Falwell and Robertson are to the church what Stalin and Pol Pot are

[Ron Green]

to the state. And what W.R. Grace and Disney are to the market. That is, they are the worst sort of corruption of the institution.

On the other hand, there are the Dalai Lama and Daniel Berrigan, just as there are great liberal statesmen and political systems, and there are innovative and principled business people.

We can't get rid of religion, nor should we. Those bright young (and not-so-young) people who experience atheism as a personal philosophy must be protected in their views, and must be allowed, even encouraged, to question the role of religion in society and to point out its devastating influence over human history. But to try to eliminate the communal spiritual institution is not only foolish, it's impossible. A system of ethics and a cosmology must exist in the world, at the risk of producing Falwells and Robertsons. There must be a "should" to co-exist with the "want" of the marketplace and the "will" of the government.

I imagine an atheist's ideal world would be one in which every person is ruled by logic and reason, and who makes decisions based on these. Without any evidence for God, no one would need to imagine one. But there are these Big Questions, about our creation and about infinity and eternity, right? I think most intelligent people go through times of atheism, even if they eventually find a spiritual or faithful path for themselves; but what about those millions and billions who are not very inquisitive? Rather than take away their religions, I hope we can always strive to make them better, just as we want better governments and better businesses.

We should always call the Falwells and Robertsons the charlatans they are, but to scream "fairy tale!" at everyone exploring the Big Questions is not helpful.

[Goblinmonger]

1. Stalin and Pol Pot

weren't REAL TRUE atheists. No atheist would do what they did.

[arwalden]

5. Oh My!

:rofl:

[NMMNG]

16. Hey! You stole my line!

:rofl:

[Goblinmonger]

57. Hey, I got here first

:P I give you full credit for that line.

[bluesbassman]

21. Any proof for that statement?

Don't take this as a flame, but this is the second time today I've read a post claiming that Stalin wasn't an atheist. I personally don't know one way or the other, but to emphatically state this as true by saying that no atheist would do what he did is a rather tenuous argument. Is there any biographical documentation to support this line of thinking?

[NMMNG]

22. It's a parody

You know, for all those times when some Christian commits an evil act then has some apologist say, "but he wasn't a real Christian". As if disowning the person as a "real" Christian can negate what was done by the Christian person even if the person directly stated what they did was because of their Christian values.

[bluesbassman]

24. Point taken

And it's a valid observation on how some respond to acts of violence or agression perpetrated in the name of religion. So I see the validity of dissavowing people like Stalin's atheism. On the other hand, if he wasn't a true atheist, and to my knowledge he claimed no theism, besides being an evil and sick individual, what was he?

[NMMNG]

25. A communist

An sick individual who did great evil in the name of communism.

[Inland]

27. It's meant to be a joke.....but it fails.

some Christians, at least, believe that there exists a standard for christians to live up to and that someone can fail, and thereby not be a "real" christian.

Atheists don't have a standard by which one can fail to be a "good" atheist. Anyone who doesn't believe in a diety is, by defition, just as much an atheist as the next atheists: as far as atheism goes, they are just as good, too. That's the problem with a club that has merely one criterion of non-belief. You get Stalin and Mao, not just as members, but examples that nobody can disavow as being somehow not meeting the ideals or purposes of the group.

[NMMNG]

48. Nice try, but it fails

some Christians, at least, believe that there exists a standard for christians to live up to and that someone can fail, and thereby not be a "real" christian.

That depends on which Christians you talk to. Go to a mainline church and those Christians will say that the fundamentalists are not "real" Christians because they are too radical. Jump on over to the fundamentalist churches and they'll insist that the mainline churches are not "real" Christians because they are too liberal. Other Christians don't make judgments either way, but simply consider anyone who professes belief in Jesus Christ to be a Christian. So who is to say?


And atheism is not a "club". We are not an organization that feels the need to gather in groups, share affirmations, quote from a holy book, give a secret handshake, listen to proclamations from a great leader and so on. As much as you keep trying to pigeonhole us it's useless, as we are not a homogeneous group.

And for the last time: Atheism does not equal communism.

[Inland]

62. You don't really disagree.

1. Atheism does not equal communism.
I agree. Atheism equals nothing, a not belief. There's simply nothing about atheism that prevents communism, or is inconsistent with communism. Or anything else, except, by definition, belief in a deity. So? So Stalin was "as good" an atheist as anyone else, in terms of atheism. It's just true by definition.

