Even Atheists Follow the Christian God

[demwing]

At least in this country.

I am a person of deep spiritual beliefs, but am not a Christian. Yet, so very often, when debating the existence (or lack of) of God, I find myself having to rationalize the Christian belief system, which I do not follow.

My conclusion is then that American atheists, despite their non-religiousness, only see religiosity from a Judeo-Christian point of view. In a sense, that makes them as much a follower of Jesus as any born-again fundie. Let me explain...

When you think of church, do you think of steeples, crosses, and rows of pews, or does your imagination conjure up images of incense filled temples?
Imagine a priest - do you see black robes and white collars, or saffron robes and shaven heads?
When you think of scriptures, do you think of the Old and New Testament, or does your mind automatically repeat your favorite verse from the Baha'i Book of Certitude?
When you imagine God, do you see a patriarchal figure, faceless, big beard, clouds, and a heavenly throne, or a little boy playing a flute?

Your conditioning directs you to an understanding of God, religion, and spirituality. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe most people accept or reject religious or spiritual life, based on their acceptance or rejection of the images they have been spoon fed. I know that we are all individuals, and many people have put enormous thought into their spiritual decisions. But many more people haven't, and accept-and reject-blindly, based on conditioning received early in life.

I'm not here to influence the beliefs of Atheists. My goal is much more simple. If you are an Atheist, and you find yourself in a chat room, or face to face with a person professing religious beliefs, don't assume that they are Christian beliefs. Don't support the meme that Christianity is king, by focusing your energies on this religion. Don't tell me the Bible is full of contradictions, and was written by men. I already agree!

Try to understand that there are many of us out here who believe in God, but not in Jehovah. Do not make the error of propagating a religion through negative reinforcement. That's my public service message. Thanks for reading. :)

[Name removed]

1. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[demwing]

3. Exactly - don't assume all belief in God translates to belief in Christianity.

That's my point - sort of. Don't tell people what they think. Why get so aggravated by that?

[skooooo]

9. I think you're reading the headline..

...without considering the rest of the op's explanation.

In America, most people are given the "choice" of being part of the greater institutes of religion or nothing. We don't grow up learning about Buddhism, or any real alternatives. That's what I see the author saying.

[Solomon]

132. The problem with the author's theory is that most of us who are

considered to be atheists and raised in a judeo-christian environment took the time and effort to study and look into other religions and that is how we came to conclude that we don't want it. Unlike, by the way, most christians, who refuse to read anything which doesn't support christianity.

I say this not as an atheist because I don't know that I would go so far as to say that something "else" doesn't exist, but I do know that the literal stories underlying most religion are bullshit. And having said that, I will argue that it's not the literal stories that make the religions but the ideas and truth the stories are designed to convey. The problem is religion has been hijacked by those, who in order to believe, insist on the literal stories, and when you do that, all manner of crimes are available without responsibility.

So I have to disagree with the author's argument. I subscribe to christian philosophy, but you can't prove that it's "christian" philosophy, because so many other religious systems and systems of morals and ethics contain the exact same truths.

[skooooo]

5. huh?

Why illogical? We are all bound by our culture and familiar points of reference. That only makes sense. What exactly do you find so illogical?

[Big Blue Marble]

7. How rude of you.

Would you really respond to someone expressing these sentiments in "real life" so disdainfully?

[BlooInBloo]

13. If they said the same thing? Of course I would....

Especially the idiotic inference "it was this way for me, therefore it's this way for all athiests - and I'm not even an athiest!"

:rofl:


EDIT: Or in shorter form: "You SAY you're atheistic - but **I** know you're REALLY a Christian!". Fuck people who think they know what I think.

EDITEDIT: Upon further reflection, it's possibly the best example I've ever seen of Americans not being able to so much as countenance the possibility of someone being less stupid than they are.

[Big Blue Marble]

23. Could you have a conversation without

the insults. So many on this board who are atheists seem so hostile. I may not agree with this person's opinions
but I feel no need to attack what I think is their honest expression of the issue.

I do weary of the elitism of so many atheists on this board.

Edited to add:

You certainly weaken your argument by putting quotes around an inference!
An inference is your interpretation not a quote.

[BlooInBloo]

29. I'm a very good person to have a non-stupid convo with...

Outside of that, you have a point.

[Xipe Totec]

2. The Christian Philosophy

You can love and admire Christ the man, even if you don't subscribe to his divinity.

There is a difference.

:hi:

[Taverner]

4. Christ was an amalgam

Romans during the time of Constantine and Augustine were searching: the old Gods didn't have the same sway, and the new religions from Persia and Africa just didn't gel with them.

Along comes Christianity, which incorporates Mithras, Judaism, Manicheanism, Zoroastrianism, and the old Pagan Religions.

Whether or not Jesus actually existed is irrelevant, the Jesus the Romans created did, at least in the minds of his followers.

Add in some Pauline self loathing and you've got a winner...

[LostInAnomie]

6. We don't follow the Christian God...

... that's just the one we get beat over the head with the most in this country.

I'll be fair though, pretty much all versions of God or Gods are pretty fucking stupid.

[tangent90]

10. Bottom line is, doesn't much matter, really what the imaginary deity is called

it's still imaginary.
:D

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Pretty much sums up my views on the matter. eom

[jody]

8. I believe there's a basic moral factor that underlies all great religions and the Humanist Manifesto

Humanist Manifesto III

Life's fulfillment emerges from individual participation in the service of humane ideals. We aim for our fullest possible development and animate our lives with a deep sense of purpose, finding wonder and awe in the joys and beauties of human existence, its challenges and tragedies, and even in the inevitability and finality of death. Humanists rely on the rich heritage of human culture and the lifestance of Humanism to provide comfort in times of want and encouragement in times of plenty.

Humans are social by nature and find meaning in relationships. Humanists long for and strive toward a world of mutual care and concern, free of cruelty and its consequences, where differences are resolved cooperatively without resorting to violence. The joining of individuality with interdependence enriches our lives, encourages us to enrich the lives of others, and inspires hope of attaining peace, justice, and opportunity for all.

Working to benefit society maximizes individual happiness. Progressive cultures have worked to free humanity from the brutalities of mere survival and to reduce suffering, improve society, and develop global community. We seek to minimize the inequities of circumstance and ability, and we support a just distribution of nature's resources and the fruits of human effort so that as many as possible can enjoy a good life.

[SidDithers]

20. Atheist version...

Sid

[jody]

22. Does that mean you reject the Humanist Manifesto, an avowed irreligious statement?

"Knowledge of the world is derived by observation, experimentation, and rational analysis."

"Humans are an integral part of nature, the result of unguided evolutionary change."

"Ethical values are derived from human need and interest as tested by experience."

How do your personal atheist beliefs differ from that stated in Humanist Manifesto III?

[SidDithers]

28. No, it means I'm providing an alternative...

to the not-so-humanist poster you displayed in your post.

Sid

Edit: and I don't think morality has anything to do with religion.

[jody]

45. Assuming you read my post, you noted I began with quoting passages from Humanist Manifesto III

which is another way of expressing the Golden Rule.

