rule?

Surely you're not so naive as to think they all do?

[muriel_volestrangler]

165. What is your proof that it's destructive?

Why is having sex with precisely one person until they die a good thing? Why is forcing them to promise the same thing good? Remember there is a thing called contraception.

Would you think that dancing should be restricted to only one person for life?

[MissB]

170. And this is a rule in society?

Or in your religion?

You seem to be ignoring the history of marriage throughout the world, while only taking into account your judeo-christian viewpoint on marriage.

I've known far too many religious people - from conservative Christians to Jews to Catholics - who found that pre-marital sex wasn't a self-destructive act. I've been sitting here trying to figure out which of my many religious friends have contributed to the destruction of society by having pre-marital sex.

So, again, which rules are you talking about?

[Ajoda]

215. Yes it is a rule of society

simply because society feels the negative effects when it is violated over and over again. See, rules regarding human nature may be presented by religion, but they are applicable to all people whether they like it or not.
Study after study shows that relationships in which premarital sex was practiced, generally do not last beyond five years. If there are children involved, think of the devastating consequences for them...lacking of security, less supervision. Sexual activity outside of marriage implies a commitment that hasn't been made, so that when the inevitable breakup occurs, one or both partners will feel betrayed. Then there is the situation of the neglected children takingt heir anger and feelings of betrayal out on society through crime perhaps, or further propagation of destruction onto others' lives due to the poor example set for them by their parents.
I hope the answer is sufficently clear so you won't feel the need once again, to ask, "What rules?" These are your rules and my rules because we all are affected when they are violated. The only question is whether one has the maturity to realize it.

[MissB]

218. Which studies?

You are quoting them, so now it is time to produce them.

You are seeing the effects of pre-marital sex through the construct of your religion. After years of being told that pre-marital sex is bad, you cannot imagine that it isn't destructive to society, can you?

I'd like to see the long-term studies that show children that are products of pre-marital sex lack security, are neglected and resort to crime.

I will ask again- what rules are you talking about, other than your pseudo-religious argument of "no pre-marital sex"? Is this the only rule that you can think of? It isn't a good example of a rule that atheists ignore, as it is a concept (not a rule) which both religious and non-religious people do not follow.

So what rules do atheists not follow, exactly?

[Ajoda]

256. Oh, I get it

I get the game you are playing because I have seen it so many times before. Let me give you the progression: You ask a question for which you want no answer. I answer it and refer to verifiable studies. You say the answer doesn't satisfy, then repeat it. I provide a specific source, then find fault with the source, citing some sort of mysterious religious bias. I've been through it before, honey. You don't want proof. You just want to hang onto your prejudices. So here's what I'll do for you. It will save us each about four posts: Since I am not in the business of doing people's homework for them, I'll invite your to make use of the Google search engine, type in the appropriate keywords, then read all the research for yourself.

So you ask what rules atheists DO follow? Simple. They don't follow any rule they find inconvenient that doesn't have immediate tangible consequences. They don't think that far ahead. Typically something bad has happened to them, then they blame God for all their troubles, instead of taking personal responsibility. Then they decide they can deny God altogether and VOILA! They can do what they please AND not have to feel guilty. What a great system! That is, until the laws of human nature kick in, and their faux world comes a-tumbling down upon them. Then, guess what! It's the fault of the religious people who 'dominate' the world.

[Az]

264. Wow

Ok, did you talk to any atheists to find out what they base their ethics on? Or are you just presuming? Are you aware of the many ethical systems that are not predicated on the existance of a god? Or are you just uninformed? Are you aware that you are demonstrating exactly the kind of oppression and dismissiveness that you claim does not exist?

Consider this. An atheist has to think about their actions. They see themself and the society around them as the basis upon which to base their descisions. Thus we must think not just about conforming to the letter of some code. Instead we must consider the ramifications of our actions. Not just for ourselves but also for the society about us. We do not live in a vacuum.

Meanwhile a by-the-bible theist does not have to consider their actions. They simply follow a code. They are devoid of any consideration of consequence or harm they may bring to another. As long as they follow the book they believe that are good.

You tell me which system is more moral.

[MissB]

286. You are playing the game and not very well

You claim to have studies.

Put up. Back up your assertion. Otherwise you look like a fool who does not know his/her stuff. You claim to have verifiable studies, and yet you do not provide the links.

Clearly you haven't done the research, otherwise you would have provided the links you claim to have found. It isn't terribly hard to provide a link to a study, if you have found one. It is hard to provide a link if you have not found one.

I have asked several times for links to the studies that you claim to have read - and now you are dancing around the issue. I am quite clear here - I would love to see what studies you have found that prove your assertion.

Your knowledge of atheism and atheists reveals a great deal of fear.

[MissB]

289. I guess since I was replying to someone who is tombstoned

I shouldn't wait for an answer.

[muriel_volestrangler]

219. You assume the creation of children for most of your argument

which has been outdated for 40 years since contraception became common.

A feeling of betrayal may or may not arise when people break up. But personal betrayal happens all the time, and doesn't affect society; for example, parents who tell their children that Santa Claus exists often induce a feeling of betrayal in them. Please try to understand that your personal rules are not accepted by everyone, just as your own feelings are not universal.

[Ajoda]

270. True, many do not accept these rules

until they get hammered over the head as the result of violating them.
Sadly, even then, many don't get the picture.

[muriel_volestrangler]

284. Are you saying you're going to hammer

someone over the head for not accepting your personal rules?

How rude and unthinking. Please talk to more people, both religious and atheistic, and try to understand them. You may find your life more enjoyable as a result.

[Az]

223. Stress and a changing society

At one time slavery was considered normal. Women were chatel. Children were expendable. These concepts are now monsterous. But the change the society underwent in awakening to these issues was not instantaneous or easy.

We are an evolving and learning society. Sometimes we learn things about our nature that change the course of society. The trouble is that society does not react well to change. This is because society evolves and adapts over time and develops a delicate balance. Thus when we awaken to some issue that is inherantly wrong but socially effective we institute policies of change which unbalance the system.

It is wrong to enslave people. But freeing the slaves devestated the South's economy and social structure. The change had to be made but there is a cost.

Marriage used to be a permenant condition. But the realization that some relationships were just unworkable awoke us to the necessity of allowing people to severe their vows.

A new balance has to be found. But our society continues to learn. As we learn more we must take responsibility for our society more and take over what simply evolved previously.

[stopbush]

214. So, when Lot fucked his two daughters,

thereby engaging not only in extra-maritial sex, but incest, was the rule temporarily suspended? How about those two bastard kids he had 9 months later?

How about Solomon's concubines? All 300 of 'em. That's a helluva lot of screwing for one guy! Was sex with them also played under suspended rules?

[cheezus]

96. I feel sorry for theists who need to follow rules

instead of being able to make sense of life on their own.

I understand that these Rules and the concept of an all powerful being are comforting to many people, and there are probably atheists who would benefit from this.

But most athiests I know are highly moral and self aware. Please don't assume that everyone needs the some constructs that you do.

[stopbush]

190. You should try it before you diss it.

Free yourself from the shackles of religion! Find discipline within yourself. Celebrate the marvel that is humanity. Worry about yourself and leave me alone.

And where, exactly, did you come up with this "rules" idea? What rules are you talking about? Biblical rules - like the "rule" that people who get divorced are worthy of death? The "rule" that it's an "abomination" to wear poly-fabric clothing? How about the rules of physics? Do they apply, or did the Earth really stand still for an entire day?

Faith = the ability to believe in the myth when all evidence has disproved the same.

FIG = fear, ignorance & guilt. The touchstones of many religions.

[RebelOne]

192. What do you mean, a life without rules?

You are sadly mistaken. I believe in rules and laws. I even believe in what the 10 commandments say, do not kill, do not steal, etc., even though I do not believe in the myth that supposedly wrote that. And I feel sorry for you. Believers have the hope that when they die, there is an afterlife. Well, I'm sorry that you are so disillusioned. Atheists know that when they die, they are only going one place -- 6 feet under.

[Ajoda]

265. Wow, and you feel sorry for me?

"Atheists know that when they die, they are only going one place -- 6 feet under."

What an optimistic thought! No wonder you people are so cheerful and positive in here.

Two words on your quote: Prove it.

[Az]

274. You first

:D

There is honestly something to be said for being freed to ask questiosn. There certainly are believers that feel this freedom as well. But religion itself would prefer you not to ask questions. Martin Luther himself even suggested that reason is the greatest enemy of faith.

Unfortunately this subject is rife with semantic land mines. Whether one side or the other knows the truth is the very question at hand. Unfortunately when we speak of things we believe we tend to use words conveying our expectations. We are not well briefed on the semantics of these arguments and thus when someone claims they know something they may be simply expressing their expectations.

So from the point of view of an atheist a particularly religious theist is burdened with a sometimes oppressive delusional belief system. For those that have shed such a belief system the sense of freedom and awareness is quite astounding. It can be difficult to look back at their old way of thinking without reacting negative to it. Like Plato's allegory of the cave. Once made aware that all they once knew were shadows the freed seek to free the others and are amazed at their inability to see their own shackles.

[dpibel]

305. "Most atheists I know"

edited to follow the rule "i before e except after c, and when sounded like a as in neighbor and weigh. and also atheist."

Which would be about how many?

I don't know any atheists who have "adopted a life without rules." Are you sure you didn't just hear that somewhere on Sunday morning?

You are aware, are you not, that rule-free existence is not the norm anywhere, even amongst people who don't believe in the existence of the Christian god?

I suppose you could say that you're just talking about "beings" and not that particular god at all. But why posit "beings" as the source of rules to live by. Given that most of the basic rules people follow seem to be pretty much the same (don't kill other people; don't take other people's stuff; be kind and generous), wouldn't it make more sense to believe that there are certain species-protective norms that might gain some legitimization through ascribing them to communication with a diety, but which actually are more or less instinctual?

You can prove that all human beings live by rules. You can prove that those rules to contain common elements. You can't prove, or even offer any evidence for, the proposition that those rules were dictated by invisible beings.

[qb]

15. Thanks to Marie Castle, atheists have a permanent home in MN.

http://www.atheistsforhumanrights.org/highlites.htm#apr1

<snip
At Last! A Hub of Atheist Activism -- Our Own Facility!

It's a geodesic dome, a structure designed by the late Buckminster Fuller, an atheist. Domes are uniquely adaptable for use as residential, commercial and industrial facilities. This one is owned by Marie Castle, who is renovating the lower level for the exclusive use of atheism to provide a reliable, spacious place to meet. (She will NOT be applying for any tax benefit from this.) The facility is barrier-free and our proposed use is in compliance with all zoning regulations.
<snip

I've been an atheist since my college years, when a class on Hans Kung's "On Being A Christian" (Christian Apologist) apologized me all the way to unbelief. A critical examination of beliefs I'd held unquestioningly since childhood caused them to fall away like autumn leaves.

Now I am happily free of the ever-scrutinizing eye in the sky I had imagined up until then. Now I only wish AssKKKroft was a figment of my imagination.

[DemExpat]

16. I have no problem whatsoever with atheism....

being non-religious but a believer in spirituality of some sort. I never call myself an atheist, but you might, as you state above that "many are compassionate and even spiritual".....

I would never try to convince atheists or religious folk to my way of thinking/believing, and I highly resent atheists or religious people trying to convert me or others.....To each his own!

That is why I also see a goal at the top of my list as being a very strict and reinforced separation of church and state.

DemEx

[THUNDER HANDS]

19. is there a term for people who just don't think about religion?

I mean, not that they don't believe in God, or that they say they don't know - but just rather that they don't care one way or the other?

I mean, as long as God is going to be a behind-the-scenes sort of god, there's really no point in getting worked up about it is there. When we die we'll find out what all the fuss is about.

[Kazak]

20. I'm uncomfortable with the idea of...

defining one self based on what he/she does not believe. To the end I identify myself as a Naturalist as I essentially believe that God and Nature are equivalent. BTW, I'm a lifelong UU.

[lapislzi]

27. I'm one

Beleaguered and considered quite the oddity in my family. People think that I'm just kidding around or "I really believe but don't know it." It's not a phase, folks! I'm 42!

If it turns out I'm wrong, I'll be pleasantly surprised (but I don't think I'm wrong).

[Sabriel]

91. Atheism = passing phase in my family

I can relate to lapislzi's comment. My parents think my claims of atheism are just something I'm dabbling in...a passing fad. Well, it's been almost 39 years, so I can't see it "passing" any time soon. Why is it that a lot of people don't take atheists seriously, but no one would dare think of saying something similar to me if I "claimed" to be Episcopalian? It can be REALLY annoying, particularly coming from those I love and respect.

[muriel_volestrangler]

125. If you're 42, then you are at the age

to know the Answer to Life, the Universe, and Everything. ;-)

[Ready4Change]

138. Hey, and I'm only 41

And just this morning I figured out how we can determine what existed before the big bang. So I'm on track for my 42nd year all knowingness!

[liberalhistorian]

28. As a liberal Christian, I think that

if there are, indeed, more atheists now than in the past it may very well be due to the extremism and fundamentalism of organized religion, particularly the wingnut fundies, or "American Taliban."

Or they just may be more comfortable expressing their atheism, who knows. Either way, I have no problem with atheism if they don't have a problem with me practicing my own religion. Most atheists I know don't have a problem with that, but there are several who will put me down and belittle me just because I am a Christian, and I don't appreciate that. We both have the right to believe whatever we want (and atheism is a form of belief in itself), and just leave it at that.