2. Christians disagree.
Yep. But there's still some there there. Because it's a religion, it has a system of morals and behaviors and norms. Christians may disagree what they are, but they all agree that there IS such a thing and their personal opinion on what it is. It is the possession of a set of norms that brings about the disagreement. Atheism hasn't the norms. Ergo, there can't be disagreement over who is the "real atheist". You don't believe, or you do.

3. Atheism isn't a club.
Well, it is and it isn't. It's not a club, in that there's nothing to do. However, people can be united by a common disdain of someone else, feeling of persecution, and feelings of superiority.

[Ron Green]

63. I just realized that you thought I was calling Stalin and Pol Pot

atheists. Is that what you thought? I certainly didn't have an idea about their religious or non-religious views; I used them as an example of bad governance. I could have mentioned Caligula or George W. Bush instead.

[trotsky]

2. "We can't get rid of religion" - has anyone said we should?

I'm just curious. I know lots of people who say the world would probably be better off without it, but do they say we should actively work to ban it?

By the way, anyone who shouts "fairy tale!" at believers will have their post deleted.

So I have to wonder, at whom is your post directed? The mythical "whackjob atheist" that everyone beats up but no one can point to?

[Ron Green]

4. There are plenty of "Easter Bunny" and "Tooth Fairy" references

in posts on these boards, and I suppose it's to them my post is directed. I don't see people of this mindset as being opposite to Falwell et al, I see their sort of ridicule as being similar to what the fundies are doing: rejecting reasonably-held beliefs out of hand, with no room for discussion. The opposite of Falwell, and of the "tooth fairy" name-callers, is one who is tolerant, thoughtful and willing to learn, willing to entertain the idea of an unseen as well as a seen world, and respectful of the centuries of scholarship supported by the unanswerable questions.

[trotsky]

6. If there are, they should be alerted on. They're against the rules.

So I ask again, at whom is your rant directed? A made-up caricature of an atheist?

[Ron Green]

7. Once again, I'm addressing those who throw around terms such as

"invisible cloud being," "Santa Claus" and "Tooth Fairy." You say they are against the rules and should be alerted on, but they're still around, of course. My point is simply that some people, in their disgust or fear of the religious crazoids, have poisoned the discussion with cynicism and name-calling, when the world desperately needs less of such divisiveness. I believe that religions, being a part of human existence, ought to be improved, made always of course more liberal.

[trotsky]

8. So let me get this straight.

You rail on a particular type of person poisoning the discussion, yet there are specific rules on DU for dealing with and eliminating those posts, and if the pattern persists, the individual responsible for them.

What about people who call other individuals "whackjobs"? Is that name-calling?

[Ron Green]

9. "Whackjob" is pretty much protected speech here at DU, seeing as how

it usually refers to right-wingers of some sort. I don't believe I'm railing on a particular type of person, unless asking for less name-calling and more open-mindedness is "railing."

[trotsky]

10. Do you think it's ever OK to call someone a "whackjob"?

Just wondering.

[Ron Green]

11. Yeah, I do. But my list of candidates for that term is a pretty short one.

Michael Wiener is one. Certainly Fred Phelps. Maybe that senator from Oklahoma ... is it Inhofe?

[trotsky]

12. Well then, aren't you discarding your own advice?

I mean, if you call for an end to the name-calling, but say that it's sometimes OK to call people names, well, what's the standard? Do only you get to decide when someone can be called a name?

[Ron Green]

13. I don't always take my own advice, no.

On a "liberal" message board I'm pretty safe in "whack-jobbing" people like Hannity and Krauthammer. Each of us decides what is reasonable, after all. I've posted some thoughts I believe are worth considering. If you have something to say about them, that would be good, too.

[trotsky]

15. So, in the case of the recent dust-up regarding the Raw Story article...

Would you blame the author, who labeled certain Democrats as "whackjobs," or would you blame the people who thought her definition of "whackjob" was a little too inclusive, and spoke their mind?

Who was being divisive and calling names?

[Ron Green]

18. I admit I don't know all the facts about the Raw Story flap.

I'll take some time this weekend to read that thread. As I understand it, this person used "whackjob" to refer to some atheists who were dismissive of religious beliefs. I suppose I would use such a term only if a person were disrespectful in the extreme to a mainstream point of view, just as Limbaugh or Ann Coulter are disrespectful.

I've got to point out, though, that on the continuum of understanding of the cosmos and of life, atheism is at one end, and fundamentalists are at the other. As with most things I've thought through in my many years on this planet, the Middle Way seems to work very well. It allows for both harmony and growth.