Each of us lives with and interacts with people of various religious and irreligious persuasions.

IMO it would be nice if we could find some common moral principals on which such a disparate population can agree to guide us in social, business, and government affairs.

[demwing]

33. Sounds like a good idea, as long as we can also agree

to avoid doing the dumb shit that non religious people do to each other as well.

[SidDithers]

34. I find that trying to avoid doing dumb shit...

is, generally, a pretty good way to go through life :hi:

Sid

[sam sarrha]

48. the Mahayana Buddhist would say .. "treat all other beings as they are your mother".

[jmm]

12. So then I guess my friends who were

raised in non-Judeo-Christian religions such as Buddhism but are atheists don't exist :shrug:.

[demwing]

18. not sure how you pulled that bit out

When I made it clear that I believe we accept or reject religious ideals based on our religious conditioning. I'm sure that an atheist raised by a Hindu family in India does not waste time trying to convince friends and family that Jesus was just a man, and quite possibly just a myth.

But in America, it does happen. I don't care that you think Jesus was a myth. I don't feel the need to support Jesus. But it does get tiring having to explain that when ever the conversation turns to religious debate.

[jmm]

31. I can't believe I have to say this here but

not all Americans were raised Christian. Many citizens, whether naturalized or whose families were here for many generations, practice other faiths.

You wrote "Don't support the meme that Christianity is king, by focusing your energies on this religion" but that's exactly what this thread does.

[demwing]

36. no, but because the majority were

the common argument against religion is really an argument against Christianity. As much as I am sure that atheists get tired of trying to be converted to Christianity, the non Christian get tired of faith being confused with Christian faith.

[PassingFair]

63. Most atheists are asian.

Even in this country.

Nice try though.

[demwing]

109. What in the world makes you say that? /nt

[demwing]

121. To answer my own question, I just read on Wikipedia

that something near 65% of the population of Japan descibe themselves as Atheists, agnostics, or non-believers, compared to 2.3% of the world's population.

thats a full 53% of the poplation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism

[RagAss]

14. It's all Mother Goose to me !!!!!

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[BuyingThyme]

16. So you're saying Jesus was an atheist...

[demwing]

19. Well, from what I've read, Jesus didn't believe he was God

So if that makes him an atheist, so be it.

[BuyingThyme]

21. Then you win this debate.

:hi:

[TexasObserver]

17. I don't think Buddhist priests are any more special than Catholic priests.

Ritual and myths are the province of religion.

I tolerate religions, but don't think they have anything to do with God or spirituality.

[Donnachaidh]

40. actually, I haven't heard of any Buddhist monks being sued for pedophilia lately. n/t

[patrice]

49. Buddhism is not a religion.

[TexasObserver]

54. Sure it is.

And it is considered such in most of the world.

YOU don't think it is a religion, but you are in the minority in that opinion.

[sam sarrha]

50. Buddhism isn't a religion, it is a method of training the mind to become "Awake". >>Link>>

http://www.buddhanet.net/wheel2.htm

please note that the Gods, and Demi-gods such as Jehovah, also reside in Samsara and their powers cant free them from Cyclical Karmic rebirth, old age suffering and death. if they cant save themselves they cant save us.

we had a Tibetan Lama at our Center, he basically taught Meditation, he described himself as a "Friend", he wasn't a Priest, there are no Buddhist Priests. he was the most compassionate and loving person i have ever met.

Buddhists are not Athiests.. there are gods, but they are also just poor suffering beings like everyone else in the end.

[TexasObserver]

55. It is a religion. It's a way of telling yourself you've discovered something.

That's what religions do - convince people that some storyline and life perspective is better and more spiritual than all the others.

I know you think it's special, that it's not really a religion. That's called self delusion, and it's practiced by the religious minded everywhere.

Religious advocates the world over feel exactly as you do, and they're as deluded as you are. Religion is the opiate of the masses, and Buddhism is simply one more brand name.

[sam sarrha]

i am not trying to convince anyone of anything better. i am attempting to inform people of their mi

misconceptions of Buddhism. i didn't start this, and i didn't insult anyone.. Buddhism has nothing to do with Spirituality, Buddhists do not believe in the evidence of the soul. you need to get your definitions down.

and you are disturbingly arrogant and ignorant, 2 major ingredients of Bigotry

no need to reply, i find your thought process particularly unpleasant and distasteful.

other Buddhists dont usually inter in on this conversation, besides being REALLY F'n BORING.. it never does any good, i'm the Buddhist, you arent.. but you are the expert :rofl: why bother.??

[TexasObserver]

64. Sounds exactly like every religious zealot arguing their beliefs.

Cult members will tell you they don't believe they belong to a cult, and they will also tell you "shouldn't I know?" Your comments are similar. If you don't want to consider Buddhism a religion, that's your choice, but it doesn't change the fact that it is a religion. Society, not you, decides what a religion is. If you want to find the nearest Buddhist temple, you look up churches or religion in the yellow pages.

I invite you to research "world's largest religions." Today you can learn that Buddhism is a religion.

[sam sarrha]

73. what fuels Bigots.. is denial and cynical self rightious Apriori bullshit, ...Buddhism is based

on a simple logical statement... nothing else.

[sam sarrha]

60. sorry, double click

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. You say "Buddhism isn't a religion", and then follow up with

"the Gods, and Demi-gods such as Jehovah, also reside in Samsara"? Look, if you believe in gods and demi-gods, then you've gone far beyond "training your mind". You're in a religion.

[sam sarrha]

59. the gods have no place in Buddhism they co exist without effecting anything, so there is no religion

the gods have no place in Buddhism they co exist without effecting anything, so there is no religion

in Buddhism the creation of the world and universe is not addressed, it is considered only a distraction.

the gods are essentially considered impotent beings with terrible failings, so terrible that nearly all if not all are reborn in the Hell Realms for their karma as gods..

they are objects of pity not worship.

your logic is simply polishing a turd.. it isn't going anywhere, you said, "if you believe in gods and demi-gods.." i don't "Believe" in the gods, i am trying to explain that Believing in them is ignorance, because they have no power to help humans,. there are Republicans in the world but that doesnt make you one ..does it,:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

65. If you believe in a system of gods, and rules for hell, you believe in a religion.

Your comments would be comical, but you're serious, and that makes it tragic.

Wake up and smell the dogma. As the Shaolin priest said to Fred Flintstone's daughter "Pebbles, when you can snatch this grasshopper from my hand ...."

[muriel_volestrangler]

66. You believe in the existence of gods

ie supernatural beings, and that they are subject to laws of morality, and that there is a 'hell' for them to go to. "I believe in the Devil" is not a statement of worship; it states that you believe in its existence. And its a religious statement.

Republicans are material, and belief in their existence does not depend on accepting the myths and claims of a supernatural religion.

[sam sarrha]

74. you are so full of shit..

[muriel_volestrangler]

75. Nice reasoned argument there

Why do you believe that gods and demi-gods exist? Do you have a religion that isn't Buddhism?