And I certainly understand their resentment at having other people's religions shoved down their throats and codified in laws governing them, as well as being told that they must be amoral, immoral, inhumane, evil beings simply because they don't believe in God.

I've known many atheists who were far more moral and humane than many of those who claimed to be Christian or devotees of other religions. Then again, I've met atheists who didn't care about anyone or anything but themselves, but you'll find that type of person everywhere and in all religions. Live and let live, I say.

[daa]

35. A wise person once told me

That to go through life believing in God and it turns out there isn't one, you lose nothing.

If you go through life NOT believing in God and in the end there is a God, you are in deeeeeeeeeeeeep shit!!!

[DemExpat]

44. Or you are welcomed as a lost lamb into the fold by the benevolent

Father.....:-)

DemEx

[DIKB]

46. That's not wisdom.

That's a baseless appeal to FEAR.

Believe in a benevolent loving God, or BURN FOREVER !!!! MUAHAHAHAHA

[Az]

56. That is called Pascal's Wager

And it is flawed. What if god is a big monster and you get sent to a very bad place if you buy into the lies spun about him. What if you are believing in the wrong god? What if etc. The possibility of a multitude of gods means that the wager is erronious. In fact when you include the possibility of other gods, each with their own criteria, the odds sway to a noncommital nontheist position being favored.

[Waistdeep]

57. That wise person

was handing down an argument made by Blaise Pascal (1623-1662). For an interesting discussion of the weakness of this argument, see http://www.update.uu.se/~fbendz/nogod/pascal.htm

[qb]

69. Supposing there is a vindictive god who would subject unbelievers

to eternal torment - Sounds more like a devil to me.

[outinforce]

86. My Understanding Is This

I may not have the theology completely correct, but several people I know who do profess belief in God tell me that their understanding of God is that he holds human beings in awfully high regard.

These folks go on to tell me that God holds human beings in such high regard that he honors the choice that each inidividual makes regarding whether any individual decides to return the love that (they say) God has shown to that individual.

So, if an individual chooses to live his or her life without God, God will accept and honor that choice (much as it breaks his heart, these folks tell me).

In fact, these same folks tell me, God honors that choice after death.

They tell me that he compels no one to live with him in heaven after they die. And, much as it breaks his heart, if someone has chosen to live without God, he honors that choice and allows them to spend eternity without him. That is what these folks refer top as hell.

[qb]

108. Cool! Thanks for the info.

[Az]

132. And some people's understanding is

That only 144,000 celibate descendants of the original tribes of Judea are going to heaven. Thats the trouble with god. All we know about him/her/it is what other people have told us.

[cheezus]

99. ah, but which god?

better play it safe and worship them all eh?

but wait, some of them forbid that

well, either way you're in deeeeeeeeeeep shit

[FlaGranny]

100. I can't get my mind around that second sentence.

If there were a God and he were compassionate, how could you be in deep shit if you didn't believe in him? Would a good and compassionate god send you to hell even though you lived your life well? And if god is not compassionate, why would you want to spend eternity with him/her, while watching some of your dearest relatives and friends be sent to hell to suffer through all eternity?

That does not compute.

[datasuspect]

159. jeez

i wouldn't WANT to believe in a deity that couldn't face me or show me he exists and then would want to punish me for being human; viz., being curious, asking questions, or otherwise expressing fundamental human liberty.

and if there is a god, heaven or hell, then send me to hell . . . heaven would probably be too full of christians anyway. lord knows how baneful many of them are here on earth, i don't think i could spend eternity with a bunch of them.

[Warpy]

40. "I'm not religious"

...used to be the code we'd use in the 1950s and early 1960s when the country was rabidly against that godless communism and belief in a sky god was proof of the innate superiority of Americans. We were always here. We haven't always spoken up so clearly.

I was 10 when I realized there really wasn't anybody on the other end of that prayer line. I read my way through theology in my early teens, wondering if I'd missed anything. Zen koans made some sense, the rest of it did not, and ritual seemed like a colossal waste of time and energy. Whatever it takes to be a religious person is simply something I do not possess.

Religious people are always horribly shocked when they slam atheists as subhuman and I speak up and own it. I guess they can't conceive of an ethical person who isn't being scared into ethical behavior by the threat of hellfire and damnation. In any case, it's what I am, and they need to cope, and most of them do.

Just don't try to tell me atheism is a religion. It isn't. There is no holy book, no codified system of unbelief, no liturgy, no temple, no body of bad hymnal music. It is just a reflection of a part of some humans' experience we don't share. Some may find that sad. A lot of us find it liberating.

[DemExpat]

49. Well said.....and similar experiences to mine...I was 11 when

I discovered that I could not remain part of the "charade" as I saw it....

I also practiced Zen meditation for 3 years in early adulthood, and checked out the Unitarian Universalists here.

DemEx

[Guaranteed]

42. Oh yes. I remember hearing about these posts. nt

[napsi]

50. In my opinion

it is the height of arrogance to believe we just happened by accident. I can't give you any science or any statistical data to support my belief that God created us. I just know how I feel and what I see. If all the world around us happened by accident.....what are we doing here and what is our purpose?

[The empressof all]

60. Enjoy your belief

But perhaps we are just a happy accident of serendipity- Why is it necessary to have a purpose.

When I do think about religion I sometimes think that we are the manner in which God if she exists manifests consciousness.

[trotsky]

66. In my opinion

it's the height of arrogance to think that everything - animals, plants, the world, the universe - was all created just for humankind. Because that's the creation story: everything was put in place for the "pinnacle" of God's creation, man.

[Guaranteed]

68. Excellent questions.

It's about faith. Most, on both sides of this issue, don't realize that none of this has anything to do with the Bible or religion or the Ten Commandments etc. etc.

For me, it's just "Everything's gonna be alright." And while I have nothing to prove that beyond any doubt, I know that more than anything to be true.

[BigMcLargehuge]

79. I think it's the height of naivete to believe that we had to be

created.

What are we doing here: breeding.
What is our purpose: to breed.

Just like every other life form on the planet.

[The empressof all]

112. On second thought

I think my purpose for being here is to eat chocolate :}

[BigMcLargehuge]

147. you may be onto something there

mmmmmmmm chocolate.

[Kolesar]

55. Didn't you storm out of DU and quit on account of your religion threads?

One thing that struck me was that most of the peace marches I attended last year started in a Christian church. That makes it hard for me to disrespect religion now. This is a difficult issue for a skeptic. A lot of believers are really nice people.

[mopaul]

61. yes

i stormed out for a while. religious fanatics are overtaking our government, and sometimes i get a little bent out of shape over it.
my mother, brother, and father, have become insane over jesus, and i'm just trying to spread a little equity.

but i came back, after the ban on discussing religion was lifted.
i believe in freedom of religion, it's american. but i don't believe speaking out against religion's negative aspects should get one locked out of the discussions.

[Guaranteed]

71. Alright...so...how many of these posts do we have to look

forward to? :)

[mopaul]

73. & the 'what are your thoughts on christianity?' thread.....

my thread is merely here to counteract that one. how many of those do we have to suffer through?

[Guaranteed]

76. LOL I hear ya nt

[Az]

63. And

A lot of nonbelievers are really nice people too. I don't think anyone here is saying that if you harbor a belief in a god of some sort you are a horrible person.

The trouble is that much of society sees atheists as horrible people. We don't like that. We get upset about it. We don't like being shut in the closet any more than any other group does.

Civility would probably be a lot easier if there were a few more believers defending us from the hostility of other believers. But as it is, we tend to see ourselves as being alone out here. Meanwhile clergy and politicians score points by picking on atheists. So yeah, sometimes we get a little feisty.

[Kolesar]

85. Here's what you ought to do

I saw the Cspan teleconference of the launch of the "Godless Americans PAC". You can read their summary at www.godlessamericans.org . They are going to create an organization to establish a place for all sorts of nonbelievers in the US political system. Nonbelievers have a lot going for them in their arguements.

What you ought to do is get some handouts or similar materials from them and host a booth at a local fair. I would think a college campus would be great, because young minds are open. Rent a booth, get a sunhat, and spend the day talking to anybody who stops by. You are not going to change the town overnight, but you are going to get a message to people that if they choose not to believe, they have a place in society.

[Az]

162. Already part of it

In fact if you get ahold of our march on Washington video you may be able to see me in the front row. :D

[outinforce]

WhatWHatWHAT?!!!

"One thing that struck me was that most of the peace marches I attended last year started in a Christian church."

WHAT?!?!?!?

A church -- a tax-exempt church -- taking a stand on a political issue of the day?

A church -- a tax-exempt church -- actually organizing people to speak out on a political issue?

We just cannot have that!!

There is a separation of church and state involved here.

"Those people" can believe and preach whatever "they" want to.

But they must not act on any of "their' weird and strange and moral beliefs.

It just isn't done, dear.

[Az]

72. Seperation of Church/State <> Seperation of Church/Politics

What a person believes about this world is absolutely tied to their politics. There is no way to seperate this. But what a State does in an official capacity can be disengaged from the Church.

[outinforce]

105. I Think I Understand

The government, when acting in any offical way - passing laws, developing policy, implementing policy, things like that -- must NEVER listen to the opinions of people within the Church -- and MUST not listen tio any argument they make if the argument comes out of the church's moral belief system.

So I guss that would mean that all those lovely little peace marches organized by an starting in churches were more about making the marchers feel good than about any effective way of influencing the official policy of the government.

[Kolesar]

121. you get the word-twister-of-the-day award for that one

You really took my mention of peace marches and turned it into a totally different situation

[outinforce]

May I Decline The Award?

With all due thanks to the members of the committee who decided to present me with this most auspicious award, my own humility preevents me from accepting this honor.

If the members of the committee are interested, I do have the names of other posters they might be interested in considering for the famesd "Wordie" Award.

And thanks to my parents, my teachers, my discussion partners, as well as all the "little people" who mad emy selection possible. I could not have done it without them.

[Az]

139. Not quite

Governments may listen to anything in their society. But when they pass a law or do anything official it cannot be based on an authoratative argument from any particular religion. A representitive cannot disengage themself from their beliefs. They vote their conscience.

Let's say a Scientologist is elected to office. He cannot force a law through banning psychology because L Ron Hubbard said psychologists were the enemy of the people. He may try to find a way to implement this law within a secular argument. But he cannot use the authority of L Ron Hubbard as the basis of the claim.

[Kolesar]

97. your response is so dry that I cannot figure out what is your message

I get the sarcasm, but it obscures the thesis of your message.

[LWolf]

62. I think about atheism the same way

I think about organized religion. A belief (or non-belief, if you will) that people feel the need to organize, promote, and defend. And a belief system that, like organized religion, believes itself to be "right," when everybody else is wrong.

I appreciate and value the insights and perspectives of most faiths, and I appreciate and value the insights and perspectives of atheism.

I don't subscribe to the "only one right way" or "We're right, and everybody's wrong" mindset.

[FlaGranny]

120. Atheism is not organized and never has been.

(Edit: I should say - not organized in any significant way.) A handful here and there, maybe, but no real organization. And I have yet to hear of an atheist organization out to convert Christianity (or any other religion) to atheism. Most of them just want the religious folks to leave them alone and they fight for separation of church and state. Separation of church and state should be the goal of everyone, religions or not, especially if their own personal religion is not the one the state prefers.

[LWolf]

135. I'm reading a book right now

published by "American Atheist Press." The foreward, by the editor, contains numerous references to Atheist scholars and scholarship. That's not "organized religion," so to speak, but it is organized scholarship and publishing. I'm appreciating the scholarship. The thesis of this particular book is that "nothing is new in christianity." I knew that, and find the references to previous faiths, myths, etc. enlightening. It doesn't lead me to the same conclusion; that it is all "myth." But I don't feel pressured to reach that conclusion, either.

I agree whole-heartedly that separation of church and state should be the goal of all!

[AJ BENDER]

64. Atheism is the only True Goddamn Religion !

All that other stuff is Fairy Tale Bugaboo Hooey !

O8)


And all atheist are Gods...or like the Pope at least & we don't have to waste/earmark our time for such dumb stuff as "remember the sabbath & keep it holy" ... whatever the F*ck that means !

We don't worry about eternal damnation !

The second best religion is Greek Mythology cuz it seems Zeus is always trying to screw one of his creations... which is a lot better storytelling than that repetitive "GET DOWN ON YOUR KNEES & WORSHIP ME- DON'T FORGET TO SLAY THY ENEMIES" - crap so prevalent in the Bible & Koran

:toast:

[supernova]

74. Being a theist

I have no problem with someone who takes the position of atheism.

Most people are thoughtful and their experience leads them where it will.

I have had a few run ins with people who presumed the theist=unintelligent model, but those have been very rare in my life. And frankly I made certain they were just passing through. There's no need to keep someone in your life who is unsupportive of your framwork for viewing the world, regardless of what it is.

I'm always supportive of people if they are intellectually honest with themselves and me.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

81. I'm a liberal Christian who has no problem with atheists

I've encountered two types:

1. The rationalist atheists, who simply have a materialist point of view and can't accept anything that isn't provable scientifically. Such people are usually pretty live and let live.

2. The emotional atheists, who have been hurt by members of organized religion. The wounds are so deep that they transfer their resentment to all religions and all religious people. In extreme cases, you find people who cannot hear the word "religion" without going off into a diatribe.

Living in Oregon for 18 years, most people I knew were non-religious (2/3 of the population has no religious affiliation). I got along fine, except on the rare occasions when someone took out all their resentments against their fundamentalist parents or their sadistic grade school nuns on me.