[trotsky]

26. "There's nothing in the middle of the road...

but yellow stripes and dead armadillos." (Thanks, Jim Hightower.)

Someone made a great analogy in one of the other threads: there are two extremes when it comes to evidence in a court case. One extreme says the evidence must be genuine, proven, and objective. The other extreme says it can be made up, hearsay, and subjective.

Is the "middle way" the best way to harmonize these two extremes? Would you want to be tried with evidence that was somewhat objective?

That aside, I find your calls for a rejection of name-calling to be hypocritical to say the least, since you reserve for yourself the right to call names whenever you think it's appropriate.

[Ron Green]

28. Do you ever call anyone an unflattering name?

How about the guy sitting in the White House? Have you ever called him a name? How about Pat Robertson? Or is your view that it's OK to call names anytime?

Jim Hightower's quote is a clever one, but of course it doesn't work in every situation, as nothing does. Your "court evidence" analogy doesn't work here, because one extreme would say that the evidence must be provable beyond ANY doubt, and the other says that the evidence need not be proven AT ALL. The middle way, which is how it really is, says the evidence must be proven beyond REASONABLE DOUBT.

Anyway, I find this a tiresome exchange with someone who seems earnest and eager to discredit the religious wackos (in which I share your view), but also needs to defend an affinity for extremism.

I wear my mantle of hypocrisy not proudly, but willingly. I try my best to NOT be a hypocrite. I suspect I'm quite a bit older than you, because your words remind me very much of things I used to say. Best wishes to you, and keep up the good fight.

P.S. - I know both Jim Hightower, AND Madelyn Murray. She introduced me to her fiance, Mr. O'Hair, in 1965.

[trotsky]

30. What I do is not under scrutiny.

I'm not the one who called for an end to name-calling, then readily admits to plenty of circumstances in which name-calling is acceptable.

You've misinterpreted the court analogy, by the way. "Evidence" isn't proven or disproven - the evidence is used to prove guilt. The "beyond a reasonable doubt" part takes place AFTER solid, conclusive evidence has been admitted - i.e., the extreme position has already been taken. Your attempt to find an "out" fails.

Age shouldn't matter in this discussion, and especially when mentioned in such a condescending manner. I suspect you're just upset that your hypocrisy is now on display, so I'll try not to take it personally.

[Inland]

42. Perfect.

"I took no position, you did, therefore the only permissible subject is whether YOU apply YOUR standards consistently." Keeping the entire discussion limited to you proving someone else a hypocrite is where you like to be. You can have that sort of "victory" of taking no position and having no standards.

[trotsky]

44. I'm sorry, did you say something?

Just more of the same baseless attacks.

Have you ever taken a stand? You still have never declared exactly where you stand on the realm of belief - would you care to now? Or will you continue to bash others without taking a position yourself, thus perfectly illustrating hypocrisy?

[Inland]

46. How can you TOP perfection? LOL

"You're a hypocrite", he says, back to the only thing he knows. No position, no standards, no personal behavior, just knocking people who do. Another DU internet victory for Trotsky! How charmingly predictable. How sadly empty and amoral. You can have all those victories you want.

[trotsky]

50. I dunno, but somehow you manage!

Given the opportunity to once and for all state exactly your position, and thus lend the barest of legitimacy to your criticism of others whom you claim never take a position, you run away with your tail between your legs.

Buh-bye, Inland.

[Inland]

54. Yes, you give everyone a chance to be what you can't be.

A person with standards and a position. Thanks, I've taken the opportunity plenty of times. Maybe you didn't notice because it's not your thing, or maybe you're just lying. Who cares.

[trotsky]

58. Can I get a "whatever"?

Then your standard argument will be complete!

[Ron Green]

47. What you do is now under scrutiny.

And it is called "shit-stirring." I've read some of your other posts in this thread and elsewhere, and you seem to have a need to play useless head games. You haven't honestly addressed the central ideas in my original post, and although I've been civil to you and have openly admitted my own humanity, you've shown none of yours. I have never bashed an atheist on this or any other message board, but if you claim membership in that group, your behavior here doesn't reflect well on them.

[trotsky]

52. Hello? You started this thread.

If any shit was stirred, you got out the pot, spoon, and main ingredient.

I was just exploring your declaration of superior morality. Not my fault where that ended up.