[Epiphany4z]

24. yikes

umm no...I have friends who are Wiccan,Buddhist,hindu,I know agnostics,atheist,deist.........I do believe I even know a satanist...I don't follow or have a need to follow any of the religions..I know enough non christians not to assume......I will say I have never had anyone except a christian try to convert me.....so that may have something to do with what you think is a christian tilted scale.

[Christa]

25. Please speak for yourself only

What a silly post.

[enlightenment]

26. Well, you're entitled to your opinion.

I'm entitled to think you're wrong.

Despite all the words, your post has only one point: to claim (as so many do) that atheism is a belief system and any atheist who expresses an opinion of religion (regardless of type of religion or quality of expression) is a 'fundamentalist'.

I'll give you a half-a-point for wordiness to detract attention from your gripe. But take a full point for positing a circular argument.

[demwing]

42. Take back all your points and subtractions

I do not think atheism is a belief system.

My point is that so often, the debate between theist and atheist, in this culture at least, is delivered using Christian terminology and imagery.

[TexasObserver]

69. Of course atheism is a belief system.

But, unlike those of the religious, it relies on the known and logic, not fairy tales from ancient texts.

The reason Christian terminology is used is simple: most of those with whom such discussions are had are Christians. When one discusses the world of gods and demons, one does so in the language and paradigm constructed by the religious person with whom one is speaking. It is therefore normal for atheists to use such language when talking with the religious in America.

Three major religions rely on the same ancient text - the Old Testament - in their mythology: Islam, Judaism, and Christianity. It is therefore quite logical that we would use Christian or Old Testament imagery and labels to talk about such nonsense.

[Toasterlad]

27. Your Inability to Overcome Your Programming Does Not Extend to All

Even after 12 years of catholic school, I'm easily able to differentiate between what is moral and what is christian.

[BuyingThyme]

30. Currently accompanying this thread:

[demwing]

32. Not sure if that's ironic

but it certainly is amusing

[sam sarrha]

35. you are only correct on one point, "Jehovah" isnt a God, by definition he's a Demi-god, the Gods

the Gods failing is Pride... a Demi-god's failing is Jealousy. Jehovah is quoted as saying he is a jealous god, a God is Omnipotent and omnishent... jealousy is a sin, a failing of being even a good human being, but a historical definition of a Demi-god. Demi-gods cause trouble for humans, interfering, wars, suffering etc

the rest of your story is at best a misconception.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

37. Good Post.

The one thing I never understood about some atheists is when they speak as if fact that some form of God doesn't exist. I always found that to be as closed minded as those who state as if fact that the does. Either way it's a belief system or lack of belief, and belief is opinion not fact. Just like those who carry religion can't prove the existence of god, atheists can't prove the universe was just created without one either. That's what always confused me about them. To me, I always found agnosticism to be almost the most mentally healthy of all choices. Being well grounded and having a pretty strong conviction that some ultimate being doesn't exist, but being mature enough of mind and open minded enough to accept that at least there could be some possibility (since there's nothing conclusive either way). That always seemed to make a lot of sense to me.

But hell, to each their own when it comes down to it.

[cynatnite]

62. I'm an atheist because there is no evidence any god exists. Period.

If some should appear that proves a god does exist, then I accept that. The 2000 year old book with all those unknown authors and the problems of it being copied over and over by illiterate folks makes it not credible at all.

Anything is possible...including an omniscient god. Is it probable? Not likely with the lack of evidence to date.

[ZombieHorde]

106. "Anything is possible"

Do you believe God is more likely to exist than other supernatural creatures?

[demwing]

110. That's open to debate

But one could also say the opposite - that there is no evidence to support the theory that a "supernatural" being does not exist.

[ZombieHorde]

77. "if fact that some form of God doesn't exist"

This is intellectually dishonest unless all supernatural entities, objects, and events are given equal status. Easter Bunny, leprechauns, the magical properties of Mormon underwear, Scientology, Heaven's Gate, toasters which turn into vicious badgers which kick your ass if you put the wrong type of bread into it, women who get abortions burn in Hell for all eternity, the astrology section in your local newspaper, men who kill themselves when killing others will go to an alternate dimension where there will be a pack of horny virgins waiting for them, GWB was appointed by God to be the POTUS, etc.

To me, I always found agnosticism to be almost the most mentally healthy of all choices.

I used to believe this as well, but again, its dishonest. I am not agnostic about my bed turning into a water buffalo which will try to consume my spinal cord, which is just as likely as any god being real.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

83. I Consider Your Comparisons To Be Quite Silly.

Comparing the belief that there could be some sort of higher power that created the universe in no way is on the same level as the absurdities you listed. You want it to be, but logic dictates otherwise.

The problem as I see it, as it relates to a strong atheist stance vs a strong belief in god one, is that they are both guilty of firmly believing in absurdity. The atheist believes that everything in the entire universe simply came out of nowhere, as in poof! Big bang! Universe commence!. The believer in god believes much the same, but that instead it was created by the higher power, but with no explanation as to where the higher power came from. Both situations are highly unbelievable based on what we logically KNOW, but the fascinating part is that ONE of the sides has to be right (at least to a large degree). Problem is that there is no one that knows which is correct. Maybe someday science will finally have conclusive proof as to just how matter came into existence, but no such evidence exists right now. Right now we have facts as to what happened afterwards, but no explanation for the actual creation of matter from nothing. Until such a time that such evidence is found (which someday it very well may be), each side has something pretty damn remarkable and unbelievable that they have to contend with.

It is for those reasons that I think the only true objective choices are "I don't believe in god cause there's no proof, but I can admit there could of course be the possibility" and "I firmly believe in god, but I can admit there's a chance that one doesn't in fact exist". Such attitudes should always be the ones to have when a deep, complicated and serious topic reasonably has no firm or factual evidence available to conclusively prove either side of it.

[ZombieHorde]

84. You're right about my examples being silly, but they are no sillier than god.

Explain to me how the existence of god(s) is more likely than the existence of other supernatural creatures. What objective standard do you use to determine the likelihood of any particular supernatural creature existing?

The atheist believes that everything in the entire universe simply came out of nowhere, as in poof! Big bang!

No, atheists don't believe in god. Beliefs concerning the origin of the universe are independent of atheism. I am an atheist, but I do not claim to know how the universe came to be.

the fascinating part is that ONE of the sides has to be right (at least to a large degree)

My eight year old daughter believes that all of the gods lived a long long time ago, but they have since died of old age. I think she came up with this belief to reconcile theist/atheist viewpoints.

"I don't believe in god cause there's no proof, but I can admit there could of course be the possibility"

"I don't believe my bed will turn into a water buffalo which will try to consume my spinal cord cause there's no proof, but I can admit there could of course be the possibility"

Both of the above look equivalent to me because they both involve the supernatural. Do they look equivalent to you, and if not, why?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

86. The Defense Within Your Reply Is Equally As Silly.

I can see no serious discussion can come between us if that is the type of mindset I will be seeing each time from you.