I think I know what GLBT people feel like when ignoramuses accuse them of being disease-spreading child molesters.

[Kolesar]

92. When you say "materialist", do you really mean "existentialist"?

Then that would be me. This cheapskate doesn't even like to go out to dinner--I might need the money some day. When I think of "materialist " I start hearing Madonna singing "Material Girl" in my head.

[BigMcLargehuge]

111. I read it to mean concerned with "physical things"

and not so much "materialist" in the literal sense, i.e. accumulation of possessions.

[RichardRay]

83. A couple of things about faith, doubt, proof, etc.

First, belief in some diety or dieties is a matter of faith, not fact. Indeed, there are substantial schools of religious thought (St. Augustine, I think?) that hold that _knowing_ the existence of diety is anathema - one advances by faith, not knowledge. This is a useful foil when accosted by born-again types when they state that they have direct knowledge of the existence of diety - just ask them what they have faith in.

So, doubt is an essential part of believing. Facing doubt is certainly a challenge - I commend you to Soren Kierkegaard for a more complete explication. _Fear and Trembling_ is very short. I feel that anyone who professes atheism without reading it hasn't done their homework.

Finally, proof is not an applicable concept in this discussion - as in "prove diety exists" or "prove diety doesn't exist". That's like trying to use rules of formal grammar to solve a system of partial differential equations or a screwdriver to bake a cake - incommensurable.

I have nothing against atheism, as a matter of fact, as a person attempting to practice Buddhism I lean that way myself, but it's not a matter of proof.

[Magical]

84. A New Myth

My current opinion...open to change at any moment...

Raised Catholic, but it never fit me.
Spirituality is different than religion.
Without everyone taking these religious myths literally, we wouldn't have these wars. War based on religion is the ultimate hypocrisy. War is the antithesis of spirituality.

God is within all of us...our true selves...letting go of control, being in the moment, spiritually free of guilt and shame, and loving by extending myself for others benefits, reveals a magic I call oneness or god.

There is only one story for all mankind. Our 'separation' or ego which is susceptible to all the deadly 'sins' and our return to oneness or community with all. Isolation fuels the ego. When I get out of the contracted state of over-concern for myself, I experience compassion and love which frees up tremendous psychic energy and I experience the flow.

I think we need a new myth based on our Earth as mother and home. Gaia, the beauty of nature, our lifeblood, must be preserved or we will perish. She's getting a fever now to ward of the human parasite. We can only hope we all wake up in time to preserve our home for our children.

May everyone find their true self. That spirit within that gives you chills when you embrace it. That recognizes the spirit within every other human and creature. Let go of fear and love. When the children come running when they see you, you will know. Live this year like it is your last one on earth.

[cheezus]

88. Athiests / Agnostics should look into Buddhism

I've been without a belief in a diety for a long time. Recently I've become intrested in Buddhism. I'm not a Buddhist yet; I've just started reading about it. But the more I learn about it, the more I feel that I've been a Buddhist all along.

Buddhism isn't a religion, merely a way of living. The Buddha is not a deity; there are none.

Life is suffering. This suffering arises from within - the result things not being the way we want them. We can free ourselves from this suffering when we free ourselves from the desire to distort our reality.

A five minute overview: http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/5minbud.htm

[Ready4Change]

90. I've a technical problem with most athiests.

To me religions are the belief in something beyond supporting facts. Atheist often claim that lack of supporting facts as the reasoning behind their denial of the existance of, for example, God.

So, atheism is another faith based belief system. Where other religions choose to believe there is a God, atheists choose to believe there is not one. Both have choosen to believe beyond the reach of supporting facts. They've just come to different, still unsupported, conclusions.

(Edit) With all that said, I've no problem with anyones beliefs, so long as they don't force them onto me. Open discussions like this are fine, as I can read or ignore them as I choose. But knocking on my door, or inserting ones beliefs (or non-beliefs) into my government, is objectionable.

[muriel_volestrangler]

141. I would say atheism is the easier option to take

there are an infinity of possible views of the gods, and several have been proposed on Earth during its existence. They tend to involve work for no apparent gain.

Atheism, on the other hand, is very easy, and has no discernible downside in reality. It's the Path of Least Resistance. It also keeps you away from unscrupulous conmen on TV.

[Ready4Change]

166. Not necessarily.

I would think being the only atheist in a devotely religious family, or in a town or country dominated by a single church, would be a very difficult thing.

It can also be hard because theists can adopt their faiths rules concerning behavior without having to think about them. I think that is why some (not all) devotees of major religions think atheists must be social degenerates. They assume that since they have adopted their religions rules, that it is impossible for a person to develop moral rules on their own.

So, when such a devout finds that someone else is an atheist, they tend to distrust that other person. Makes for a hard life for the atheist.

[muriel_volestrangler]

191. You're right, for those in that position

I'm lucky enough to live in a country where declaring yourself an atheist is about as controversial as saying you don't like soap operas. A few people may not understand you at all, but most accept it happily, whatever their views.

I was thinking in terms of how difficult the thought processes have to be. To me, theism is rather like 'doublethink' in '1984' - it would take a constant conscious effort for me to believe it, but some people seem to manage it naturally.

[truthspeaker]

94. the parties are good but the gender imbalance gets me down

I finally found an atheist woman who will go out with me. Probably shouldn't let her go because they are so hard to find in this country!

[MissB]

103. Are you saying that

In your experience more men than women are atheists?

[truthspeaker]

106. Yes, that has been my experience in the US

I imagine it's different in Europe, Australia, and New Zealand.

[MissB]

116. Without going off on too much of a tangent

I wonder why.

I have a different experience than you - possibly because I live in the most unchurched state in the US.

[truthspeaker]

124. my GUESS is more social pressure on women to display faith

But that's just a guess. The topic comes up on Internet Infidels from time to time. If you're not already a member there I invite you to join. Tell 'em Godless Dave sent you.

[Ready4Change]

182. As long as there is respect

There's no reason theists and atheists can't get hitched. (Unless ones beliefs specifically rule that out.) I mean, if nothing else, you'll always have something to talk about.

:)

[F.Gordon]

98. Are you on a personal crusade?

The very basic foundation of all religions is defining right versus wrong. Good versus Evil. By definition Atheism is itself, a religion.

Also, by suggesting that "we need some atheist representatives in congress and the senate" you are forcing a belief system in government.

It appears to me that you are not quite comfortable with your belief system...otherwise, why the need for acceptance?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

118. no.

the desire to be represented in our "representative democracy" is imo not a plea for acceptance. as it stands now no politician can claim to be atheist as others will resort to saying this "godless" politician has no moral compass or some other sillyness. it would be nice to have freadom from religion.

[F.Gordon]

140. I understand what your are saying....

..couldn't agree more with regards to those use "religion" to define their "moral character" in politics. But, why does an atheist politician even need to proclaim their belief? That's what separation of church and state is all about.

I don't care if a politician worships a can of tuna.

[mopaul]

123. hell yes i'm on a crusade

and i demand acceptance just like the bornagains did in the 80's.
i demand acceptance like the gays are now, and the blacks did in the 60's, and in case you haven't noticed, atheists have been pushed to the back of all phases of american endeavor and treated as outcasts and perverts. so there is and actual need for acceptance of atheists. i'm perfectly comfortable in my belief system, and i demand that you accept me as an equal citizen of america.

[F.Gordon]

129. Atheism is a "Civil Rights" issue? WTF?

That's, errr... "out there" my friend.

Please tell me how you are discriminated against? Have you been forced to sit in the back of the bus? Do you have to use a different bathroom? Have you ever been denied employment because you are an atheist? And on and on......

Get real.

[SheepyMcSheepster]

142. would you consider it descrimination if....

the roles were reversed? if any christian trying to obtain any prominent position in government was berated as being "foolish and irrational for believing in god"? would that be a civil rights issue to you?

[mopaul]

145. here's an example:

locked threads. a few months back, i started a few threads like so many others, about religion and politics and yada yada. i happened to use terms like 'mythology' and 'invisible man in the sky' in stating my atheistic opinions, and the thread was locked. so i tried to re-write the same basic premise, using softer words and further making my point in what i thought was a civil manor.

then, about 100 angry christians alerted the mods and i had several successive threads locked in a row. i had been beaten down by offended christan DU'ers. so i voluntarily got pissed and layed out a while. i wasn't banned outright, and i still respect the mod's decisions on how to operate their fantastic site.

but this is just one small example of how atheists are held at bay and discriminated against. it works the same way outside of DU.
if pat robertson were president, as he once tried to be, all persons would have to publically officially state their religious affilitations when applying for employment, and if one were to put 'atheist' in the slot, one wouldn't get hired.

if a politician were to publicly state that he was an atheist, the whacko christian conservatives would assasinate him before he ever got to november.

[F.Gordon]

157. But, that's still not a "civil rights" issue

As you found out first hand, "religion" is a sensitive issue. You can discuss the issue, but you need to do so by respecting the beliefs of the person you are debating with.

You and I are probably not far apart in some regards. If you want to compare "conventional" religion with mythology, come armed....

Here's one for you.....

Hercules

Born of a virgin, Alcmene. He was the "only begotten" of the god Zeus. He was called "Savior", "the good shepherd", and the Prince of Peace.

"He descended into the somber realms of Pluto, as a shade. He ascended as a spirit to his father Zeus in Olympus."

"He descends into the abode of death only to rise again in the full glory of light and power for the eternal salvation of man."

[muriel_volestrangler]

169. Only Begotten?

I thought Zeus had loads of children.

[F.Gordon]

199. Sorry, my bad

Meant to edit that out. I'm "old and slow". Trying to keep up with the yute' on DU.

[outinforce]

187. "Wackos" And Assassinations

Has there ever been a case that you are aware of where a wacko christian conservative tried to assassinate a politician who publicly professed atheism?

I aks because I am aware of at least one assassination attempt by a wacko against a very publicly religious person.

Some wacko shot -- and attempted to kill- Popoe John Paul II.

Ya gotta watch out for those wackos, ya know?

[charlie]

167. You're a suspect in a murder case

Circumstances point to your possible guilt, but you are innocent. The time comes for your testimony in the trial. Do you do what's honest and congruent with who you are, and opt for the non-believer's oath in the swearing-in? Or do you choose not to trigger the suspicions and prejudices of the jury and lie -- swear under pain of punishment from what is to you an imaginary being? I know I'd go through the "so help me God" charade, though it'd be a dishonest opening statement in an interrogation in search of the truth.

[muriel_volestrangler]

195. Are you allowed to bring up the statistic

about atheists being less common in prison? Could you use that to sway the jury into trusting atheists more than people who claim they're Christians?

I'd never thought of this before. I guess I'd take my lawyer's advice.

[F.Gordon]

130. Damn button.....

edit out double post

[Az]

149. The permissibly oppressed

If anyone dares to say something negative about a black person there is social outcry. If a preist declares a homosexual an abomination there is an instant backlash in our society. If someone decries all Muslems as violent hate filled people there are immediate calls to refute this.

But in our society if a preist stands up and declares that atheists are immoral monsters trying to tear down the foundations of society, no one bats an eye. If a President of the United States proclaims that atheists should not be citizens or patriots of this nation no one challenges him except the atheists.

It is permissible to oppress atheists in this society. Star Jones declares that she would not trust an atheist for anything and she continues to draw huge paychecks from advertisers. We have about the same numbers as gays. But if she had said something about gays being untrustworthy her sponsors would have yanked their contracts away from her in a second.

If there were some reaction to the oppression maybe we would see more friends in the society. But as it is we see ourselves as being on our own. There is no support for us from this society. There are individuals. But if they come for us, who will stand up and defend us?

[ACK]

107. Repeat post: Agnostic

There might be a God.

There might not be a God.

Personally I do not give a shit.

Freedom of religion is fine.

Morning moments of silence are fine.

Want to give my money to fund some church charity?

Hell no.

Don't like Abortions?

Cool don't have one. I never plan to. Easy for me because I am a male.

Hypocisy lives in the hearts of believers and unbelievers and well lots of people. I have no hate for Christians. Let 'em do what they want as long as they stay the hell out of my way.

I got one life to live. I just want to live it.

_

[outinforce]

126. What A Cool Belief System, Man

"Don't like Abortions?

Cool don't have one. I never plan to. Easy for me because I am a male.

Hypocisy lives in the hearts of believers and unbelievers and well lots of people. I have no hate for Christians. Let 'em do what they want as long as they stay the hell out of my way."

Wow. Way cool.

I think this:

You don't think people should speed on interstate highways?

Cool. Don't do it, then. I don't. Easy for me because I don't drive on interstates.

People who think that there should be speed limits on interstatesshould drive at whatever speed the feel comfortable with, and just get the hell out of the way of people who don't.

Isn't that way cool?

[ACK]

134. ok smarty ... your response was not cool -- flawed logic

It is the difference between personal freedoms and responsibilities for the society as a whole.

When I speed on interstate highways I am not only putting myself at risk but other people as well with my willing reckless behavior.

Not the same with Abortions. I do not like Abortions. However, I am not willing to dictate to women what they should do with their bodies.

This is different from personal liberties and control of the privacy of one's own body and putting others at risk with personal reckless behavior.

I believe in the Freedom of Religion. Christians can do what they what. However, they should not restrict the personal liberties and freedom of privacy of those who do not believe the same way they do.

Not the same thing at all.

Thanks for the sarcastic tone too btw. Great way to make a point.