[Ron Green]

55. Superior morality?

If you go back and read the OP, what I'm advocating is balance. A good church, a good state, a good market. This is in response to some poeple who have said we'd be better off without a church. I disagree, for the reasons I've mentioned: The church (in its broadest sense, that is, all the spiritual activities of humans, including even some aspects of this discussion) cannot be eliminated any more than the market or the government can.

There have been some reasonable responses to this, but mostly what I've gotten from you is "how can you say it's not OK to call someone a name?" When I checked out your sub-thread with Inland I realized that you're here to be combative. If you can work some of your stuff out this way, fine. But it has nothing to do with my original post.

[trotsky]

59. I'll be combative with people who request it with their actions.

Inland, with his past posting history, has clearly demonstrated that to be the case.

To my knowledge, this is the first time I've interacted significantly with you, but let's take a look at your original post:

We can't get rid of religion, nor should we.

No atheist that I know of has taken the position that we should get rid of religion. You immediately start off with again this strawman position against atheists. That to me is combative.

But to try to eliminate the communal spiritual institution is not only foolish, it's impossible.

Again, a combative strawman position.

I imagine an atheist's ideal world would be one in which every person is ruled by logic and reason, and who makes decisions based on these.

Wrong once more, but hey, you like your mischaracterizations of atheists, so why not go all the way?

From a post of yours further on down the line:

some people, in their disgust or fear of the religious crazoids, have poisoned the discussion with cynicism and name-calling, when the world desperately needs less of such divisiveness

Yet you go right on to call names AND state that it's your prerogative to do so when you think it's necessary.

When you start out with a combative post, and follow it up with more, how can you possibly be surprised when I try to defend myself and point out your hypocrisy?

[Ron Green]

60. To deal with your "points:"

No atheist that I know of has taken the position that we should get rid of religion. You immediately start off with again this strawman position against atheists. That to me is combative.

I didn't mention atheists at all when I wrote that. I'm referring to the many posts I've read here that say, in effect, "We would be much better off without religion. It's the source of most of the harm in the world; we should do away with it" and so on. You know the posts I'm talking about. I used the word "atheist" in another place.

"I imagine an atheist's ideal world would be one in which every person is ruled by logic and reason, and who makes decisions based on these."

Wrong once more, but hey, you like your mischaracterizations of atheists, so why not go all the way?

You can't tell me that what I imagine is not what I imagine. Where is this assumption unreasonable? I myself wish every person would use logic and reason more than he does now; are you saying an atheist wouldn't want the same?

My OP was not combative. The only names I called were those referring to people who are not allowed to post here, i.e. right-wing nuts.

At first I valued your responses, and thought there might be something I could learn from you. Now I see that your agenda is to squabble. I think I might not reply to you again, but best wishes to you nonetheless.

[trotsky]

61. Cite them.

I'm referring to the many posts I've read here that say, in effect, "We would be much better off without religion. It's the source of most of the harm in the world; we should do away with it"

Cite these posts. But first please note that saying we'd be better off without religion is NOT the same as saying we need to get rid of it.

You can't tell me that what I imagine is not what I imagine.

No, I can't. But I can tell you it's wrong, and that's what I did.

Now I see that your agenda is to squabble.

What am I to make of your agenda? Apparently it includes the need to make up false assertions about a minority religious group. You bet your ass I'm going to "squabble" when someone makes irresponsible statements like yours.

[Evoman]

23. Damn dude....I'm going to start calling you Socrates

[Proud_Democratt]

14. To me..it is equally offensive ....

for a Believer to quote scriptures, in anger, at an Atheist.
So...remarks towards Atheists have no or little limits of civility?

[Ron Green]

20. I think the limit of civility for remarks toward atheists is even stricter

than the other way around, because followers of religion typically are commanded by scripture to be loving and forgiving, not angry toward those with whom they disagree. This is why religious hypocrites stick out like sore thumbs, and why, in this country, beady-eyed, sweaty-upper-lipped, Bible-waving crazies are the standard objects of fear and loathing by those who are NOT commanded to be civil.

[Inland]

29. Nobody's said it since three days ago, to my knowledge.

Of course, you don't say whether or not people actually want to have religion disappear, even if you actually want it. But anyway, here's a unicorn.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=364&topic_id=1030201

[trotsky]

31. Close but no banana, Inland.

That post is actually a perfect example of what I said CAN be found - people saying that the world would probably be better off without religion is NOT the same thing as saying they want religion banned or ended.

Keep trying, pal. You'll eventually be able to make a point.