You still choose to compare your examples as if they are logically equal, but common sense, logic and even a hint of intelligence would be able to ascertain the huge difference.

And no, beliefs concerning the origin of the universe are not at all independent of atheism. Either the universe was created by some form of god or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it had to come to be by all matter simply all of a sudden existing, for reasons we do not yet have any idea about. So if you out of hand dismiss the former, then by default and common sense you have to subscribe to the latter. That doesn't mean you claim to know how the universe came to be, since obviously no one knows that. But one part is still a constant: Matter which at one time ceased to exist, all of a sudden existed for reasons yet to be determined. Saying it is independent of atheism is one of the most absurd things I've ever heard.

And as far as the supernatural goes, as to my previous logically stated post, even atheists have to rely on some form of supernatural argument in order to hold their position. Since current science and physics deems that matter can't come from nothing, then the concept that all matter simply all of a sudden existed on its own is also due to some sort of supernatural event on some level. There is no explanation for it. It could be due to some form of god or it could be due to something physical and scientific, but we have no idea of either; no logical or 'natural' explanation for either; and as it stands right now each concept is supernatural and wondrous. If you can't grasp that then this discussion really isn't going to go all that far. Of course, that would just serve to bolster the point I originally made in this thread to begin with. :hi:

[ZombieHorde]

87. "logically equal"

Please explain how my silly examples are not logically equal to god. You say my argument is silly, but you will not answer my questions or explain yourself. Seems to me you call my argument names because you don't know how to argue against my points.

Either the universe was created by some form of god or it wasn't. If it wasn't, then it had to come to be by all matter simply all of a sudden existing, for reasons we do not yet have any idea about. So if you out of hand dismiss the former, then by default and common sense you have to subscribe to the latter.

The universe could have always existed. I really don't know how the universe came to be, but I do know an atheist does not have to believe the universe came from nothing.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

88. Like I Said;

If that is the sort of mindset you will be using, then this discussion is worthless. I've made my points and made them well. I will waste no further time on you.

[ZombieHorde]

89. Some were made well, others were not made at all.

I've made my points and made them well.

You have made points about atheistic beliefs concerning the universe, but you have yet to even hint as to why one supernatural being is more likely to exist than another supernatural being. I believe this is because you can not think of an objective standard to use. I believe, that you believe, a god is considerably more likely to exist than a bed which can turn into a spinal cord devouring water buffalo, but you don't know how to articulate your reason(s) as to why. I will not take your insults personally because I know the inability to articulate one's thoughts and feelings often leads to frustration.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

90. ROFLMAO

Nice try kid.

I can articulate it just fine. I wasn't going to waste my time explaining something that even any reasonably intelligent person would be able to recognize off the top of their heads. But hell, it's been a few hours, so fuck it.

See, the reason why your analogy is so absurd in comparison is because there is a complete lack of circumstantial evidence to theorize that a bed can or has turned into such a thing. You have nothing to go by in that claim other than creativity out of thin air. But as it relates to god, a list can be made with a million pieces of supporting evidence to theorize the potential for his existence. You choose to believe that the things on that list are from causes other than god, but it is a belief nonetheless. There's no proof either way. But there's a TON of things that can be used in supporting argument that god may exist, but you'd have NO logical or reasonable supporting evidence to make a claim that a bed can or has turned into a spinal cord devouring water buffalo. Knowing that the universe was created somehow and in some way, while also being aware of the plethora of wonders within it, causes a theory that some higher power had a hand in it to not be an absurdity, but instead a possibility. Because we don't know the source of universe creation, and the concept that matter just simply appeared from nothing or the even more absurd notion that matter was always there are huge leaps of faith as well, the theory of god is perfectly reasonable and there's nothing wrong with someone choosing to believe that route. There's also nothing wrong with someone choosing to believe the universe just poofed out of nothing, or simply always existed. Each possibility seems impossible, improbably or incredible based on what we actually KNOW, but yet one of them has to be right. We don't know which one. I could just as easily compare the non-god universe creation theory as equivalent to a bed turning into a spine devouring water buffalo, but I wouldn't. Why? Cause it's an idiotic comparison.

So yeah, I articulated it just fine and basically have just logically blown you to oblivion. Feel free to get the last word, because I'm content in what I've already stated and content in the reality that the overwhelming majority of objective and intelligent readers would agree that I've owned you.

:hi:

[ZombieHorde]

91. So my bed which can turn into a spinal cord devouring water buffalo would be more believable

if I gave it the miraculous power of universe creation?

Bed which transformed into a spinal cord devouring water buffalo = ridiculous.

Bed which transformed into a spinal cord devouring water buffalo created the universe with its god like powers = less ridiculous.

This seems to be what you are saying.

You seem to be using the "god of the gaps" idea as a standard to measure the likelihood of the existence of supernatural beings. Would you agree with this assessment?

You have nothing to go by in that claim other than creativity out of thin air.

-Sometimes people awake with a backache.

-Sometimes people find mysterious hairs in their beds.

-I don't who came up the the original idea of bed creation, so by the god of the gaps standard, I can fairly assume a supernatural origin.

-Many people report hearing mysterious footsteps in their houses, some people blame this on ghosts, others on their house settling, but I can fairly assume it is their bed wandering around.

-Sometime people awake with the desire for water, which is their subconscious trying to tell them the Truth about their beds.

-When I was praying to http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200525">Tom Cruise he sent me a vision of a bed turning into a spine devouring water buffalo.

Obviously all of my examples are jokes, but how do they differ from theistic examples?

The Big Bang theory did not come out of nothing, it came from observation of what is believed by some to be the results of the Big Bang. First observation, then idea. The process for god is reversed, first god is believed, then observations to support that belief.

You have ALMOST convinced me, but I still see gaps (pun intended) in your explanation.

I've owned you

Not yet, but you still have a chance too. I am tickled at the prospect of annoying one of my hard core religion hating buddies with your logic, but it needs to be tighter. God of the gaps just won't do.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

92. Why You've Been Owned:

It is quite clear in your responses that you have been. At least 3/4ths of what you just wrote is absurd on its face, and easily recognizable as such by almost anyone. It also shows me that you didn't even begin to think deeply enough about my arguments enough prior to your reply, since rereading my prior argument would nullify most of which you just said.

As far as the big bang theory goes, that isn't my problem. To me, the big bang makes perfect sense. It is currently supported by a wide array of scientific evidence as to its existence. But that's not what I'm directing my statements at. I'm directing them at what occurred prior to the big bang, in order for the big band to even occur. To make the big bang work, all mass and components were contained in a small space with such density and power that we couldn't even begin to fathom. But that's all they can theorize. To this day, the scientific community is still completely perplexed at where the mass came from and where the components necessary to even facilitate the big bang came from. For the big bang to occur, there had to be matter and mass. No one has the slightest idea as to where this energy, mass, matter and power came from. That's the incredulous aspect of it, and that's what makes believing in it every bit of a leap of faith, every bit as incredulous, and every bit as seemingly impossible based on what we know and understand about the way things work, as believing in some form of a god being responsible.