[outinforce]

197. Whatever, Man

Hey, whatever floats your boat.

If I were to drive on an interstate highway, I may feel that the state has no right to restrict my personal freedom to choose how I drive. I happen to think that speeding on the highways is a terrible thing, But I would never want to tell dictate to another adult what he or she should do behuind the wheel.

I guess my only justification for teeling another adult how he or she should drive -- or whether or not he or she should wear a seatbelt or a motorcycle helmet -- is based on concern that he or she, if given the power to exercise his or her own choice in the matter, might actually do harm to a body other than his or hers.

I am somewhat baffled, therefore, as to why you think restrictions on speeding are an appropriate exercise of the government's ability to restrict the power of adults to choose the speed at which they will drive, but you think it is inappropriate for the government to restrict abortion. There are two bodies involved in each abortion.

[ACK]

207. Rude ... sarcastic ... pro-lifer ... no wonder... but I am baffled ...

I believe that adults should have no laws dictating their use of safety belts. However, a minor in the car with the limited judgement of a minor, could be in my eyes protected with a safety belt (car seat) law without confining personal liberties.

The difference is what I said which in the original post and is what you are trying desperately to ignore.

When I drive on public (notice that word) roads and endanger other people's lives with my personal behavior it is perfectly permissible for the government to limit my behavior.

There are two bodies involved even in an early (morning after even?) abortion? The fetus has no life as a person outside of the mother. That child is part of the mother's body and cannot exist or remain outside of the womb. It is a matter of dominion over one's own body and one's own right to privacy. The fetus is a potential person. It is not a person but a potential person.
Why Abortion is Moral link below sums up my feelings on the subject quite well:

http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

We may feel differently on this issue but the sheer rudeness and sarcastic nature of your remarks is amazing. I have never met a pro-lifer that was anything else though so I do not know why it should shock me even here.

_

[outinforce]

238. Pro-Lifer? Me?

What makes you so sure?

I notice that in your post you refer to a "child" being part of "the mother's body".

Interesting.

That is exactly the sort of language that I might expect a pro-lifer to use.

When you say that the child is a part of the mother's body, do you mean that the child is like the mother's kidneys? Or her teeth? Does the child share the same DNA as the mother? The same blood type? The same gender?

Or is the child really, as some here say, nothing more than a tapeworm or a bad case of athlete's foot -- a parasite that is not, in fact, a part of the mother's body, but an invader?

It would just rather seem to me that someone coulkd conclude that a child -- dare I say an "unborn child" -- is not, in fact, just another body part, but is, rather, another developing human life. And if that is so, then the power to destroy that developing human life could be something that the government could legitimately have some interest in. After all, you do say that you think that the government could, without restricting personal liberties, require a mother to preserve the life of her vulnerable and powerless child by requiring her to place the child in a seatbelt whenever she drives with the child in her own car.

I am sorry if you find my posts to be "amazingly" rude and sarcastic.

As I suggested in another post to you, I have found that the comment that you made in one of your earlier posts -- the one about Not Having an abortion if you don't want one, to be rude and most certainly sarcastic.

[ACK]

243. I am sure of one thing ... you did not read the link...

And you pick and choose the content rather well.

A fetus is a potential person. It is not an "unborn child" which somehow implies that potential life has developed to the point of not being a potential life or person but one that can exist outside of the womb of the mother. It is not a developing human life because humans develop far into their lives. A fetus is a potential person that has not developed to the point of survival and hence is not independant or truly a person.

Everytime a woman has her period a potential life is gone. Do we arrest every woman that has a period? Everytime heteros use birth control they are preventing the existence of a potential life. Are you also anti-birth control?

The fetus cannot live outside the protection of the woman's body and I am not going to reduce a woman's rights to her own body, privacy and existence down to vessel for baby carrying.

Abortion is not murder because you are not ending the existence of an independant person.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

[outinforce]

258. You Are Correct On That Point, ACK

You are certainly correct. I did not go to the link.

I usually do not go to links people suggest when having a discussion. This is because I tend not to give links to some of my favorite websites.

And I don't do that because I think that almost any website has a particular point of view that I may or may not share. And I prefer to state my own questions, comments, observations, and occasionally, even my own arguments in my own words.

Your most recent post would indicate that you have mastered the pro-choice lexicon. You now say that a fetus is not an unborn child. I guess must have mis=spoken when you said, in your earlier post, that "The fetus has no life as a person outside of the mother. That child is part of the mother's body and cannot exist or remain outside of the womb.".

It sure looked to me as though you were saying that a fetus is a child that has not yet been born -- or, more simply, an unborn child.

May I also comment on this argument of yours: "It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being."

Do I understand you correctly to say that in order to be an "independent person", a child or a fetus needs first to be a "person"? And do I further understand you to say that in order to be a "person", a child or a fetus needs to attain "consciousness"? And do I also understand you correctly to say that "independent" means having been born and taking a breath?

If I do understand you correctly, then, the destruction of a fetus or an unborn child is not morally wrong because that destruction would never destroy an independent person. If that is so, then Roe v. Wade, as I understand both it and your argument, allows states to limit the right of women to destroy fetuses during the final trimester of pregnancy. Roe V. Wade does say that if a woman's life or health is in jeopardy during the final trimester of pregnancy, then states must allow the woman (along with her favorite abortionist) to destroy the fetus. But Roe v. Wade allows states to forbid the destruction of perfectly healthy "non-independent persons" by women whose health or life are not at all in jeopardy.

And what reason do you have for choosing consciousness as the indication of personhood? Why not instead choose the ability to use a language -- any acknowledged language at all, including American Sign Language -- to form a sentence which communicates the following thought: "Mother, I am thirsty and I desire a drink of water"?

That, like being born and taking the first breath, is a point at which there can be no confusion. When a "born fetus" ia sble to do that, it would, I think, meet, without the confusion of deciding when "consciousness" arrives, tell us that a "born fetus" had changed from "independent fetus" to "independent person" -- or from "potential life or person" to "actual life or person".

Before that event occurs, then, it would not be murder for a parent to destroy a "born fetus" -- merely the exercise of a free choice to end the "potential life" of a "potential person".

[ACK]

269. Independance as a drawing line

Is the fetus a person?

No. It's merely a potential person.

Webster's Dictionary lists a person as "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity." Anti-abortionists claim that each new fertilized zygote is already a new person because its DNA is uniquely different than anyone else's. In other words, if you're human, you must be a person.

Of course we've already seen that a simple hair follicle is just as human as a single-cell zygote, and, that unique DNA doesn't make the difference since two twins are not one person. It's quite obvious, then, that something else must occur to make one human being different from another. There must be something else that happens to change a DNA-patterned body into a distinct person. (Or in the case of twins, two identically DNA-patterned bodies into two distinct persons.)

Don't believe me? Here, try this: reach up to your head, grab one strand of hair, and yank it out. Look at the base of the hair. That little blob of tissue at the end is a hair follicle. It also contains a full set of human DNA. Granted it's the same DNA pattern found in every other cell in your body, but in reality the uniqueness of the DNA is not what makes it a different person. Identical twins share the exact same DNA, and yet we don't say that one is less human than the other, nor are two twins the exact same person. It's not the configuration of the DNA that makes a zygote human; it's simply that it has human DNA. Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person. (These days even that's not an absolute considering our new-found ability to clone humans from existing DNA, even the DNA from a hair follicle.)

There is, and most people inherently know it, but they have trouble verbalizing it for one very specific reason.

Anti-abortion activists are fond of saying "The only difference between a fetus and a baby is a trip down the birth canal." This flippant phrase may make for catchy rhetoric, but it doesn't belie the fact that indeed "location" makes all the difference in the world.

It's actually quite simple. You cannot have two entities with equal rights occupying one body. One will automatically have veto power over the other - and thus they don't have equal rights. In the case of a pregnant woman, giving a "right to life" to the potential person in the womb automatically cancels out the mother's right to Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness.

Is abortion murder?

No. Absolutely not.

It's not murder if it's not an independent person. One might argue, then, that it's not murder to end the life of any child before she reaches consciousness, but we don't know how long after birth personhood arrives for each new child, so it's completely logical to use their independence as the dividing line for when full rights are given to a new human being.

Using independence also solves the problem of dealing with premature babies. Although a preemie is obviously still only a potential person, by virtue of its independence from the mother, we give it the full rights of a conscious person. This saves us from setting some other arbitrary date of when we consider a new human being a full person. Older cultures used to set it at two years of age, or even older. Modern religious cultures want to set it at conception, which is simply wishful thinking on their part. As we've clearly demonstrated, a single-cell zygote is no more a person that a human hair follicle.

It's even worse when you consider that most women who have an abortion have just made the most difficult decision of their life. No one thinks abortion is a wonderful thing. No one tries to get pregnant just so they can terminate it. Even though it's not murder, it still eliminates a potential person, a potential daughter, a potential son. It's hard enough as it is. Women certainly don't need others telling them it's a murder.

It's not. On the contrary, abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body.

[outinforce]

276. Your Own Thoughts?

I'm a bit confused here. Is what you have just posted your own thoughts, or the thoughts of someone who has a webpage that you visit?

Because, and I do hope you will excuse me for saying this, these arguments are -- to use a word which others have used on this very thread -- flawed.

Where to begin?

"Your hair follicle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that it is a little bit bigger and it is not a potential person."

It's easy to miss the significance of what is being said here. What you are saying, I think, is that pulling out (and thereby killing) a hair follicle is not different -- morally or biologically -- than destroying a fetus at any stage of development. The fact -- as you correctly state -- that your hair follickle shares everything in common with a human zygote except that is is a bit bigger and it is not a potential human being -- that a human fetus at any stage of d3evelopment is a "potential person" makes this very difference quite significant.

I could, I think, equally as well state this: "Your hair follicle shares everything in common with you, except that you are a bit bigger and are a person in the process of growing to greater maturity."

You restate in this post what you said in an earlier post -- that abortion is not murder because it does not destroy what you call an "independent person". I take "independent" to mean the same thing as "born and having taken at least one breath", but I remain unclear as to how, exactly, you determine "personhood".

Your post seems to suggest that you want to equate "personhood" with "consciousness". But why is "consciousness" a valid indicator of personhood?

You then want to address some un-named "problem" concerning preemies. What, exactly, is this "problem", and how does saying that "personhood means that a person has consciousness except when the person is born prematurely and does not have consciousness"? What I also hear you saying is that "personhood means consciousness, but we really cannot know when consciousness is achieved, so we won't use consciounsess at all...we'll instead just use being born." Why then don't you simply say that a person who is so meone who is born and leave it at that?

And on what basis is it, exactly, that you dismiss what earlier cultures did when they set personhood at the non-arbitrary, eaily measured date of two years from birth? Were they wrong? Why? How is it that you can assert that they were wrong and you are right? You seem to have no problem saying that some people who want to set personhood at a point before birth are wrong. How would you respond to someone from one of these earlier cultures who might suggest that your desire to set personhood at birth (instead of two years after birth) is merely the result of an non-rational, and most likely religious, attachment to new-born babies?

Finally, "abortion is an absolutely moral choice for any woman wishing to control her body."

I hope I am not hearing what I think I hear you saying here. I hear you saying that in order to be a moral woman who wishes to control here own body, a woman must have an abortion.

Some have suggested that if males were able to become pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament. I think you just said that it is.

[ACK]

291. Not saying anyone should have an abortion that does not want one

I am saying that Abortion is perfectly legitimate moral choice. That is not the same at all as saying that any women must have an abortion at all.

I am quite saying that destroying a zygote is no more morally troubling to me than to take out a hair follicle and destroying it.

The assertion is that personhood and certainly a independant person is not dependant on a being having a completely unique DNA structure because twins have basically identical genetic structures.

The Webster's definition of a person is, "being an individual or existing as an indivisible whole; existing as a distinct entity."

Anti-abortion activists commonly use the idea that a zygote has all the complete potential for human life and seperate genetic identity therefore according to those people should be protected the same as an independant person.

I am asserting that an individual independant person status is necessary to truly seperate the rights of two individuals sharing essentially the physical resources. The rights of the independant person the mother trumps the potential rights of the potential person the zygote or fetus will become.

I dismiss the idea of setting the personhood akin to consciousness because of the difficulty in terms of that measurement and the fact that the legal status of a fetus and its right as an independant person begins when it is no longer dependant upon the life and body of the being that is already an established independant person -- the mother.

Abortion as a sacrament? Yes, I think I did just say that.

[outinforce]

306. Earlier You Said

In an earlier post, you said that you did not like abortion.

That statement makes no sense to me at all. You have have just said, I think, that you feel that abortion (the destruction of what you yourself say is a living, potential human being) is morally equivalent to pulling out one hair and destroying one follicle.

Do you not like pulling out hair? Why, then, would you ever say that you do not like abortion? The two are the same morally, are they not? And isn't abortion a perfectly safe and legal medical procedure? WHat's not to like?

I do happen to think that you may be setting the criterion for personhood a bit early. You seem to want to set it at birth. You seem to suggest that a fetus becomes an "independent" person when it is born.

I know of several mothers and fathers who would strongly disagree with you. Babies (or, more precisely, born fetuses) are terribly dependent. They need to be fed. They need to be clothed. Some doctors even suggested that they need to be held. Why would you ever say that such a thing is "independent". The very notion suggests, I think, that you have no idea of how a mother or a father or a mother and a father or some other adult person -- who truly is independent-- must tend to the needs of that cute little fetus which, although born, is still very much dependent.