[Inland]

32. Only if they enjoy the world worse off, I guess.

And once again, you have your "victory", and you're welcome to it: nobody can ever prove that you want a better world, and you are just taking the fifth as to whether you have any goals, much less how you would get there.

That point enough for you? Pal?

[trotsky]

33. Arguing with you is like arguing with two different people, Inland.

On the one hand, you bash atheism relentlessly for not having "goals" or an agenda or anything other than being the lack of theistic beliefs.

But then on the other, you bash atheism for being supposedly responsible for calling for the abolishment of religion, and directly responsible for Stalin, Mao, and the rest.

I am not sure why you have this cosmic beef to settle with atheists, but perhaps you should sort out your own positions first, and decide just what it is you hate about atheism. You look rather silly arguing against yourself.

[Inland]

34. No, I point out how you like to have it both ways

You like to argue that atheism is nothing, a not belief, doesn't ascribe to anything, and doens't DO anything, to avoid any return criticism as you engage in a good religious-bashing.

Then you also like to compliment yourself by saying that atheists and atheism have all these positive attributes, so you drop them into threads as if they are proven facts.

See, it's not about the atheism. It's about dishonest, disingenous, self serving, divisive people who have a dichotomous worldview and not much of value to say and refuse to have a program besides juvenile bashing of "the other".

That enough point for you? Because I don't want you to think I have two positions, I'll keep making this same one for you for as long as you keep asking for it.

[trotsky]

35. I see that you have invented for yourself your very own

caricature of an atheist, and have decided to adopt me as the closest thing to it. I feel so honored!

Unfortunately, since I don't see how any of your insulting adjectives apply to me, I see absolutely no reason to respond to your hateful accusations and emotional rantings against atheism, atheists, or whatever it is you decide to bash that very moment.

If you do ever decide to pick one position, and argue it thoughtfully and rationally instead of emotionally and abusively, I'll be right here. 'Til then! :hi:

[Inland]

36. I just tell the truth. And you were wondering about the acceptable.

Well, you just found it. If it's true, then it really doesn't matter that you characterize it as abusive or whatever morning show adjectives you've picked up in the victimhood stage. It's all true.

And I can't caricature an atheist. Atheism is a non-belief. That's what you thought was the advantage of choosing to define yourself by an "ism" that doesn't mean anything: you thought that you could bash the religious, ridicule their beliefs, make them into ugly caricatures, group them with the inquisition and fundies, all that good stuff, while being immune to such tactic. Which one of us applauded Evoman's skits, twice? Which one of us called them an abhorrent tactic?

But then, you can't resist draping all the good attributes when you feel it scores points. So if it weren't for double standards, you'd be nothing at all. Sad that.

[trotsky]

37. The truth about whom?

The one person, in my experience, who stands out at DU as never taking or stating a position of his own but instead just berating and bashing other positions, is the one I'm responding to right now.

I suggest you take a little break and look at just how well your angry and emotional words can be turned right back at yourself.

Sad, indeed.

[Inland]

38. About you.

You applauded Evoman's skits. You applauded the meanness and the caricature. And you demand an apology from Rawstory. Too funny.

If it weren't for double standards, you'd have no standards at all. For sure, you'll try to turn my words against me...those of us who admit to goals and standards can always be held up to them and found wanting. People who make a point of doing without, can't. And that's where you want to be, in a position to knock other people on an anonymous internet board. You can have that "victory" of being nothing.

[trotsky]

39. That's the thing - there's no effort involved in turning your words around

It comes so naturally! Please, go on describing and incriminating yourself. I'm enjoying this immensely!

[Inland]

41. So you DIDN'T applaud the skits?

Reality intrudes. Poor guy.

You find it easy to "turn things around", but that's not a compliment to you and your lack of standards that don't come in doubles. You can have THAT sort of "victory". Nobody objected to your applause of Evoman's skits, did they?

[trotsky]

43. Why are you focused on this red herring?

Is it all you have left?

I'm intrigued by you, Inland. You are an interesting case study all by yourself. Please go on and let that anger all out. You obviously need to.

[Inland]

45. Don't answer questions, just ask them. You can have that "victory"

It's another way you can avoid taking any position, now, by asking questions. Well, you "win" again, nobody can ever accuse you of hypocrisy as long as you ask questions. I guess you learned your lesson when I burned your ass when you made the accusation of "caricature" and I brought up your kumbaya moment with evoman over his skits that were nothing but insulting caricature, but of course, you learned the wrong lesson. You might have taken to having positions and standards that don't come in doubles. Someday, maybe, but really, who cares.