Fact is, we have no idea how the matter, energy, force, or components necessary to facilitate the big bang came from. They could've 'always existed' as you referenced, could've came from nothing, or been the work of a higher power. Each one is hard to comprehend because in today's day and age with all that we know, we can't even begin to wrap our minds around the true possibility of any of those explanation. It is one of life's greatest mysteries and will be for quite sometime.

Fact: The universe and all the energy and matter within it had to originate somewhere. Either it always existed, which is almost unbelievable to comprehend, was facilitated into existence by some unknown form of higher power; which is also quite hard to completely comprehend, or it simply came suddenly and unexpectedly out of nowhere and from nothing; which is quite a leap and pretty damn hard to comprehend on a realistic level as well.

At the end of the day we just don't know. It boggles the mind and fascinates deep thinker after deep thinker. Each is incredulous. None are close to being proven. Until such a time, there should be an open mind that any of the three, as incredulous as they seem, could be the possible correct theory.

So to go back to my original post, I consider agnosticism the wisest of all because it uses strong scientific logic to believe god doesn't exist, while also being objective enough and understanding the issue enough to admit or leave the possibility open to the fact that a god may have been responsible, but they aren't going to buy that without some form of proof. Open minded, but not overly stubborn.

I wish there was a thing as agnostic theists, or some label for them, in which they believe in god but also acknowledge that there's no proof of his existence and their beliefs therefore might be flawed. I also wish some would accept that their theory of scientific creation is just a belief as well, thereby making it an opinion and not fact, and that there is no proof that matter came from nothing or just always existed either. There's no proof for any of it. No proof for any of the three. Just faith and belief, which can always be flawed and wrong since they are not based on factual conclusion. A position with an open mind on ALL possible yet reasonable explanation is the only way to go imho. I think any of the three are reasonable to conclude, since each side can give much supporting evidence for their theory. But NONE of them are reasonable to present as fact with feet firmly planted, without lending any credence to the notion that an alternative explanation could end up being the right one.

Anyway, I'm hopped up on meds and god only knows how many typos or incoherent statements I may have made, so I'll end it here. Hopefully I've made a point and hopefully you'll think more deeply as to where I'm coming from and why.

As far as I'm concerned, I was originally an atheist, then found a strong believe in some form of god that started to truly believe in. Now I kinda toggle back and forth between agnosticism and belief, and have my days of atheism and days of theism. But overall my mind is open and accepting of all reasonable possibilities as to the world's creation.

As far as deep rooted religious theism goes, I don't give much weight to it. I don't believe the roll of god, if one truly exists, is anywhere near what most consider it to be. On that note, peace out to ya and have a good night. I'm off for some shuteye.

[Why Syzygy]

93. I understood your logic perfectly. fwiw

I've begun to wonder if the difference between believers and nonbelievers reflects on something so simple as optimism vs. pessimism. I'm way too optimistic to believe that we are just matter spinning through space and time with no underlying 'purpose'. And, it seems to me (could be wrong), that Atheists are pessimistic about a lot more things than just God.

[ZombieHorde]

96. Why...

Why do you believe an optimistic view of life requires meaning in the eyes of a supernatural creature?

[Why Syzygy]

99. Pardon me?

Could you rephrase that? I don't get your point.

[ZombieHorde]

101. No problem.

I'm way too optimistic to believe that we are just matter spinning through space and time with no underlying 'purpose'.

Using the claim in the above quote, the belief that we are just matter spinning through space and time with no underlying 'purpose' is pessimistic.

The belief our lives have meaning because a supernatural creature gave our lives meaning is optimistic.

Why is one belief pessimistic and one belief optimistic?

Why is an atheist view of the world more pessimistic than a theist view of the world?

[Why Syzygy]

103. Simple.

Optimists believe something good is going to happen. Like Utopia.

Pessimists believe something not so good is going to happen. Like turning to dust.

[Jokerman]

111. That is absurd.

It sounds like another way of saying that all atheists are angry or unhappy. Some of the most unhappy and pessimistic people I know are also the most religious.

Personally, I can't think of anything more pessimistic than the idea that if I eat the wrong food, wear the wrong clothing or work on the wrong day that I'll be condemned by some arbitrary deity.

Part of the reason I'm an optimist is the realization that there is nothing else so I better make the best of what I've got while I can.

I can live my life as an optimist while still being realistic about the end.

[ZombieHorde]

95. Uh oh, you forgot to answer the claim in your subject line.

You also failed in countering any of my arguments. I understand you enjoy declaring yourself my owner, but your possessions are not an argument. I also understand you enjoy typing about how most people will agree with your claim over my claim, so I invite you to vote in my http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200787">poll.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

97. Checkmate.

My arguments have been made and they've solidly blown yours out of the water; so I see no need to rehash them.

But what I'm literally laughing my ass of at now, and what shows even further how much of a waste of time continuing this discussion with you would be, is that not only did you completely ignore the several solid points made in my previous post, that you not only posted such an absurd poll, but that you actually think that the results of it would lend even the slightest smidgen of credibility to your argument LOL. That is just too damn funny. You think for a second that your little poll exercise means anything or could in any possible way make you look more logical or your argument more intelligent? Do you not realize that to most they'd find your action of such a poll as absurd and have even less respect towards your position than they likely already do?

Sorry, but that was just too damn funny!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

98. Again, you are reduced to insults over ideas.

But what I'm literally laughing my ass of at now

What definition of the word "literally" are you using?

the several solid points made in my previous post

Please point them out to me.

lend even the slightest smidgen of credibility to your argument

and

Do you not realize that to most they'd find your action of such a poll as absurd and have even less respect towards your position than they likely already do?

I guess we will see if DU poll voters vote towards your position, mine position, or the other position neither of us agree with. I don't expect the results to prove the likelihood of any supernatural creature, I expect the results to determine your ability to speak for everyone else.

So far, the results do not favor you, but the poll has not been up for very long.

That is just too damn funny.

Too damn funny for what?

[Why Syzygy]

100. I can't vote in your poll.

All options are n/a.

[ZombieHorde]

102. So, the two supernatural creatures are neither equally likely nor unequally likely?

If they are neither equal nor unequal, what are they?

You have aroused my interest.

ETA: Why did you post your comment about my poll here instead of the actual poll thread?

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

104. ROFLMAO!!!

I'm amazed at your inability to recognize how absolutely silly and transparent your responses are. And I'm again laughing my ass off that you think for a second, that you actually now just even admitted, that your poll means more than jack fucking shit. Are you for real? You think the poll would represent ANYTHING? You think the results of the small sample of DU'ers, which represents an even smaller sample of people in reality, voting in some ridiculously non scientific poll, can be used to make even the slightest point or can in any way be used to bolster your argument or lend credibility to it? Do you have any idea how embarrassing of a notion that is?

Holy cow you've gone from silly to downright absurd. You've been bested and your desperate attempts to deflect and hang on to some wild notion that you still have a chance to win this debate are quite humorous. Hey, slice this response up again and put more ridiculous replies to each line. It's comedy gold! Dude, you're so friggin done. Any even reasonably intelligent and rational person knows it. Talk all you want. It's for no other purpose than to further embarrass yourself. Ridiculousness commence!