Why not just establish the age at which a fetus becomes an independent person at some point long after a fetus is born? That way, the reproductive freedom of both the father and mother could be extended. No one could be charged with murder simply for destroying a thing that, although it has its own unique DNA and is potentially a human child, and is in the process of developing into a person, is still very much dependent and therefore not really worthy of protection as an "actual" human person.

Destroying it would be no more morally upsetting than pulling out a hair follicle.

[ACK]

314. Huge difference between physical and social dependance

A independant person can still be socially dependant on other people for their welfare. This is far different from the physically dependant nature of a fetus.

Two totally different things all together.

A fetus becomes physically independant upon birth.

I do understand the difference between a physically dependant and a socially independant state.

I also understand as a father of two the needs of children especially since in about 40 minutes I will be putting them to bed after I made them dinner.

Just because I do not personally like abortion does not mean that I feel that it is either my place or my right to restrict the freedom or the rights of others.

I have tried to be civil but every single response from you has been filled sarcasm.

Much of at least on the edge personal especially with the jeering insulting tone of the subject line on my original post using the word cool. I said something that sounded dismissive to you (never addressed to you personally) on a subject you care about that is something quite different from making fun of someone directly in quite the way you have.

_

[outinforce]

316. OK, But Why Is

"physical" independence a better way to determine personhood than "social" independence?

What, exactly, is your objection to defining personhood as that point where a born fetus acquires a good measure of "social" independence -- say at the second anniversary of the fetus's delviery from the womb?

You seem to suggest that there are some who wish to set the point of personhood earlier than you would. So I'm asking you what objection you would have to setting it later than the point you have chosen as defining personhood. Other cultures, after all, did it. What is so wrong with having a two year period -- during which time the unborn fetus is socially dependent upon at least one other person -- as the point during which the "potential person" that existed in the womb continued to be just a "potential person"?

[ACK]

318. Physical Independance is better

Because most other lines are inherently subjective and open to even more debate.

The date of physical independence of the potential person to the person who is already an independant person -- the mother -- is an objective line.

It is the objective line where the rights of the potential person no longer have direct physical consequences on the rights of the already established independant person.

The point of social indepedence for most citizens of the modern industrialized world is never. Outside of the womb of society they would on their little castaway island end up very, very dead.

_

[outinforce]

321. Two Years After The Birth

seems like a pretty non-subjective line to me.

I think it is the case that a "baby" (or "born fetus") is much more socially dependent during its first two years after being delivered from the womb than it is after that point.

Isn't it at about two years of age that a born fetus begins to be able to speak and to communicate its ideas and wishes more clearly?

That, it seems to me, would make the second anniversary after delivery a good point to say, in effect, "Well, we all recognize that in a modern iondustrialized society, we are all dependent on each other. Nonetheless, we only confer personhood when a fetus becomes viable -- that is, when, on average, a fetus usually is able to express its ideas and desires. And we designate that particular point at a completely non-subjective point in time -- two yuears after birth."

What's wrong with that?

[ACK]

323. It is wrong because it forgets about the disabled

Physically independant individuals with some disabilities will throughout their lives lack any measure of social independance due to physical/mental limitations.

However, these people according to our history of culture are afforded human rights.

The physically dependant status of the fetus to the independant person of the mother is terminated at birth and therefore the possibility of the restriction of the freedoms of the already existing physically independant person in order to objectify and reduce women to baby machines is eliminated at that time.

_

[mopaul]

110. "Faith" is believing in the unbelievable

when someone says they have faith, it means they believe something sincerly. if someone stands behind you and says to fall back and he promises he'll catch you, you must have faith. of course, the person could trick you, and let you fall, and your faith failed you.

blind faith is even worse. believing in a supreme being, which cannot be seen with the eyes or heard with the ears or felt with the hands, requires faith. to believe that jesus is coming back, after being dead for two millenia, requires faith. or that mary had a baby without having sex, or that god handed 10 rules to live by, engraved on stones down from the sky to moses. to believe in apollo or thor or jehovah requires the same faith it takes to believe that santa is real.

i cannot have faith that is unfounded. many people right now have faith that everything in america is gonna turn out all right given time. to me, that's blind faith, and it's a waste.

i have faith in gravity, to me, it's more than a theory. if i jump off a cliff, i have faith that i will fall and probably die.
as to what happens after i die, i have no reference point, other than fairy tales, told by people who haven't died, and wouldn't know anyway.

[outinforce]

119. Blind Faith

If I understand you correctly, you are saying that belief in something that cannot be seen with the eyes or heard with the ears or felt with the hands requires faith -- faith.

Tell me something.

I believe in love. Yet I cannot see it, taste it, smell it, feel it, or hear it.

Do I have blind faith in love?

And does that fact that I cannot see, taste, smell, feel or hear love mean that love is nothing more than a fairy tale or that my belief in it is just a waste?

[SheepyMcSheepster]

128. love is whatever you belief it to be

everyone has a different idea about what love is. but when you get down to it all our emotions are there to help us survive and produce viable offspring. if you want to believe that your emtions have some greater meaning that is fine. but ultimately emotions are just reactions to situations that in the past have proven to help the advancement of the species.

[outinforce]

158. Objection!

"but when you get down to it all our emotions are there to help us survive and produce viable offspring."

I'm sure (although I am making this statement based on nothing other than blind faith, rather than a critical analysis of any facts) that you did not mean to insult me or dis me in any way.

I have lots of emotions -- lots and lots of emotions.

I also happen to be gay, and have no intention or desire to produce any offspring, viable or otherwise.

So I hope you understand that I feel a particular emotion (and it is not love) when I see a statement that suggests that my emotions exist to produce viable offspring. Is the fact that I have a couple of particular emotions -- love and lust -- which rise up when I see a good-looking guy. Neither of these emotions, in my case, are there to help me survive or to produce viable offspring.

I do not claim that my emotions have, as you put it, "any greater meaning". My only purpose in making the post you responded to was to address a point mopaul in one of his posts.

And that was mopual's assertion that blind faith in necessary to believe in something that could not be touched or hear or seen.

[mopaul]

131. love is real, god is not

love can be proved, god cannot. it cannot be proved that bumblebees can fly, but they do. only a few years ago, human flight was thought impossible, but we now fly. i prayed to god for decades before i realized i was being an idiot and wasting my time and emotions on an invisible, absent being who would never answer me.
my faith was proven wrong.

the woman in texas who crushed her 3 boys heads, did so she said to prove her faith to the god of abraham, who offered up his own son as his proof of his faith. what good is faith if it makes you do idiotic things, like pray for world peace instead of actually bringing it about?

[outinforce]

150. Please Prove to Me That Love Exists and is Real

But remember -- in order to prove that it is real, I think that I must be shown that it is something I can feel, touch, hear, smell, or taste.

Otherwise, it is no more real than god is.

[ACK]

178. Emotions are real .. clinically

Notice post #151

Love is an emotion. Emotions can be directly mapped to physical responses. This is true for love and hate and lust and terror.

You can measure it and you can look at the data and you feel the physical response to the emotion.

BTW, your response to my post was rude and flawed see above to post #134.

_

[outinforce]

201. All You Can Measure

is some reaction.

And I don't think that the reaction to an emotion is the same thing as the emotion itself.

To be a bit graphic, I have certain "reactions" whenever I feel the emotion of lust.

But the lust is different from the reaction to it.

Oh, and by the way -- rude begets rude sometimes. I always find the "don't want an abortion, don't have one" argument to be rude and dismissive of people who are serious about that issue.

[Az]

203. Try this

Go eat a lot of chocolate. The chemicals in chocolate will simulate the feeling of love in your brain at sufficient levels.

We can create the experience of communing with god in a person's brain (epyleptic studies at UCLA). We can map love. We can induce feelings. We can change memories.

It is true that we cannot directly experience what another is experiencing. This is simply a fact of our nature. But we can emulate these things. We can directly impact the thought processes of an individual. We can change who you are.

[outinforce]

240. "We Can Change Who You Are"

Well, I just experienced something.

It may not have been real.

But something -- a chill, or something like it -- just ran up and down my spine.

I checked, and there was not "real" bug on my spine.

Nothing real was there that caused that feeling I just had.

It was only one of those unreal emotions.

Like fear

[Az]

246. Life as process

Emotions and feelings are the result of our minds in process. They describe states of our mind. They are not a thing. They are an action. Like a swing of a bat or or throwing a ball. It is a process that we identify. You cannot hold a swing but we can define it. We cannot posess a throw but we can understand it. Just because something we describe cannot be held in our hands does not mean we cannot understand it.

Life is just such a process. If every molecule in your body stopped right now you would cease to be. You are your body in action. You are not your body or even your brain. You are the process of these things in action. Thus your feelings and emotions are part of that process. You cannot single out a thing and say that is love or fear. But like a bat swinging you can understand the nature of that process.

[outinforce]

263. Deities

"You cannot hold a swing but we can define it. We cannot posess a throw but we can understand it. Just because something we describe cannot be held in our hands does not mean we cannot understand it"

Would that also be true of spiritual deities that cannot be held or possessed?

[Az]

272. If they are there

then they can be understood to some extent. I am always amazed at peoples readiness to accept the limitations of understanding things. I do not know what we cannot understand. Therefore I do not say there is anything we cannot understand. There certainly are things we do not understand currently. But given time? Knowledge accumulates. Understanding grows.

[ACK]

213. Dismissive ... funny I found you to be quite flip and insulting

In reaction to a post on my own personal beliefs.

I was not reacting to one of your posts and the only reason I jumped onto this one was because of the rude nature of your reply to my message.

I am serious about this issue.

This is a pretty good link that sums up my viewpoint on the issue and no I did not write it.

http://elroy.net/ehr/abortionanswers.html

[Ready4Change]

217. (nitpicking here)

" it cannot be proved that bumblebees can fly"

Actually that's been proved. They fly more like helicopters than like airplanes. The "bumblebees cannot fly, yet they do" statement was the result of false constraints on the study of bumblebee flight. It is still true that bumblebees cannot fly like airplanes do.

The impossibility of human flight was based on the idea of humans flying by flapping wings. It is still true, as human arm and chest muscles just cannot produce enough flapping energy to fly. However, human legs have proven able to drive a propellor well enough to get a plane into the air, and the human brain has proven itself able to devise machines that can fly. Again, success or failure, based on problem constraints.

The lack of answers to your prayers can prove many things other than god(s) non-existence. You are of course free to draw you own conclusions, and I strongly support your right to do so. You're free to constrain your experience in such a way that, lack of percievable response to your prayers equates to lack of god(s).

[FlaGranny]

133. Love is an emotion.

Anger is an emotion. Fear is an emotion. We all have them. We all feel them. They are demonstrable physical reactions. But, to be fair, faith is most likely also a demonstrable emotion.

[RichardRay]

146. Emotions cannot be 'proved'

Hook up all the instrumentaion you want to, you can't see a physiological difference between terror and ecstasy, or any other two emotionally distinct states of high arousal. Emotions are your experience of those states of arousal, and that experience is personal, not subject to proof or disproof by and outside observer.

[Az]

151. Actually you are very wrong

There have been very detailed studies done clarifying the areas of the brain responsible for a wide array of emotions. We can even examine the brain and tell when a person is viewing pictures of someone they love vs someone they just like.

As to ecstasy vs terror. Those are very readily identitified through clinical methods. Our understanding of the phsiology of the human brain is perhaps much further along than you suspect.

[RichardRay]

171. Actually, I'm not

You can induce a number of conclusions based on your observations and if inductive proof is adequate to your needs then you're in good shape. But, since you cannot experience the emotion of the person doing the observing you can only record the observations you get from the instruments. Corrrelation, cerainly, but not proof.

[Az]

194. Proof is for math, evidence is for science

Your use of the word proof here is misleading. It is improper to say that science has to prove things. Science as a process must remain open. It has to constantly test its theories and claims. It must remain open to new evidence that may overturn well founded theories. Thus science never absolutely proves things. It provides evidence and theories which taken together can lend enough certainty to an argument that it would be ridiculous to reject it.

Prove is a very misused term in regards to science. The layperson assumes science has proven a thing when the evidence is sufficient to lend acknowledgement. But a scientist will not say it is absolutely proven. Thus when an argument is laid against a scientific theory it will be said that science has not proven this in the hopes that the scientists will be left mute because they know the statement is true in the absolute sense.

This creates a false sense of what science does. The individual using this tactic is often trying to undermine the claims of science through a strawman argument. Most people do not lead their lives by the rigor required by science. They accept things as true on a fairly low criteria. Proof to them is a gut reaction. Thus when a scientist does not demand that they have proven a thing they see it is a failure on their part.

So in this particular argument it is clear that there is sufficient evidence to support the claim that emotions can be detected and identified within the neurology of the brain. It is false claim to demand that the subjective experience of these emotions be felt by the scientists doing the research. The evidence demonstrates that their is a high enough correlation between the observations within the brain and the proffessed experiences of the subjects to suggest that it would be ridiculous to deny the arugment.

[RichardRay]

310. An interesting distinction

And telling in this case. I see questions of this sort to be philosophical, not scientific. In that light the idea of 'proof' as it is used in mathematics seems more applicable than the idea of 'evidence' as used in science. That also makes more reasonable my concerns about induction in this case.

At any rate, it is a matter of faith, finally, and that doesn't really allow of proof or evidence.