[trotsky]

51. I hold out great hope for you, Inland.

You seem like a smart guy. I hope that someday you can get past your bitter hostility towards atheists (and whatever other groups you don't like) and actually contribute something positive to these discussions. :hi:

[Inland]

53. You flatter yourself. Again.

First, by pretending anyone cares who you think is smart, second, by pretending that it's the atheism and not you, and third, that you are concerned about the "positive". It's really all about you and your childish attemtps to score points on an anonymous board by being nothing but a critic of the people you've decided are on "the other team". Don't flatter yourself into thinking there's anything more going on.

[Random_Australian]

49. Evoman was inoffensive comedy, RawStory was serious.

Evoman poked gentle fun at your faith, and RawStory argued for wholesale purging.


Can your faith not stand a little gentle ribbing? (Just yours personally, not Christians in general) (I know for a fact, many a christians can with ease - Think 'The Life Of Brian').

Are atheists to sit quietly when attacked by a strawman-weilding red lunatic?


I'll have a quote of Evoman's that is more offensive than Brian bieng crucified while singing 'Always look on the bright side of life' before you can argue a point.

Because in all honesty, you seem disproportionally angry at something.

Most likely explanantion is you thought that you had the logical high ground before you came here, I think. Just my little guess.

Edit: Just so you can see what I mean, here is something from the Lounge. Enjoy the link, and don't forget to post something of evomans that is more offensive!

[Inland]

56. Oh, my.

Not only do you mischaracterize RS, and Evoman, but suddenly I'm a person of faith, AND a chrisitian. So by the time I get to the point where you dismiss me as disproportionately angry, I already know that you're wasting my time.

[Evoman]

40. I hate being called out

by someone who constantly ignores me. If your gonna keep mentioning me, then let me defend myself.

Someone tells me I'm going to hell because I don't accept Jeus, right here on DU....I do a parody, you attack ME.

Someone tells me god creates viruses because human beings are full of sin...I do a parody, you attack me.

One of my skits was about the slippery slope to theocracy. I was told to "accept this" or "accept that" (referring to the road side memorials, or faith based charities). I choose to show, in parody form, why I can't just accept people legislating their religion, and you attack ME for doing that.

Jeez...I even admitted one time that I had gone to far and apologized to you for that. But you blocked me before I could even apologize.

And your still calling me out....

I find your automated atheist attacks humourous. You ALWAYS defend the christian DUers, even when they don't need you. You never defend the atheist Duers, even when they are attacked by theists in THE EXACT SAME WAY. Ha...at least christian attacks are limited to a small forum on some website. Not us though....we are attacked by a LEFT WING rag...we are attacked by newsweek. We are consantly verbally assaulted in mainstream society. We have stories Inland....a whole lot of us have REAL stories of "persecution".

Ah..but in the immortal words of a certain Duer..

WHATEVER!

[TallahasseeGrannie]

3. Falwell and Robertson

are embarassments to the entire country. I wish Michael Moore would take them on sometimes. Or that somebody somewhere you do an expose' of them.

I'm not sure which one is worse. Probably Robertson. Yuk. I feel quesy just thinking about their smarminess and their three-piece suits.

[NMMNG]

17. Mythperceptions

We can't get rid of religion, nor should we...But to try to eliminate the communal spiritual institution is not only foolish, it's impossible.

Don't confuse spirituality with religion. They are two different things. One can be religious without being spiritual, and one can be spiritual without being religious (or one can be both).


I imagine an atheist's ideal world would be one in which every person is ruled by logic and reason, and who makes decisions based on these.

While the typical atheist places great value on logic and reason, your statement implies that they are emotionless robots. Just because the atheist does not plan their life around (what is to them) a mythical entity does not mean that they react to life as would a computer.

[Ron Green]

19. I don't think spirituality and religion are the same at all.

I'm not talking about "one," I'm talking about entire peoples, most of whom will not do the hard work of establishing a spiritual path for themselves. So religion, the organized way to bring them to these questions, can either educate and enlighten them, or it can brainwash them. My hope is that religions can be made better and more loving rather than more fearful. This is a progressive idea. Just as governments and other institutions can progress, so can religious groups. To proselytize about "imaginary sky beings" and "fairy tales" is not helpful, in my opinion. There are far better ways for atheists to make their (very compelling) arguments. I don't see them as emotionless robots. When I was an atheist, I always felt fully human and emotional; I just denied the existence of God.