Thinks the poll means anything.... ROFLMAO!!!!

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

[ZombieHorde]

105. You keep forgetting to put an arguement for your claim in your posts.

Are you for real?

I do really believe one supernatural creature is just as likely as any other supernatural creature to exist. Why don't you?

You've been bested and your desperate attempts to deflect and hang on to some wild notion that you still have a chance to win this debate are quite humorous.

Your sole point has been god of the gaps is a more likely supernatural creature than the silly one I invented. Though I do appreciate the use of 'bested' over 'owned' since variety is the spice of life.

It's comedy gold!

Perhaps I should charge.

You still have not been able to produce an objective method for measuring the likelihood of a supernatural being's existence. For me to be bested, owned, or so friggin done, this method needs to be produced.

I understand debate without insults may be very difficult for you, but not to worry, I will be patient with you. You may even start to understand the concept of magic equaling magic. I personally believe you are using insults because you know you have no argument. Your argument of magic =/= magic is a difficult one to defend.

And now, some repetitive pictures, since you seem to enjoy such things.

[Why Syzygy]

112. Awww Dude. You were doing so well.

You had an effective score of 10. Then you resorted to mockery and derision.
That tactic is only for times when there is no reasonable response and you don't want to admit error.
Minus -5.

[Silent3]

113. Any good points you might have made or not made...

...aren't put in very good light by the strutting and posturing of claiming that someone else has been "owned" or "checkmated" or "blown out of the water". What's next, a "Mission Accomplished" banner?

True success stands on its own without having to be boastfully trumpeted as success.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

114. It's All About Respect And Sportsmanship.

In this case, a battle of wits so to speak.

In a situation where I respect my opponent and after some thorough intellectual debate there is conclusion or admittance of possible logical error on the party of debate with the weaker argument, I will cast no such putdowns, mockeries or posturings.

However; in a case where my opponent is not worthy of such respect and sportsmanship, is acting or speaking ignorantly, is purposefully being facetious, being overly stubborn, closed minded, and is incapable of the intellectual respect and integrity necessary to admit defeat or flaw, or incapable of recognizing their own illogical statements after having the statements explained to them, I have no desire to end the debate respectfully or in a tone of good sportsmanship, since my opponent did not command such respect. When a debate goes such a way that my opponent takes a position not of intellectual honesty and good sportsmanship, but instead of silliness and stubbornness, then I have no problem mocking the person and being a wiseass to them after my respectful and logical points have been raised. When it is clear the debate will never be resolved due to one side refusing to open their minds enough to see the obvious logic put before them that overcame their own, and that the one side will ignorantly hold onto their position in spite of having been repeatedly overcome with stronger argument, then the spirit of debate ceases to exists since the debate is no longer a debate, but instead just a circular discussion with no possible resolution. If I see that occur, then I'm not going to waste my time pretending the debate still has a chance to exist and conclude. I will stop my respectful logic there. Doesn't mean after I choose to stop it though, that I won't feel the wiseass in me want to poke the person a little for being such an intellectual schmuk in the first place!

Fair enough? LOL

[Silent3]

115. The problem is that you seem to be the one with...

...the highest opinion about the quality of your own arguments. I don't think the case you're making is good enough to merit your triumphal swaggering. I could, I suppose, point out the flaws I see, but it might be faster if we just skip to the part where you judge me an unworthy opponent and declare victory.

[El Fuego]

38. Christians don't follow the Christian God

Because what is the Christian God anyway? Is it the vengeful murderous basically evil God of the Old Testament? The mellow, pacifistic God of the New Testament?

The nature of the Christian God is subject to individual interpretation. It's a convenient blank that can be transformed into whatever one wants it to be, be it to fulfill their own needs and enrich their soul, or more likely just to impose their agenda and belief system on others.

[DireStrike]

39. No, that's a small proportion of militant anti-christian atheists.

I certainly condemn or support any idea regardless of the belief system that appropriated it for its own uses.

[demwing]

46. Then it must be a small, but vocal percent.

Debate so often devolves into whether the bible was divinely inspired, or whether Jesus existed. Now, I GET it that 1 in three people living on this planet claim Christianity as their faith. But, in turn, this means that 2 out of three people do not.

Christianity may be the dominate single theology, but Christians are squarely the minority world wide.

[Goblinmonger]

70. Yawn

It gets a little old when the right-wing talking points get catapulted on here.

[EvolveOrConvolve]

72. Militant???

Please point out a "militant" atheist to me.

LOL - what a dumb statement.

[omega minimo]

41. Some folks realize that fighting a (conditioned) symbol of God is pointless; the symbol is not "God"

Some hang on to fighting the symbol they reject and projecting that. If they believe something else, they can unlearn fighting the rejected symbol. Maybe.

"Your conditioning directs you to an understanding of God, religion, and spirituality. Perhaps I'm wrong, but I believe most people accept or reject religious or spiritual life, based on their acceptance or rejection of the images they have been spoon fed. "

Thanks for the attempt to being civility to such things. :thumbsup:

[agent46]

43. Among educated people

the christian mythos, whether "believed" in or not, should be enough of a lingua franca to communicate basic ideas between people of differing beliefs. It's a leap to assume the athiests you address in this post hold an unconscious iimprint of the christian narrative simply because it's part of their language pallette. Maybe it concerns you too much.

[saltpoint]

44. I regard Jesus' ministry as a secular, political event, and unabashedly

socialist. We aren't even exactly certain it existed at all, apart from second- and third-hand sources.

I certainly don't believe he was trans-human.

The apostles were armed in the Garden when the soldiers came upon them.

I have a lot of respect for "The Rebel Jesus" but not much at all for the institutional codswallop perpetrated in his name.

I think most people who want to discuss Judeo-Christian traditions can do so without subtracting from their understanding of other world faith traditions. Anyone drawn to this field of study or concern is likely to encounter a wide range of ancient ideas of a given afternoon's reading.

[patrice]

47. I'd settle for "I don't believe in whatever it is that anyone is referring to when s/he

uses the word 'God'", because it IS a semantic reference based upon "belief".

[ZombieHorde]

51. "When you think of church, do you think of steeples, crosses, and rows of pews"

Depends on what prompted me to think of such things. Most of my friends are atheist nerds, so when they mention such things, I think of Dungeons and Dragons. When most of my in-laws mention such things, I think of the Mormon church. When my mother mentions such things, I think of the Catholic church. When one of my brother-in-laws mentions such things, I think of the coven he is a member of. When my Buddhist monk buddy mentions such things, I think of Tibetan Buddhism. When my father mentions such things, I have to ask for clarification because he can be talking about anything.

When you imagine God, do you see a patriarchal figure, faceless, big beard, clouds, and a heavenly throne, or a little boy playing a flute?

H.P.Lovecraft's gods.

[MedleyMisty]

52. I am amused by how many people responded to the subject line

and didn't even read the post.