[FlaGranny]

175. Thank you for answering.

It is easy even to "see" emotions with our own eyes. We cannot "see" faith. Actually, looking at faith is a lot like looking at love. They look more or less the same. Also, the flight or fight response doesn't have a whole lot to do with love, and flight or fight response is easily shown in clinical studies.

[outinforce]

179. I Think Similar Studies Show

that some peoples' brains respond when they pray.

If the studies you suggest show that brain reactions are proof of emotions, then would it be accurate to say that brain reactions when people pray are proof of the existence of God?

[ACK]

181. No flawed logic again...

That is proof that you have an emotional response to the act of praying.

There is proof that emotions and the feelings you have connected to those emotions can be tracked back to physical and mental responses.

There is no proof that God or whatever impacts anyone as they pray.

_

[Az]

275. Actually

There is a very strong suggestion that prayer is the remnants of a meditation practice in early monotheistic practices as an attempt to contact or commune with god. This process initiates a mental state which essentially shorts out the part of the mind responsible for acknowledging self. The brain continues to function but no longer recognises the stream of throughs as coming from self. It then applies culturally learned concepts that could possibly explain this communication from elsewhere.

The early sects of Christianity were described by the Romans as being very experential. The Romans were used to an intellectualized set of gods who were discussed and pondered but not actually experienced. The early monotheistic sects each had their own methods for communing with god. The Romans described a host of different practices from Bachanels and drugs to fasting and meditation. All these things can cause the brain to go into this diconnected state. For some this occurrs more readily than others. While in this state the stream of ideas is accompanied by a profound sense of import. This is because of the unfamiliarity with the situation.

Thus you have a situation where a person in meditation or prayer can experience a dramatic shift in awareness and percieves the experience as a profound emotional event. It is pretty difficult for someone who epxeriences such an event to dismiss what they have been taught by their religion as to what it means.

[F.Gordon]

122. You are defining "confidence"

Can't use that argument when discussing "religion".

As an atheist aren't you practicing "blind fatih"? By rejecting all "conventional" religions and the worship of "gods"?

[Beaker]

228. atheists don't practice "blind faith".

anything but.
we base our "beliefs" about the world by what is real and observable, not on ancient stories and myths.

[Ready4Change]

205. Are you sure you're an atheist?

To me, faith is the belief in something without supporting facts. Just as it takes faith to believe in god(s) without observable evidence, it also takes faith to DISbelieve in god(s) without evidence. That latter case, to me, is atheism.

To me your statement that you "cannot have unfounded faith" sounds more agnostic.

More specifically, you insist on proof for god(s) existence, yet rely on faith for god(s) non-existence. Your requirements are inconsistent.

[muriel_volestrangler]

216. Try the excellent post #194 by Az

An atheist may not have proof there are no gods, but they can have huge amounts of evidence there aren't any. We have no proof the earth will keep turning tomorrow, but we have evidence it will.

[Ready4Change]

225. Hmm, ok, I'm improperly mixing "proof" with "evidence."

Science works with evidence, and doesn't prove things so much as state that, according to a preponderance of evidence, this is more likely than that. And perhaps, this is MUCH more likely than that.

That said, just as there is little evidence of god(s) existance (no video of burning, talking bushes, no repeats of sea's parting, no photo's of a giant handing reaching down out of the clouds,) there is also no hard evidence supporting the idea that all that exists is NOT part of some grand plan. There is a case to be made that there isn't a god(s) who is overtly active in day to day life. (Ex. If Pat Robertson jumped off a cliff I don't think a giant hand would stop or catch him.) However, I don't feel there is enough evidence to conclude there is no god(s), nor evidence that events are not subtly influenced by such a being(s).

At least that's my opinion, and why I say I'm agnostic. By that I mean that I haven't seen anything that proves or disproves god(s), and I'm willing to suspend judgement till such evidence turns up, and I'm a bit curious about the result. Maybe there's a better, more accurate term for that stance?

[Az]

232. Its more complex than that

Stating what you can defend is not the same as what you believe. There are two arguments at play here. There is what you believe and what you can demonstrate.

Logic is a tool we have stumbled across to help us make sense of the world. Its validity has been proven time after time. But it is still a tool our brain has to learn. Our brain works on emotions. What we experience is recorded in our mind with emotional association weighted to it. Thus those things which are emotionally stronger to us occupy more space in our mind's eye.

There is a constant struggle within our minds over our current understanding of the world around us. Whatever our mind currently holds as most emotionally relevant defines our current state of belief. Various tools like logic and reason can be brought to bear to leverage various ideas but in the end it is what we find most in tune with our current balance of emotional values that we claim to believe in.

Thus your beliefs can shift and vary, but at a given time you either do or do not believe in god or gods. Now what you can argue and show evidence for is an entirely different matter.

[La Lioness Priyanka]

127. some people have known they did not believe in god since childhood

i am one of them

[mopaul]

152. the santa myth got me to thinking

my folks went to great lengths to foster my belief in santa, even after i'd realized he was a total fiction. but it was a big emotional let down for me, and if lasted into adulthood and my perspective on the real existence of god or jesus. i've always used it as an example of faith. i also felt slightly betrayed and lied to, santa seemed so real, i'd even MET him. what else had they lied to me about?

[Az]

164. Santa = Skeptics starter kit

But don't you go saying anything negative about the Easter Bunny! He is real!!

[MissB]

184. You two are cracking me up

Santa=skeptics starter kit

lololol

[Az]

163. Born atheist

and stayed that way.

Religious belief has to be learned. In fact that is what its all about. It is a system of indoctrination that has evolved and survived. That which functions survives. Religion is the ultimate testimony to the power of evolutionary forces.

[Jim Warren]

148. Belief is a random act

Change a person's life circumstances and the beliefs change.

Personally, I welcome all the gods with an open invitation.

[papau]

180. Is a belief inherited or from one's environment

And why the similarity of belief (those "common myths") amongst diverse environments?

[Jim Warren]

188. Belief is inherited from one's environment

Belief itself is the similarity.

[Walt Starr]

161. Atheism is the default position where religion is concerned

All are born atheists. One must be taught to be religious.

[outinforce]

173. We All Must Be Taught About

things like gravity, planets, stars, and meteorology.

What is your point?

That simply because people have to be taught -- and can never really experience for themselves things like distant stelluar nebulae -- that anything which must be taught to people is somehow less valid than the notions people have at birth?

[Az]

186. The point

Is that all we know about god comes from other people talking about god. Let us assume that there is a god. Let us assume further that at some point in time he/she/it did interact with a human and that all we know came from this istance.

Over the generations and centuries that this encounter was described, do you think the truth is more likely to survive or the story that contains the best psychological hooks into our psyche will survive?

The problem with belief in god is we do not have a testible metholdogy of identifying his activities. Thus we only have each others word on the matter. It is devoid of any correcting mechanisms. Simply put belief is without a rudder and is pliable to whatever social or psychological issues may arise within this vast ocean of our society.

Science has a means of checking itself. It may not be perfect but it is self correcting. If a cleric stands up and proclaims that god has told him the truth, how do you filter out the delusion from the truth?

Imagine a contest of trying to stand on a bullseye. The scientists can look down and correct their position. They may not be absolutely certain they are in the exact center but they can keep improving. The dogmatic proclaim themself to be in the exact center, but they cannot look down and verify their position. Who do you trust? Who do you think has the best chance of being closest to the center?

[charlie]

189. Well

When with so many religions, staying in God's good graces requires a belief in Him, being born without awareness of Him seems somewhat awry. A poor kid, a child of hardcore atheists in a solitary homestead above the Arctic Circle, dying without having an inkling that there might be a God would be doomed, no?

[Az]

196. Dilemas

One of the dilemas that certain religious claims face is the seeming inconsistancy of a merciful god damning innocence. Consider dead babies. The doctrine of original sin seems to indicate that all who are born are born in sin and thus damned unless they find salvation. This will not sit well with followers who lose children at an early age. They die in sin without claiming to accept Jesus. Thus various denominations create escape clauses for those that do not or cannot hear the path to salvation.

But this creates a further dilema. If a person that has not heard of Jesus can be saved by accepting them when they die, why then tell people about Jesus and thus risk their soul with the possibility of rejecting him. If you die and meet Jesus, its a pretty safe bet that you will listen to what he has to say. But relying on the efficacy of humans to convey the message of salvation seems a trifle risky. Why then teach about god. Why not just teach people to be good and descent to each other for its own sake and let them talk to Jesus for themself when they die.

[outinforce]

242. Who Knows?

"A poor kid, a child of hardcore atheists in a solitary homestead above the Arctic Circle, dying without having an inkling that there might be a God would be doomed, no?"

I think that folks like Pat Robertson and Jerry Falwell would say that the answer to your question in "yes".

I am no epxert on what Christians believe, but I do have many friends who claim to be Christians.

And they tell me that at one point, Jesus made some statement like, "Don't ever judge whether another person will or will not be doomed. If you do, you may find yourself judged the same way". My friends have explained to me that what they think Jesus was saying when he said that was that it is the business of nobody -- nobody -- on earth to decide or declare that anyone else is or is not doomed.

My friends tell me that Jesus was reminding the people that he was spekaing to that God judges the heart, and that it is absolutely impossible for one person to know the heart of another person.

[meow mix]

174. not enough info..

i mean, i dont think we have the "full picture" of what is really
going on here.

too much is yet to be discovered,
and for me... im not comfortable settling on any single "view of reality"
(which certainly includes atheism)

[Triple H]

176. I don't really like atheism...

but people want to believe in what they want to believe in. It's all cool with me.

[Beaker]

229. actually...

atheism is about NOT believing in anything that is not real and observable.

[yella_dawg]

183. To quote Brother Dave Gardner:

At the is?? mmm...

[Heyo]

202. I wonder if the phrase is true that....

"there are no athiests in foxholes"

Heyo

[charlie]

209. I dunno

But there's currently a grand opportunity for you to find out. Come back soon and let us know how many of your trenchmates discover their connection to God.

[jsw_81]

208. I'm proud to be an atheist

Religion is, in my view, the biggest scam in human history and I'm proud of the fact that I managed to overcome all of that and make my way to atheism. I can't tell you how much my outlook on life has improved now that I have embraced a naturalistic worldview that does not include god(s), spirits, devils, angels or any other kind of "supernatural" nonsense. Atheism is freedom.

[mopaul]

212. i too feel liberated, & i want to spread the joy

i felt so much better not seeing devils and demons and angels everywhere and pondering hell and why we're here and yada yada.
it's as if a great weight was lifted and i was finally happy.
but the act of losing one's religion is painful and difficult, but there is life after religious death.

[muriel_volestrangler]

220. and it's a very enlightening thread you started

Thank you!

[bill]

222. I don't believe in it

:evilgrin:

[ronnykmarshall]

230. God damn them straight to hell!

:silly::crazy::silly::crazy::silly::crazy::silly::crazy::silly::crazy:

[rdfi-defi]

231. "there are no atheists in fox-holes"

well maybe if we had more atheists in fox-holes we would have less wars

[Az]

235. I always wanted to know

what the people that believe the "Thou Shall Not Kill" thingie were doing in the foxhole in the first place.

[rdfi-defi]

236. right, good question

[Ysabel]

273. yes - real good question AZ...n/t...

[outinforce]

281. Foxholes And Atheists

I have always understood the comment about foxholes and atheists to mean that being in a foxhole in combat conditions is much like being a passenger on a plane that is certain to crash.

The comment, as I have always understood it, means that under certain conditions, even the most ardant atheist will come to believe in some sort of deity.

So it's not about people who already believe in the "Thou shalt not kill" thingie -- they would already believe in a particular diety.

It's more about what happens to people that don't.

[Az]

294. I understand the intent

I just tend to look at issues from multiple views. Incidently at the Godless march on DC we had quite a number of Vetran atheists present that can well testify that they did not change their views while in a foxhole. And in fact they take great umbrage at the suggestion that their beliefs are so tenuous. The phrase is seen by the atheist community as a bit of an insult. Just thought you should know.

[outinforce]

309. These atheists

the ones who are veterans? Did you ask them about their qualms that they had with killing?

I never use the phrase myself. Just thought you should know.

[Liberal_Atheist]

244. EMOTIONS = Chemical Reactions in the brain

All this talk about emotions, lets just call them what they truly are...CHEMICALS!!!

[Az]

248. Not just chemicals

See my post Life as process. Life is not just a chemical. It is a process. It is a dance. It is all that makes us up going about its business. Somewhere within this dance of chemicals and energy our minds arise from within the whirlwind. Personally I think its a beautiful thing. But guess whats telling me that.

I used to think my brain was my favorite organ. But then I realized what was telling me that. - Emo Philips

[outinforce]

249. Reality

The discussion concerning emotions came about, I think, because someone said something like "God is not real. Real things are things I can touch, feel, hear, smell, or taste". Not the exact quotation, but what I tookl the person who posted it to say.

My response was: Is Love Real? I don't think I can touch, feel, smell, hear, or taste love. If God is not real because a person cannont use one of her/his five senses to experience God, then love, also is not real, it seems to me.

I guess from your post you would call the whole experience of what we call reality or consciousness chemical, am I right?

[ACK]

257. You cannot feel love?

I am sorry to hear that.

[outinforce]

261. "Feel"

Please fo not feel sorry for me.

I can "feel" many things.

But if, in order for the things I may feel to be "real", I must, as someone suggested, be able to use one of my five senses -- touch (as with my fingers), smell, taste, hear, or see -- then I may indeed "feel" love.

But, using the definition of what someone else said is "real", what I feel as love is not "real".