[sam sarrha]

61. maybe you didn't notice what it really said.. or insinuated

[Evoman]

53. I don't quite understand your point.

If it seems that people assume that your a christian, it's probably because 99 percent of the people they know are christian. Making assumptions based on culture and geography makes sense, even if it's not altogether fair for the minority. Other than that, many atheists are ex-christians, so it makes sense the religion they tend to criticise is christianity. Many atheists are culturally christians (which is not to say they are christian, or follow christianity). I'm sure if most of us travelled to a muslim country or lived in jewish town, we would criticize those religions.

I also am not quite sure what you mean by "propogating a religion through negative reinforcement". Could you elaborate on this?

[MineralMan]

57. Not this atheist.

I came to my atheism after a long study of all the major religions on this planet. I base my ethics and morals on a composite of all of them, along with our secular laws.

I don't make any assumptions about what religion someone may or may not follow. I leave it to them to tell me, if they think that's relevant.

As for following a deity, I don't follow any of them.

[Why Syzygy]

58. You're right, of course.

The most fascinating man who ever employed me was a Muslim Atheist. Seriously. He didn't believe in (denied) Allah.

He was from Lebanon. Even though his mother was Jewish, his father was Muslim, and that's what he identified with. He had been educated in France in Catholic schools! He had a better command of the English language than many native speakers; and would often use English, French and Aramaic all in one sentence.
Fascinating and Brilliant man.

[cosmik debris]

67. What utter nonsense!

The only attribute that atheists have in common is that theists disagree with us.

You may make all those unfounded generalizations about atheists, but they are nothing but stereotypes.

You apparently know nothing about atheism.

[Warpy]

133. Well, he does have one point, albeit so poorly stated

it pretty much got lost: the Judeo-Christian religious myths form the mythic basis of our culture in this country. The stories and proverbs are the basis for a lot of idiomatic English, especially the trite sayings. A lot of contemporary literature is full of biblical allusions.

That's the one reason I suggest reading the bible cover to cover, even though I don't believe a word of it. It's the only way to get the totality of the work that forms our mythic base.

However, thinking atheists form any sort of group, cohesive or otherwise, is laughable.

[Marrah_G]

68. I've found that people assume that all religions see deities in the same manner the big three do

This is not the case.

I am religious. However my "god" is not everywhere at every moment listening to every single thing a person thinks or says.

Nor does my god spend his day judging contests or sporting events.

[Meshuga]

78. I don't think one can assume...

...that the "big three" see their diety in the same manner either.

[Marrah_G]

80. They generally do.

It is an Authoritarian, all knowing, all seeing God that one must obey without question.

[Meshuga]

82. Right,

You would have to generalize and group them as if they generally had the same nature. But they don't. I can't speak for the other religions but I'd say most religious Jews reject the idea of an authoritarian biblical god. You can see evidence of that in the Talmud and other Jewish literature that bring about other god natures and plays down the biblical God by proposing more abstract god ideas. Even more so post-enlightment.

I think it is pretty easy to come up with the old "my religious ideas are okay and yours are stupid" by presenting these generalizations. And it is okay as long as you don't mind when others, out of ignorance, point out their opinion that your practices and beliefs are (to them) pretty stupid as well.

[Goblinmonger]

71. Thank god for you shedding light on this.

I would have lived on in my ignorance that Christianity was the only religion out there if not for you opening my eyes. I mean, I get it, most atheists are ignorant, not well read, and don't believe in exploring the world around them, so it is natural for you to assume that we make all judgments based on one religion.

Oh, and :sarcasm:

[Sandrine for you]

76. You are perfectly right, this is exactly what Nietzsche tell about Schopenhauer..

It's not easy to just erase 2000 years of history, so it's really normal that in our cultural environment, sometime, being an atheist, is to be more christian than the christians. I sometime realize it in myself: I use really christian morality to defy the christian's believe.

In my country, where church are closing one after another on, where the middle age of the church goers is about 65 years old, I can see the young people knowing nothing about christianity, but steel very christian in there moral point of view, and they just don't know that.

I

[Meshuga]

79. It is easy to assume the God idea of the majority...

...When debating theology. I find myself doing that and I am neither an atheist or a Christian. But in truth one would have to explain what God nature they are discussing so there is no apples and oranges debate. But the fact that people sometimes make the Christian God assumption doesn't really mean that they follow a Christian God. The "follow Christian God" from your post sounds more like provocation that takes away from your point that a god (or gods) nature need to be agreed upon before a theological debate can take place.

I mean, even you use a term like "Judeo-Christian" which is full of assumptions that couples two ideas that are foreign to each other. The term gives Christian characteristics to "Judeo". It is funny that you are complaining because some people make similar assumptions when discussing theology.

[agent46]

81. Propagating fascist corporatism

You could also argue that people with leftist leanings react against corporate fascism because of the imprint of childhood influences. Thus the reaction against corporate authority is nothing more than an unconscious neurotic holdover from early training. After degaussing influences learned at mother's knee using proven brainwashing methods; thus restored to pristine consciousness; one would be enlightened and recognize the wisdom of many fascists who are also cultured, educated, deeply spiritual people. Becoming enlightened this way, the leftist would never be so presumptuous again because speaking out against fascism actually propagates it.

The pop-psychology is a little specious - though I think Tom Cruz would be down with it.

Maybe its not the symbols of religion some atheists object to but the debilitating influence of the religious institutions that bandy them about. If you're a member of the believer class but the objections raised by atheists don't apply to your situation then don't sweat it.

[Silent3]

85. Although I find myself arguing against specifically Christian...

ideas... ...the rest of the reply now its own thread.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=214x200672

Was in GD, but got booted back here. :(

[TZ]

94. THere is an underlying condescention here that bothers me.

You seem to think that many people are atheists through ignorance...Very much sounds like you are only an atheist because you don't know MY religion! Which to me is the same as the Christian people who tell me that if I get to really know Jesus than I will want to believe!
If this is not your point, I apologize but this is the way your OP struck me.

[Name removed]

107. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[cosmik debris]

108. "...and I respect their beliefs."

Do you respect the beliefs of Fred Phelps even though those beliefs lead to sociopathic behavior?

[demwing]

116. Pointing Out My Own Flaw

I wrote:

"My conclusion is then that American atheists, despite their non-religiousness, only see religiosity from a Judeo-Christian point of view. In a sense, that makes them as much a follower of Jesus as any born-again fundie. "

I should have written:

"My conclusion is then that many atheists who were raised in Judeo-Christian cultures..." and continued from there.

If I want to call people out for making sweeping statements, I should certainly avoid doing the same. My apologies.

[Random_Australian]

117. Riiiiiiiight. You want to challenge peoples assumptions by making assumptions about them?

So, you've been talking about religion and someone assumed you were christian. Most likely because the last x-thousand had been.

This is called 'how humans work' - you don't go over the details every single freaking time, and that means sometimes you are wrong. However, this is so easy to correct that it's not worth it checking out the exact beliefs of every single poster you ever reply to and trying to remember them all.

In short, sometimes people here will be mistaken for various things. You might have assumed someone was an American, for instance.