Someone asserted that god (or any spiritual deity) cannot be real because such a deity can not be touched or smelled or tasted or heard or seen.

My only argument was that if that the measure of what is real and what is not real is those things which can be directly experience by one or more of the five senses, then love (and just about every other emotion) is not real.

[Az]

268. Is running real?

You can't touch running. You can't smell running. You can see a person running but is that seeing running?

Love and running are processes humans partake in. They are actions. They are not things. It is a state of being.

[outinforce]

278. Running and God

You can't touch running.

People who believe in God say that you can't touch God.

You can't smell running.

People who believe in God say that you cannot smell God.

You can see a person running but is that seeing running?

People who believe in God say that they cann see God in certain things (like the fact that the Black Hills exist and are so pleasing to the eye or the fact that the human mind -- with all its complexities -- exists at all), but is that seeing God?

Some who believe in God will tell you that belief in God is, at its core, a relationship.

So, is God any more or any leass real than running or love or any state of being?

[Az]

295. Relationships

I can certainly abide that description of god. But the question becomes is there an individual on the other side of the relationship. I have stated a possible explanation for some individuals experience of communion with god. That is that they simply are experiencing a neurological anomaly. It is not insanity or anything so dismissive. It is simply a part of our biology and psychology. It is a conversation with oneself where the self is not recognized as such. If you wish to equate that as god then I have no qualms with your use of the word. But this certainly is not the god of creation and father of Jesus as told in the bible.

Of course that is part of the problem when debating god. The theists can leap from claim to claim and avoid having their arguments dismantled. If you make an argument for a severely altered definition of god and then try to claim a victory on that definition as a victory for a completely different claim for god you have abused the name.

The god suggested by internal dialog individuals have is merely a name or place holder for a process. The god of the bible is a completely different thing. He is described numerous times as a physical entity that directly interacts with individuals. One has to decide which god one is arguing for if one wishes to debate honestly.

[outinforce]

315. Honest Debate

Well, I think you have just said that the only possible god that you will allow is something you call a "neurological anomaly".

I think you should know that there are many folks who might consider that comment to be both dismissive and rather insulting. (I'm not ncessarily one of them, but I do try at least to be sensitive to other peoples' deeply-held beliefs).

As I have said elsewhere, I claim no real expertise on the Bible or on Christian teachings.

But, in the interests of honest debate -- something that I know you view quite highly -- I feel compelled to point out that I think you are simply wrong when you say this:

"The god of the bible is a completely different thing. He is described numerous times as a physical entity that directly interacts with individuals."

It is my understanding (and I do admit that I could be quite wrong here) that the God of the Bible is not physical entity. (I hasten to add that for Christians, my understanding is that the man named Jesus -- while he walked the earth -- was both fully God and fully human, and was, for only that period of time between the time he was born and the time he ascended into heaven, a physical entity)

I think I am correct when I say that the god of the Bible is shown a number of tuimes as existing outside both time and space. I think I am also correct when I say that Jesus said somewhere in the Bible that god is a spirit -- not a physical entity at all.

You suggest that a relational god -- a god who interacts with human beings and who seeks to be in close relationships with them -- is nothing more than a person talking to him/herself in some sort of anomolous condition.

And then you go on to suggest, I think, that I have some desire to "claim victory" and that in order to do so, I have found it necesasary to change my definition of god from a spirit who wishes to be in relationship with human beings to something else.

And then you, I think, introduce a type of god that I have never raised on this thread, and which, if I understand the Bible correctly (and I am not an expert on it) is not at all an accurate description of the god of the Bible.

[The empressof all]

252. Enjoying this thread

I'm particularly enjoying this thread because I had the oddest dream last night. I dreamed I was God--though I looked like Bella Abzug. In my dream 100's of angels sealed the congressional chamber with every politician and journalist in creation inside. After I announced that I would be separating the wheat from the chaff, John Ashcroft peed in his pants. I then proceeded to eat a hot fudge sunday while James Carville sang a glorious rend ion of Glory, Glory Hallelujah-

[mopaul]

255. great dream, .....

i'll have some of what you had just before you retired for the evening.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

262. Whether one is athiest or a believer, it's not what they believe but how

they arrive at it and practice it for me.

I agree...a BIG wall between church and state.

[rdfi-defi]

266. scorecard:

atheism: 266

christianity: 150

:evilfrown: :evilgrin: :evilfrown: :evilgrin:

the devil wins again, putting the apocalypses off for another couple of months

[Zynx]

267. I generally have a negative opinion of atheists.

They tend, and I went to stress "tend", to be very arrogant and are often times blinded by a visceral hatred of religion that blinds them to reality.

I am particularly not fond of militant atheism that seems to believe religion is the cause of all hardship. That is a bunch of bullshit. Atheists are all of the top four mass murderers of modern history(Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot). Also, these militant atheists seem to believe that religion should just be completely eliminated and have no value for human life at all. They seem to view the destruction of human life as of no consequence.

[Az]

271. Um

Hitler was not atheist. Atheists don't write in their books that they believe that what they are doing is for the lord.

As to the others you are tapping into the real problem. Its not religion. Its not atheism. Its dogmatic authoratative systems that are the problem. As soon as someone claims to speak for the absolute truth and decides who lives or dies you get problems.

Whether it is hardline Communism or the Spanish Inquisition systems are quite capable of running amuck and slaughtering people wholesale.

[trotsky]

280. Quotes from Hitler

Please explain why an atheist would say these things.

http://atheism.about.com/library/quotes/bl_q_AHitler.htm

# I believe today that I am acting in the sense of the Almighty Creator. By warding off the Jews I am fighting for the Lord's work.

# Secular schools can never be tolerated because such schools have no religious instruction, and a general moral instruction without a religious foundation is built on air; consequently, all character training and religion must be derived from faith . . . we need believing people.

# I have followed in giving our party program the character of unalterable finality, like the Creed. The Church has never allowed the Creed to be interfered with. It is fifteen hundred years since it was formulated, but every suggestion for its amendment, every logical criticism, or attack on it, has been rejected. The Church has realized that anything and everything can be built up on a document of that sort, no matter how contradictory or irreconcilable with it. The faithful will swallow it whole, so long as logical reasoning is never allowed to be brought to bear on it.

# My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter. In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was his fight against the Jewish poison. Today, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed his blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice... And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly, it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people. And when I look on my people I see them work and work and toil and labor, and at the end of the week they have only for their wages wretchedness and misery. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil, if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom today this poor people are plundered and exposed.


# I believe today that my conduct is in accordance with the will of the Almighty Creator.

... and on and on and on...

[outinforce]

283. Hitler Was Like That Guy In Topeka

Hitler was like that guy in Topeka....the guy who goes to the funerals of gay people and says that God Hates Fags and taunts the grieving with signs that say that the person being buried is in hell.

I do hope that you are not suggesting that Hitler -- of all people -- should be used as the true measure of Christian thought or action.

Many folks, including more than a few non-Christians -- would find such a suggestion to be insulting in the extreme -- it would be like saying that the guy in Topeka represents Christian thought and action.

Perhaps I have mis-understood why you posted these quotations from Hitler. If so, I'm sorry and I would invite you to clarify for me.

[Az]

293. Thats the trouble isn't it

We don't know what True Christianity is. I would expect that you believe your take on it to be the best one. But history makes the actions of Rev Phelps seem to be a tad timid compared to the actions of those that preceded him. The best you can do is try to exemplify the ideas you believe in and what you believe your god/saviour stand for. Others will do the same. Kindness and hatred have been justified by those that call out the name Jesus. Do not expect those oppressed by others claiming Jesus as their lord to be able to tell the difference unless you make it clear to them.

[outinforce]

317. What's This "your" Business?

What do you mean when you say to me this:

"The best you can do is try to exemplify the ideas you believe in and what you believe your god/saviour stand for"?????

I have never stated anywhere on DU any belief in any god or saviour.

[Az]

333. And I never stated

what your belief was either. I merely suggested that whatever it was it would be commendable for you to exemplify whatever you believe it is.

[trotsky]

334. No, of course not.

A poster claimed that Hitler was an atheist, and the quotes show how that was definitely not the case. I don't think that Hitler represents any sort of "true" Christian, BUT he was following what HE thought Christianity was. The same thing that Rev. Phelps does.

And that's one of the biggest problem with religious thought. There is no demonstrable way for one Christian to show another Christian s/he is wrong.

Because as virulently as a liberal Christian would insist that Fred Phelps is "not a true Christian," I guarantee you that he would return the criticism.

[Zynx]

299. Those were mostly public statements.

Why would a Christian imprison hundreds if not thousands of priests, missionaries, and other religious officials and kill many others? Why would a good Chrisitian burn and damage Christian churches. In private, Nazis were almost uniformly atheistic.

[Az]

301. Um, have you actually read any history

Christianity is pretty rife with examples of oppressing people and acting generally nasty to one another.

Inquisition, Witch trials, Pogroms, Tribunals, Crusades, I mean did you miss that stuff?

Look, religions can lead to wonderful acts of kindness and generousity. But they can also lead to horrendous acts of violence and hatred. When you detach a persons identity from their body you enable a person to restructure their concepts in such a way that they can believe they are doing great good by torturing a person,

There is a billboard I pass every day on the way home put up by a group of Nuns. It reads "Life is short. Eternity isn't." This enbodies the vary danger within some religious thought. If you can convince a people that this life is secondary in import to a life to come and that they must abide by certain rules to gain access to this next life you can cause them to do all manner of horrors.

The Inquisition was about saving souls. The Jews that had been forced to convert were known to have been sliding back into their old beliefs. Thus the Inquisition sought to bring them back into compliance. Torture and death were seen as acts of kindness because they were struggling to save souls, not lives.

To reiterate. There have been examples of religious individuals doing marvelous things in the name of their beliefs. There have also been autrocities that would make you shudder. It was belief and faith that guided 4 jets into suicide missions on 9/11. You would be hard pressed to convince a skeptic to kill themself in such an act.

[outinforce]

319. Why Single Out Christianity? Or Religion?

It is my belief that religious folks in general -- and Christian floks more particularly -- have no corner on "atrocities that would make you shudder" or on "oppressing people and acting generally nasty to one another".

So I wonder why some folks appear to belief that religion -- and more specifically Christianity -- is to blame for all the oppression, atrocities, and nasty treatment in the world today and througout history.

I could equally point out that the teachings of Lenin, Marx, Mao, and Castro have resulted in wide-spread oppression, atrocities, and other nasty treatment of people. The great wars of the late 19th centurt and of the 20th century - which killed many more people and brought far more destruction to the world than wars of the past -- were not about religion. They were waged by secular states over secular issues.

[Az]

335. Indeed

Any system that postulates that it is right and all others are wrong stands a strong chance of committing atrocities in time. Hardline Communism has proven that point.

The reason Christianity gets a lions share of the reaction is because of how succesful it is. It has dominated our society longer than any other factor. It has demolished all religions and beliefs it has encountered (a quick glance at a calender will show some of the relics of this conquest) until the rise of the Humanist era. It continues to battle with this idea and still holds sway over the minds if not the governments of our land.

One of the things that makes Christianity so succesful is its aggressiveness. Many religions do not seek to spread as Christianity does. They seek to survive by thriving in limited communities. Some seek to survive by offering alternatives to finding peace in this chaotic world. But Christianity goes beyond these tactics (though it does include them).

Christianity seeks to bring others into its beliefs. It has waged war to bring its teachings to people. It continuously presses itself on those that have not yet heard its message. It is one of the most aggressive religions on the face of the earth. And it has been very very succesful.

So to answer the question of why single out Christianity? Because it has been so succesful. Because it tries to press into our daily lives. It soaks our society. Because it leaves itself open for comments by its actions.

[outinforce]

338. When You Say This, Do You Include.....?

"Any system that postulates that it is right and all others are wrong stands a strong chance of committing atrocities in time."

When you say this, do you include, as one of the "systems" you speak of, the current system of modern scientific method?

It seems to me that the current method which seeks to know and explain the way in which the physical universe works postulates itself pretty strongly as being right all the time. That is to say, modern science asserts that it is the one and only way to come to the knowledge of how planetary bodies interact, how living organisms come into existence, how living organisms have evolved throughout time, how the very elements of nature interact to form increasingly complex substances -- everything.

That system of thought, I would suggest, is just as agressive, and just as successful, as Christianity. I would argue that it is even more successful than Christianity, because even in those areas of the world where there are very few Christians, belief in the scientific methods still thrives.

And why does it thrive? Because, even though use of the method is sometimes flawed, and even though people sometimes use the method in unethical and even harmful ways, the system is true. It does explain how the world and the entire universe works. It demolishes alternative ways of seeking the truth. I allows no other method as a way to discover the truth of the pohysical universe.


The scientific method seeks to bring others to its system of acquiring knowledge --- to the truth of how the physical world can be understood, and it seeks to share its knowledge of the way in which the physical world operates with ohters. It continually presses itself on those who have not heard its message. Unlike the folk wisdom of most people throughout the world, which do not seekl to spread their explanations of the physical world to others, the scientific method -- or, rather, believers in the scientific method seek to share their knowledge and wisodm with the entire world.

You seem to assert that Christianity has "suceeded: and that it continues to "succeed: because of its agressiveness, and you may be correct. But it is also possible, isn't it, that the message of Christianity, at its very core, is true -- that it is a true exposition of the condition and nature of humanity and of the deep spiritual longing that many people feel. It just might be a true explanation of why human beings seek to know things that the scientific method can never teach them -- things like the meaning and purpose of life in general, and of each person's life more specifically. It is just possible, isn't it, that Christianity offers true answers to the deeply spiritual questions that many people ask -- questions which remain unaswerable by the scientific method, which can only explain the physical world.

So, if you suggest that the reason Christianity gets singled out for critique and criticism is its success, have you ever considered that its explanantion of things which the scientific method can never answer just might be as true for the spiritual questions as the scientific method is for physical questions?

[Az]

340. Science is not a social system

It does seek to discern the truth but it does not impose social values on people. Thus it does not pose the kind of threat a social structure mandating authority does.

As to Christianity being right. Of course its right. It would not have survived if it was not functional. In order to survive a belief system must work with the material it is based on. Thus it will strengthen certain aspects within it and downplay others based on its own terms. Its evolution. Those religious sects which do not comform to some measure of our nature will be lost in time. Do not expect to see the Church of Fred Phelps in the far future. His particular brand of hatred is losing its hold on our changing society.

The fact that our society changes is what causes the problems for fixed dogmatic religions. Those that are able to adapt and work within the new social reforms. Those that cannot adapt either find a way to force the society back into their particular mold or they lose relevance over time. A fixed doctrine is a very powerful motivator for bringing people into the fold, but it has a long term flaw in that it cannot readily adapt to the new social learning.

Thus we see the Church in constant conflict with anything that might bring change. It prefers a static environment in which to operate. Advances in science and social acceptance are demonized as destroying the foundations of society. When in fact it is society growing and developing. Some sects are able to keep up, others rail against the corruption of society.

The reason so many cling to orthodox methodologies of thinking is becase at one time they were right, they worked, they just worked for that time, place and those that belonged. The church maintains a social memory of its dominance. When they set the rules and standards that all lived by. The change in society did destroy that society. It brought what must seem to be chaos to them. But it was growth. And like a teenager dealing with their own personal growth issues they are not always pleasant, but they are necissary.

[outinforce]

341. I Agree With Much. HOWEVER,

I agree with much of what you have said.

However, there are a few things that I take some issue with.

1. "It (science) does seek to discern the truth but it does not impose social values on people. Thus it does not pose the kind of threat a social structure mandating authority does."

The truth that science -- and the scientific method's claims on how to know the truth about how the physical world operates -- provides has a profound effect on social values and what people are expected to do. For instance, science tells us that certain diseases are caused by tiny microbes. Science also explains how these microbes are transmitted from one person to another. And science has provided, in some cases, the means to prevent the spread of these microbes.

As a result of these scientific discoveries, parents who wish to send their children to public schools in the District of Columbia must first have them innoculated against a number of diseases. This is a very good thing, but it happens because science has provided us with the means of knowing. The truth has transformed society and has imposed certain restrictions -- "good" restrictions, I would argue, but restrictions nevertheless, on parents of school-aged children.

I would even go so far as to argue that this truth that the scientific method has given us does impose social values. My guess i sthat society values parents who properly innoculate their children against diseases before sending them off to school. Why? Because science has provided us with certain truths, and those truths influence people's behavior.

2. "Thus we see the Church in constant conflict with anything that might bring change. It prefers a static environment in which to operate. Advances in science and social acceptance are demonized as destroying the foundations of society."

Constant conflict with anything that might bring change? I hardly think so. Do you happen to know the position of the ROman Catholic Church and of most mainline Protestant denominations in the USA regarding the War in Iraq? Or on the issue of providing health care to people? Do hou happen to remember that Dr. Martin Luther King as also Reverend? Or would you prefer to suggest that he was in constant conflict with anything that might bring change?

And do you really think that the church would demonize advances in science such as organ transplantation or a cure for cancer? Has the church voiced any opinion that suggests that we should not be exploring space or the oceans here on Earth? (The only cricitism I can think of that might come from the Church in this regard is that moeny spent on exploring space could be better sepnt on alleviating the needs of hungry and poor people here on Earth).


I happen to think that there a fair number of people within the Church who are themselves scientists and who understand the nature of truth. Truth is transformational. It compels change. The truths about the physical world can be known and human beings attempt to violate those truths at their peril. The church, I think, purports to discern truth about the spiritual world. It attempts to answer questions that science can never answer. And it does so by attempting to discern what a spiritual diety has revealed about those truths to human beings. Sometimes people within the church get the message of the deity's truth wrong. But my own view is that there are certain truths that the church has discerned that are always true for all people.

One such truth is "The world is a much better place if everyone were to treat each other as they themselves would like to be treated." The church states this, I think, not as a mere observation, but as a command from its deity. It is, I think, a command that the diety makes not in order to impose power upon people, but rather it is the diety saying, in effect, "I know something that is true, and I will give you a command that flows directly from that truth."

[Az]

342. History

Keep in mind I said that that to survive religion has to adapt to societal values. Thus the Catholic Church has changed to stay relevant. The Pope even embraced evolution finally. But it does not do so over night. It fights these changes. Only when its back is pressed against the wall can it agree to these changes.

The individuals that adhere to these religions are of course a part of society. They will adopt its ideas faster that the church main. The church will continue to exert pressure on them to follow their teachings instead of the oppositional concepts.

There are a plethora of sects within the Christian dogma. Not all are on the same page socially. Some like Rev King are much more in tune with the progressive aspects of society. Some like Rev Phelps are still stuck in the dark ages. In the end it is not the religious institution that alone determines who these people are. It is a combination of forces including their beliefs, the society, and their own particular history that define them and make them great or horrible.

As to truth. Yes it is transformational. Particularly if it frees you from delusions. But that is the trick. Discerning the delusions from the truth. Delusions can be transformational as well. In the end what causes the transformation is not the truth or the delusion. But rather it is the belief that causes the change. For belief is how we see the world. It defines what we accept as true. It defines us. I prefer to using a method of discerning the truth rather than relying on someone telling me what the truth is.


Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it. -Andre Gide

[trotsky]

332. And why would an atheist want to destroy secular schools?

Christians have killed other Christian priests, missionaries, and officials for centuries. It's part of the reason why you have Catholics/Lutherans/Baptists/Orthodox/etc.

I'd like to know how YOU know that "In private, Nazis were almost uniformly atheistic."

But that's beside the point, anyway. A poster made the claim that Hitler was an atheist, and it's pretty clear from his own actions and writings that that's not the case.

[LeahMira]

285. No, certainly not!

do you automatically have a hate reaction to atheists? do you get into arguments over dogma and virgin births with them, or try to 'convert' them? do you just wish they'd all go away?

Still, I do have a hard time believing that atheists don't have something that they value above everything else, and I have a hard time believing that atheists aren't spiritual.

Then, I have to say that I don't believe in an old man who lives above the clouds and watches everyone all the time, judging how well or poorly we are doing. I guess the closest "definition" of the G-d that I believe in is that G-d is the Force that creates and sustains harmony and balance throughout the universe.

[rucky]

292. I don't believe in athiesm

there's no proof that God doesn't exist.

[ulysses]

297. agnostic on the subject.

;-) No need to place value judgments on anyone's belief or lack thereof.

[Ysabel]

304. true - and yet - i really like that statement a lot...

heh... :P

[ulysses]

313. I thought about making an exception

for fundamentalists, as I will freely make value judgments about fundamentalists, but I've decided that fundamentalism has little to do with actual religious belief and much to do with clinical control issues in search of justification. :)

[Guava Jelly]

298. Athiest are realist

they dont put their lives in the hands of non existant dieties.
Unlike the Sheep that follow blindly in a Cloud Guy that lets good people die and jerks like osama live .
I am sick of religon!!!!
Religon starts wars kills people and pushes Hate of any opinion that isnt lock step with their lil Black Book.

Well I worship an intergalactic space turnip name Cecil.
makes as much sense at least I have seen a freaken turnip and know for a fact they exist.
Faith is hogwash

[Nobody]

302. For anyone who thinks that atheists have no morality, imagine this:

Image for a moment that you were enjoying a nice Sunday afternoon at home and the doorbell rings. Imagine that you answered it and were faced with two people wearing costumes that look like they came from the set of Star Trek.

Those two people are Star Trek fans and they belong to the local chapter. Let's imagine that they ask you to join their club and you tell them you're not interested.

Assume that you are interested in furthering the sciences, doing community volunteer work, and are huge fans of the space program, but you watched an episode of Star Trek and hated it. The two fans pressure you to join. You get annoyed and slam the door.

You don't have to be a fan of a particular sci-fi TV show to be interested in science and community service.

Likewise you don't have to belong to a church and believe in a higher power to be interested in helping others, doing the right thing, respecting your elders, and obeying the laws of the land.

[RebelOne]

307. Can't we just end this thread?

[Steely_Dan]

308. Atheism is as silly as Theism

I was an atheist until about age 28. Then, it occurred to me that it is just as impossible to prove that there is NO god as to prove that there IS a god. The only intellectually honest position to take is agnosticism.

Most agnostics are reformed atheists like myself. I define agnosticism as follows:

If there is a god (and it is a big "if"), we as mere mortals are incapable of even remotely understanding the concept. That is to say, we cannot conceive of the true nature of god. It simply is beyond our ability.

-Paige

[Az]

325. You may be off a bit

Atheism and Theism do not ask whether you can prove your case or not. They merely detail what you happen to believe. You either do or do not believe there is a god or gods. Its a pretty simple concept that gets tied up in all sorts of semantic knots.

[Steely_Dan]

339. Ummmm

Az:

Ummm...Okay, I see what your saying. However, not to be contrary or anything, but I believe the point I'm making still stands. I suppose that your point is already assumed as "understood." The next step is the point I'm making. Perhaps I should have explained that better.

Love this subject...and by the number of respondents, so do a lot of other people.

-Paige

[Steely_Dan]

311. Just Imagine...

A funny thought occurred to me.
Can you imagine this same kind of discussion going on at a Conservative site? I can't.

-Paige

[Fescue4u]

312. Its a shorted sighted and naive "religion"

Seriously and I don't mean this is in offensive way.

Agnostics is the belief of not knowing.
Atheism is the "belief" that there is nothing more.

I fully understand the mindset of agnostics, but not atheist.

Why? The more one learns about the universe and how complicated it is, the more one knows that we don't really know anything.

Even "simple" concepts like time are far more complicated on 99.99% of humanity understand.

Basically, Im smart enough to know that Im way too stupid to be able to make a statement like "God doesnt exist".

Its the height of arrogance and naivity for any person to feel that they understand our universe well enough to rule out a creator.

[nini]

324. To each his own

We should all live by the golden rule..

'do unto others'

I don't expect others to believe and I expect them to let me believe what I choose to.

It's simple really, but then I'm not a judgmental psychotic fundie :-)

[Nlighten1]

326. Atheism is great!

[Hekate]

327. That we create gods in our image is not a new idea, but knowing that...

...is not necessarily a bar to a religious life. Knowing that we humans project the familiar onto unknowable mystery should lead to greater tolerance and compassion for other religions.

I was raised by an agnostic/atheist mother who was herself raised as a Roman Catholic. She told me that when she made her final break with the Church as a young woman she gave a great deal of thought to how she could convey the strong ethical system of the Church to her children without the overlay of teachings she felt had failed her. She tried very hard to teach us tolerance and understanding of many religions, but couldn't stop herself from putting me down for wanting to belong to one myself. Reason and ethics were her gods, so to speak.

I, on the other hand, have struggled to find a way into the heart of religion. As far back as I can remember, I have loved ritual and community and have sought for ways to have them. As my mother's daughter, however, reason and ethics have been my guides, and I've been grateful for that because it has protected me from con-artists both religious and secular.

Most atheists I have known have been well-behaved, law-abiding, kind and good. Their main difference from people of faith has been hyper-rationality, which does not bother me since I grew up with that.

Personally I think they are missing out on something, but I feel the same way about people who don't understand what I get out of poetry, music, and art.

I don't believe in a god that would torment his children for eternity for the errors of a single lifetime, whatever those errors might be.

Hekate

[madrchsod]

330. jesus i read this post when it started

this morning and just read it again...dam mopaul you sure got things going...

[Festivito]

331. There seem as many variants of Atheists as variants of LIHOP and MIHOP.

Let means they had an inkling, or they knew and did nothing, or let means they made a few calls to stop FBI from investigating and NG from intercepting.

Atheists at times are anti-organized-religionists, or Atheist family grown-ups, or I-found-hypocrisy-and-I'm-madists.

This was long-winded, ill-focused, AND meandering.

You ask about Atheism, then talk about atheists.

I think you wanted to talk about the people, not the belief.

I surmise you are looking to join something outlandish and want to push push push in order to see who will still accept you after you try to push them away.

I love everyone, including Atheists, including pushing me away Atheists. I respect Atheists.

If God is love, and God does not exist, does love not exist, and therefore no one can love you?

[DoYouEverWonder]

337. Has a gnostic christian

To deny that there is a god, would be to deny a key component of my self.

An atheist believes that there is no god, either inside or outside of himself. To me that is like denying your own existence and rest of the universe.

Most christians are taught to believe that god is something outside of themselves and above them. That you have to go through someone else to get to god. That is why people like Falwell and Robertson are able to attain so much power. They convince people that they are the only way to get to god and that no other way will work. Their goal is to make you deny your true self.

My own belief is that god is light. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. The universe is a very logical place, where the laws of physics rule. Without light, there would be no universe. Nothing would exist without it. Therefore, in order for me to even breathe that light has to be alive within me. So if god is light, and some of that light is within me, then I am a part of god.