But seriously, that's the only way to get anywhere. Be wrong sometimes when you can correct yourself easily enough.

[demwing]

118. You missed the post just above you

where I call myself out for painting with too broad a brush

[Random_Australian]

122. Yes, yes I did.

[varkam]

119. Yours is a semantical argument, and thoroughly unconvincing at that.

For it would seem that it would be mighty difficult to be a follower of Jesus "as much a follower of Jesus as any born-again fundie" when many atheists don't even believe Jesus actually existed.

When you think of church, do you think of steeples, crosses, and rows of pews, or does your imagination conjure up images of incense filled temples?

Well, when you say church of course you think of steeples and crosses. If you were to say temple or mosque or synagogue then the mental images that would be conjured up would be much more varied. You seem to think that church is synonymous with "place of worship" and since the word church conjures up images of Christianity then everyone who makes that Freudian association secretly follows Jesus. It seems a rather tortured chain of logic.

Your point is taken that there's not just theism and atheism - but if you're wanting to foster discussion you'd probably do well not to insult your intended audience from the get-go.

[demwing]

120. Not so quick...

Have you ever heard the expression "There is no good or bad publicity, there is only publicity"?

That's what I mean when I say that atheists raised in a Christian or Jewish culture, unintentionally promote Christianity by arguing against that religion.

Wouldn't you agree that it would be more effective to argue in favor of Atheism, than against Christianity? All that argument does is propagate the Christian myths. It puts Christianity on the pedestal, and says "If we knock down Christ, we knock down God."

That's a fairly Christian way of thinking...equating Jesus with God.

And btw - One of my fondest memories of any church came from a trip to a Greek Orthodox Church in San Francisco, on Christmas eve, 1988. There were no crosses that I remember, nor any steeples. The inside was built into a dome, and the dome was honeycombed with hundreds of tiny alcoves, each with a tiny candle, flickering in the shadows, casting the only light in the room. On one side was a door, and on the other was an amazing altar, whereon smoldering piles of incense burned, filling the room with the scents of frankincense and myrrh. The priest was chanting in Greek, and the midnight mass was like a song, or a poem. I'm not Christian, but it was one of the most memorable experiences of my life. Christian, but totally outside of the stereotypical church visit. I felt like I had stumbled through the wardrobe, and found it was Christmas in Narnia.

My experiences with temples are also unusual. In Utah, where I live, the LDS refer to their churches as temples, but the look like standard churches, steeples and all. On the other hand, the local Krishna temple (ONLY Krishna temple in Utah) reminds me of the Greek Orthodox Church - all domes, ornate altars, and incense burning.

Our perceptions are guided by our conditioning. I have had strange conditionings, and perhaps that's why I have un-orthodox (no pun intended) views.

[varkam]

127. .

Wouldn't you agree that it would be more effective to argue in favor of Atheism, than against Christianity? All that argument does is propagate the Christian myths. It puts Christianity on the pedestal, and says "If we knock down Christ, we knock down God."

I think part of that is just simply due to the fact that the majority of people, in this country at least, that atheists are going to be getting into discussions with are going to be...well...Christians. Also, I think part of that problem is that atheism is defined in contrast to theism. Also, many atheists that I know make a distinction between strong and weak atheism - where it's seems fairly easy to be a strong atheist with respect to the JC god and a weak atheist with respect to every other god that could possibly be dreamed up.

More than that, there's more to Christianity than just Christ for a lot of atheists - Christ is just one piece of it.

That's a fairly Christian way of thinking...equating Jesus with God.

I don't think many atheists, were you to ask them, would equate Jesus with God. As I said above, many atheists that I know recognize a difference between the strong and weak forms.

Our perceptions are guided by our conditioning. I have had strange conditionings, and perhaps that's why I have un-orthodox (no pun intended) views.

I would tend to think that our conditioning is merely one factor that influences our perceptions. You seem to be making a lot of assummptions about a lot of people's experiences.

[TechBear_Seattle]

123. Completely incorrect. I am a Wiccan atheist

I do not believe in the existence of the Great Earth Mother or the Horned God. So there.

[demwing]

124. Well you showed me!

But really, you just responded to the thread title, right?

[TechBear_Seattle]

125. Nope. I was responding to

"My conclusion is then that American atheists, despite their non-religiousness, only see religiosity from a Judeo-Christian point of view. In a sense, that makes them as much a follower of Jesus as any born-again fundie."

I have studied and, for a time, followed Christianity. I have also studied and, for a longer time, followed Wicca. In many ways, I am still a Wiccan: I celebrate the sabbats, gather with some friends at the full moon, fast on the day of the new moon and the like. I do so as a way to reconnect with the earth, something that is not easy to do when you live in the inner city. That, and it is fun. I do not do so out of any sense of religious devotion or belief; my observances are less religious than a meeting of the state legislature, as they start their day with a prayer.

While it may be true that many atheists only see religiosity from a Judeo-Christian point of view, it is not accurate to claim this of atheists in general: I am just one counterexample that disproves your thesis.

[demwing]

126. And I apologize for that error in post #116

I did not communicate myself well at all, and attempted to correct it in that post. Based on what you read, I completely understand your response.

[TechBear_Seattle]

129. Mostly, I was being snarky

So my apologies to you as well. :hi:

[Meshuga]

128. Even the so called "Judeo-Christian point of view" is a bit tricky

I mean, the loose theology in Judaism allows a Jew to believe in a personal God or in something that in a Christian point of view would be considered non-theistic and he/she would still be considered a theist in Judaism. One example is Mordechai Kaplan theology which is very influential across Jewish movements but it would be considered non-theistic in Christianity.

The "Judeo-Christian" term may work for Christians since Jewish scripture is part of Christianity. But the "Judeo" part of the "Judeo-Christian" word is still Christian in nature since it is used in a Christian context which is foreign to Judaism.

[demwing]

130. Thank you for the interesting perspective

which I believes simply supports my narrative. My outsiders understanding of the "Judeo-Christian" culture as an adult is still colored by my early childhood in a Christian household. Just because I'm as guilty as anyone else of "Christianization" does not diminish my point at all. Just the opposite, really.

[Meshuga]

134. Yes, I agree you are perhaps amplifying your point

You say in your OP:

I am a person of deep spiritual beliefs, but am not a Christian. Yet, so very often, when debating the existence (or lack of) of God, I find myself having to rationalize the Christian belief system, which I do not follow.

I can relate to that. Look at your post #120:

That's what I mean when I say that atheists raised in a Christian or Jewish culture, unintentionally promote Christianity by arguing against that religion.

Now, as a Jew, should I now be the one rationalizing Christian belief (to you) which I do not follow? :-)

I understand that Jews themselves sometimes "Christianize" Judaism because we live in a society where the majority is Christian and it is hard not to. So I can't really blame you and others (and myself sometimes) for doing the same. But it is always important to point it out when it is happening so we can make sure the exchange is coherent and relevant.

[and-justice-for-all]

131. Even Atheists Follow the Christian God

:eyes: