"Why do atheists get so outspoken and militant?" In this thread I do just that.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by scottstall

This isn't a debate . . .

I notice you disregarded the substantive part of the question there.

Ahh, just curious. Still haven't gotten a definition of Unitarian Christian, and from what I read around, it seems to be a bit of a pascal's wager.

Unitarian Christian: A Christian who believes god to be a Unity, or single entity, as opposed to a trinitarian.

If you mean Unitarian Universalist Christian, that would be a Christian who is a member of the UUA or its affiliated churches and fellowships.

Me? Yeah, I listed why I posted once it appeared this wasn't going to get anywhere, why I keep posting is mostly damage control on what I feel is misrepresentations of things, and when you calling yourself a Christian is actually going to affect me.

My being a Christian doesn't affect you.

this feels more like a dance of sorts.

Isn't dancing fun?

this is in regards to "just that you believe in defining a word in a way you want to and not clarifying is your right."

Yes, actually. You can interpret Christianity as what it means in your life, and you expect the respect for no one to tell you what Christianity is.

No, actually I quite enjoy discussion of Christian theology. I've had one or two with one of my colleagues at work.

Is it actually such a horrid jump in logic, the word is inference, to say if you can interpret Christianity as what it means in your life to communicate "I'm a Christian." without clarifying?

I've clarified in this thread, where this discussion is taking place. I'd be happy to do so in a discussion of theology with someone else.

You are telling the truth, but in current society it's going to lead to other people assuming things that aren't true.

Possibly. People assume a lot of things. Maybe the problem is with people assuming things they shouldn't.

The only source you listed that I assumed had a definition of Christian was www.dictionary.com, and I gave my reasons for disregarding it. I'll repeat them.

I listed four sources. Twice.

You seem to continually try not to contest my reason's why talking as other people would understand is good.

I don't contest this because I agree with it wholeheartedly.

Your definition of Christian and the inference made from it that you can communicate your a Christian without clarification contributes to the breakdown of communications.

I clarified my meaning. Specifically, in the first line of my first post.

As dictionaries are actually just reflections of popular understandings of words, the fact that American Heritage Dictionary definition number 2 of a Christian...

"One who lives according to the teachings of Jesus."

Tends to indicate there are indeed a good number of people believing this, and they're making an impact on societies understanding of the word Christian.

Exactly! That is a commonly used definition of "Christian." It's one that is in general usage, as indicated by its inclusion in AHD.

Being a Christian doesn't require you to follow a religion anymore.

Exactly! I agree completely.

Since a good deal of my moral's stem from a baptist background, it won't be very hard for other people to argue I'm a Christian from this "objective" source of knowledge now.

I certainly wouldn't do that. I said in my first post that morality can exist separately from religious belief.

Christianity becomes a philosophy, and a religion.

Yes! We're on the same page here. I am in complete agreement.

Buddhism hit's this all the time, and every time I hear someone go "I'm Buddhist" and I can't judge by context, I have to ask what they mean.

Well, you could just let it go at that, but if you want to know which kind of Buddhism they mean, you'd need to get clarification, sure.

Yes. Meaning's aren't slightly different in public though if you go "I'm a Christian." when not believing in Jesus as the messiah. You need to clarify yourself, each and every time, and I honestly don't expect that of anyone.

No I don't. My sister's a Buddhist, and I'm pretty sure nobody expects here to clarify which kind each time she mentions it. My wife's religion is Shinto, but I don't think she's been asked to clarify which version. I've mentioned it several times on this board and nobody has ever asked for clarification. Getting a general idea of someone's beliefs from a single statement is OK. It isn't necessary to get perfect clarification on every detail of a person's religious beliefs.

You said "Many Christians are fine with hmosexuality and gay weddings. UUA, MCC, and Episcopaleans, for example."

I said...

"And by this sentence, you are actually literally meaning that the UUA is a christian. You can actually replace the organization names with proper names. Since that doesn't make sense, the next logical assumption is that the UUA is a christian organization. Ask yourself that if you've never heard of the UUA, and you read that, would you walk away believing that they're a christian organization? I would. Hence, I feel the need to speak up, to prevent them from being misrepresented. I know alot of people that wouldn't be going to the local fellowship should they believe it was a christian organization. I know alot of people that go because they aren't trying to make them believe in anything Jesus said, much less, he is the son of god. Those people, should they have read that sentence, wouldn't be going to our local fellowship, if they made the same inference that I did."

You haven't contested that, yet.

I have clarified the exact meaning of that phrase several times, providing links and quotes from the UUA website as support.

Supply an argument people hearing their first bit of the UUA reading "Many Christians are fine with homosexuality and gay weddings. UUA, MCC, and Episcopaleans, for example." walking away with the impression that the UUA is a Christian organization isn't going to happen, and then you haven't misrepresented the UUA.

I've clarified the exact meaning of that many times.

I wouldn't have mentioned it if I hadn't have thought there was a problem. And indeed, you didn't say that at all,

Thank you for the concession.

it just appears to be what you meant.

Even after multiple clarifications and references to the UUA website?

I'd like to clarify that the UUA is also a partly Satanic organization, as any member of the Church of Satan, founded by Anton LaVey, is welcome like any Christian, and there are most likely followers of Satanism therein.

Sure.

Nah. It's a problem with when I hear protestant, I think baptist, and I sometimes don't catch myself.

Understandable. It also illustrates very clearly how the listener can make unwarranted assumptions by filtering others' statements through their own unique viewpoint.

That does appear to be mocking, but I'll deal with it, especially as what it's referring to is me calling you contrary, without supplying a reason. When I call you contrary, and closed-minded, I do it because your ignoring things at what looks like your convenience, and you've never really stated any arguments.

I'm going to respond to those elements that I consider relevant to the discussion.

Does that actually answer "You sound like the kind of person that doesn't like stepping into traditional churches"? Not that I can tell. Whether you like stepping into traditional churches isn't based on the history of churches you've been to.

I gave you the information to draw your own conclusion, "make of that what you will."

"You sound like the kind of person that doesn't like stepping into traditional churches, or talking to people that believe your going to hell."

Duh shows a certain amount of contempt for who your directing it at.

Nah, it's a humorous way of agreeing with the obvious.

It's also considered a childish phrase.

It's also considered funny if done right. When I came out to my brother, "Duh," was pretty much his exact reaction. He's a pretty cool guy.

And it's not such an obvious thing,

Well, it was obvious enough that you picked up on it and made a point of telling me about it.

I've no problem stepping into traditional churches as long as I'm not expected to do anything that indicates I have faith, and I have had a good number of friends that believed and still would that I'm going to hell. One of them is still a friend, and he pull's pascal's wager type arguments on me, which really really scare me, thanks to my background.

You were talking about me specifically, and hit the nail right on the head.

Pascal's Wager is logically unsound for a variety of reasons, but I'm sorry that your friend does this. You don't seem to like your friend doing that with you.

"You sure don't seem to like to be told your not a Christian."

You've never said "Duh" until this last post, so yes, it does, and at least this time what I stated was obvious, but I've been told what I've noticed about you is wrong so many times, shouldn't I err on the side of caution and ask?

I was varying how I said "Duh," not making a reference to anything from a previous post.

It's a bit of both, a bad misunderstanding and a distortion. I can't tell what you meant by that statement, so I took it literally. I feel if I didn't mention it, you wouldn't clarify it.

If you don't understand what I've said, you'd probably be better off asking for clarification rather than trying to tell me what I've said. You gotten that part wrong several times now.

We're actually having a dispute over where to draw the line, and your giving everyone chalk. I've stated several times now why this is bad.

I'm saying that different Christians and different denominations already draw the line in different places, and they're all still Christians.

"Your more than welcome to dispute why your definition of Christian is better, but unless it encompasses most of the people describing themselves as Christians, and not a good deal of people that don't describe themselves as Christians"

Actually, from what I can tell you are 100% on both, as everyone can interpret being a Christian as what they want, and they have no right to tell anyone else they're not a Christian. I've also stated why letting people define label's as they want is bad. That criteria was a guideline, and I feel like you knew and know this.

You set up the guidelines, and using those, the last definition there is the best one.

Your ignoring past arguments on why clarifying is good, why its not good policy to define a label by it's greatest common cause.

Not ignoring. I've never disputed that clarifying is good. I've even clarified several times in this thread.

Say that to whom, and are you going to clarify?

In this case, anybody reading this thread, and yes, I did.

"you can define being a Christian as you want, anyone who wants to say "I'm a Christian" is a Christian now, as everyone must respect everyone else's belief of what the definition of a Christian is."

The only difference between these is that your leaving it open for someone to impose their interpretation of what it means to be a Christian.

No. The difference there is that, even if I don't agree with another person's definition of what a Christian is, I don't dispute that that person is still a Christian. I can dispute the definition without disputing the identity.

"Furthermore, you have the right to say "oh, you agree with Jesus and how he treats people? Your a Christian!"

That's actually the beginning of me providing the problems with that. I didn't say you said it, and I'm not attributing it to you. By saying you don't have the right to say what a Christian is, when you've got an interpretation of what a Christian is, you don't have the right to communicate what a Christian is.
Nor does anyone else with an interpretation of what Christian is.

I've never said that, and there's the problem. You keep coming up with interpretations that are wildly different from what I'm saying.

People do have the right to say what a Christian is to them, even if this means we end up with dozens of slightly different interpretations of what it means, even if all of those differ from what being a Christian means to me. People do have the right to communicate what being a Christian means to them. I'm in favor of that, so long as it isn't done in an intrusive or forceful way. In fact, I think it does a Christian good to constantly be exploring what it means to be a Christian, adjusting and refining what that means to her.

If someone asks what religion you are, and you go "I am a Christian." and they go why, or even better, what makes a Christian, what can you say?

I can explain what being a Christian means to me and what I get from it in response to the first question, and I'd say that what makes a Christian varies from person to person and from denomination to denomination, so I don't define what it means for anybody but myself.

Your going to violate someones definition of why they're a Christian if you say anything.

No, I won't, because, as I've said several times, I apply my specific definition of what it means to be a Christian in my life only to myself. I accept that anyone "who seriously, devoutly, prayerfully describes themselves as Christian" is a Christian. We'd just be different kinds of Christians.

The word Christian will start to die, until someone starts applying a meaning to Christian again.

I'm pretty sure that the word Christian is alive and well. Thriving even, with some two billion people using it to describe themselves.

Furthermore, you just stated you don't agree with a definition in dictionary.com, that a Christian is a follower of the teachings of Jesus. That's a paraphrase.

Please stop doing this. I did not state that.

I'm not attributing it to you, but at that point, I'd say it borders a Straw Man as I'm exaggerating, but not in my opinion not grossly.

You did directly attribute that to me. Here is what you said:

Furthermore, you have the right to say "oh, you agree with Jesus and how he treats people? Your a Christian!" and when they contradict your definition of what a Christian is, they have to respect your right to call them a Christian.

I was an agnostic before I knew what the word meant. When I heard at my high school, I researched it, and lo and behold, it was very applicable.

Good for you.

I believe objective morality can establish how to treat a stranger, and basic respect and courtesy I do my best to show to everyone until they don't show it to someone.

Good for you.

I believe basic respect is not letting other people walk away with the wrong idea, as well.

Yeah, this seems a bit silly to me. Unless I'm capable of reading minds and the other person is a lot smaller than I am, this isn't something that I have much control over.

Appreciate and should are two different things. From my arguments, theres no reason I shouldn't say your not a Christian, so flight of fancy takes over, when conscience doesn't, and you haven't addressed my arguments.

I distinctly remember writing several multi-page posts addressing your arguments and presenting my own.

"No. Anyone who emulates the way Jesus treated other people because they think it's the right way to treat people does not suddenly earn the right to be called a Christian, nor should they be called a Christian. You could teach Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name then."

To clarify, I was referring to teaching Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name. I did not advocate that.

You seemed to advocate "Anyone who emulates the way Jesus treated other people because they think it's the right way to treat people does not suddenly earn the right to be called a Christian"

No. I haven't advocated that, either. That's your statement, one with which I do not agree. I've said the opposite, that a person who follows the teachings of Jesus and emulates how he lived and treated others may reasonably call herself a Christian.

The dictionary definition of someone who follows the teachings of Jesus supports this, as well.

Sure. I think that's a good general definition. Not the only good one or the best, but it is a good definition.

Communications involves applying your own definition to other people to better understand them, and I'm stating that this practice would be horrible at that point.

I'm not following. Are you saying that you thing applying your own definition to other people is a good thing or a bad thing? Do you mean this in general, or only in regards to "Christian"?

"You could teach Christianity without mentioning Jesus's name then" is me pointing out how much this can bastardize the meaning of a word. And that isn't a straw man.

I stand corrected. That's a slippery slope, not a straw man.

Now, I'm going to do something that's going to evoke a logical fallacy in an audience. A few quotes from Gilda, the first one from before I even posted, and presented in chronological order.

Oh, goody. Quoting is better than restating, especially when there's such a disconnect between what I say and how you tend to restate things. I combined all three quotes into one quote box:

Originally Posted by Gilda

The "Old man in the sky" conception of God is one that's taken from artistic and pop culture representations of the Christian God, and isn't actually a core Christian concept, though many Christians believe this due to being one hour a week worshippers.

Close, but not quite. I believe that people should be free to interpret what it means to be a Christian in their own lives, and that I don't have the right to impose on them my definition of what it means to be a Christian.

I'd like to note at this point that I've been saying all along that I'm not defining what it means to be a Christian for anybody but myself.

OK. There they are. I said all those things. Yep, that was me.

Did you have a point to make with this?

I wasn't sure and wasn't going to assume whether your a he or she. Since Spivak usually gets me odd looks, I went with gender neutral, which in the English language is assumed to be masculine.

The style guides differ on this currently, with some suggesting varying genders. "They" is used in common vocal usage, but is best avoided in formal writing through a variety of means such as varying genders, using the generic pronoun "one", or pluralizing. I generally use a generic feminine when it can't be avoided.

For future reference, Gilda is a woman's name.

I was pointing out the humor in a theist getting huffy when someone contradicts their beliefs, in a thread that would probably make an atheist feel comfortable being outspoken and militent, if they weren't already. In otherwords, stating your belief's at all if they're not atheist, you should probably expect a contradiction.

"Getting huffy"--more name calling. Characterizing the other person in a negative manner in an attempt to make them look bad is not good debate.

I expect that people will contradict what I say in just about every thread in which I post. I reacted to this personal comment:

"You are not a christian, and you are intentionally leading others to believe something that is not true. Have fun with that..."

You questioned my faith, called me a liar, and made a flip comment to close it out. Given the blatantly insulting nature of this comment and the repeated name calling and frequent distortions of what I've been saying that followed, I think I've been positively restrained in my responses.

"Admittedly, telling someone they're not Christian is a touchy subject, "

You have no idea how much contempt I perceive in that. You want respect, treat others with it.

Eh. I thought it was funny.

Does treating others with respect include questioning their faith, questioning their honesty, making flip remarks, and repeated name calling?

Pot, meet kettle.

I have this odd feeling you yourself don't want to be treated with contempt, even if you had said all the things I have so far.

Here's another repeat of the same general problem. You're still telling me what I think and believe, rather than saying what you think and believe in response to my arguments.

That was stated so people know that I'm acknowledging I broached a touchy subject, and it's rather dependent on the rest of the sentence. Eventually, I'm going to have to call you on taking quotes out of context, and taking a dependent clause off of the rest of it's sentence, is the perfect opportunity. Don't.

I needed someplace for a third "duh." It's funnier when you do it three times.

By the way, those are both independent clauses. Trust me on this.

No, but stating a theistic point of view in a thread that would attract militant outspoken atheists would appear to be.

No, especially when I'm generally agreeing with the atheist on the general point he's making and making the point that we're more alike than different despite our different beliefs regarding faith. This board would be a really dull place if nobody posted opposing or differing viewpoints.

This is antagonistic as well:

So being mildly critical of the pop culture representation of God is being antagonistic? Towards whom? I disagreed with the pop culture conceptualization of God and said it isn't being representative of the core concepts of Christianity, but I didn't criticize any person or group of people.

You might notice that the only response to my post before yours starts with a thank you, and that there are several other Christians and theists posting here as well. Are the other Christians also being antagonistic by posting in this thread?

And it's late and I have work tomorrow. I'd have been done a good half hour ago if a crash hadn't eaten half my post.

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by Gilda

Belief in Christ and his teachings is a requirement, sure and I meet that criterion quite handily. A belief in a literal interpretation and in biblical inerrancy, not so much.

I can't be arsed to read over this entire thread, but I'd just like to say that it's impossible to be a 'Christian' and believe in Biblical errancy. It'd be like me calling myself a Muslim but rejecting part of the Koran's teachings. Religion's an "All-or-nothing" kind of deal. It's not a salad buffet where you pick and choose what you want and don't want.

Anyway, carry on with your debate!

[/endthreadjack]

To get on-topic, though, I can't help but laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of some athiests. They spend their time pointing the finger at hardcore theists yet they spend far too much time trying to prove that God doesn't exist (See, flying spaghetti monster) or even trying to remove all references to God from society (See, pledge of allegiance).

Theists try to spread their beliefs while athiests try to do the same. So what's the point in all this useless bickering?

And to all the athiests who live in the United States and have a problem swearing on the Bible, can I have all your money which has the statement "In God We Trust" printed on it? After all, you don't believe in God

[analog]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

To get on-topic, though, I can't but laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of some athiests. They spend their time pointing the finger at hardcore theists yet they spend far too much time trying to prove that God doesn't exist (See, flying spaghetti monster) or even trying to remove all references to God from society (See, pledge of allegiance).

Theists try to spread their beliefs while athiests try to do the same. So what's the point in all this useless bickering?

I can't recall the last time i've ever had an atheist try and convert me away from religion, or have ever heard of it. At best, what I see is when they and "theists" start talking, somehow something about God or religion is envoked. While I'll grant you there are certainly many atheists who make it their life's work to denounce a higher power and spread their opinion to others, i'd readily (and I think easily) argue that there are FAR more religious people who do exactly the same on behalf of THEIR beliefs. WAY more. Atheists have never killed, fought wars, tortured, imprisoned, or converted-by-force any people that I am aware of, at any time, ever, in the name of "there is no God". If i'm wrong, I welcome the education.

However, when I compare that side-by-side with most of the major religions on the planet who HAVE done all those things at some point in time, and continue to give people shit for not believing as they do, atheists don't pan out nearly as "equally" in terms of how they believe.

I was downtown for Halloween this year, and passed by a corner with about 20 people standing around, in the cold (yeah it was actually kind of cold even here in florida), with giant signs- some of them with megaphones- proclaiming how we're all going to hell for observing Halloween. How it's a pagan holiday and this and that and blah blah blah. The point is, while those are obviously the more "fervent" (to put it nicely) of their kind and not indicative of the whole...

...could you ever imagine ANYTHING of a truly comparitive sort being perpetrated by "atheists"? Even the most outspoken/fervent ones? People of religious belief are often compelled to try and convert a person because they believe 1. they're doing good, and/or 2. they believe you are a lesser/evil/bad person for NOT believing as they do.

I've never encoutered a situation where an atheist was condescending, rude, or treated someone as a lesser person because they DID have religious beliefs- but I encounter interactions all the time where people are looked down upon because they express they are either wiccan, pagan, atheist, agnostic, or simply not the same religion as the other, "theist", person with whom they're talking.

I'm Catholic, btw, if that puts anything I've written into better perspective than if you thought I was atheist.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I can't help but laugh at the blatant hypocrisy of some athiests. They spend their time pointing the finger at hardcore theists yet they spend far too much time trying to prove that God doesn't exist (See, flying spaghetti monster) or even trying to remove all references to God from society (See, pledge of allegiance).

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is satire. It was created to point out certain absurdities within the Pennsylvania Board of Education. I actually get a huge kick out of FSM.

I am an athiest.
I spend no more time trying to prove that your god doesn't exist than I do Zeus, Jupiter, Morrigan, Odin, or Quetzacoatl. What's the point? You cannot prove that something does not exist. Nor do I believe that "faith" is required in order to not believe. How is that Hypocrisy?

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

And to all the athiests who live in the United States and have a problem swearing on the Bible, can I have all your money which has the statement "In God We Trust" printed on it? After all, you don't believe in God

Nor am I a member of any of the Masonic Orders. And yet...my money is replete with Masonic symbology. It, along with "In God We Trust", is of little import to me. So long as the little cutie at Arby's still takes it, in exchange for a milkshake.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by analog

I can't recall the last time i've ever had an atheist try and convert me away from religion, or have ever heard of it. At best, what I see is when they and "theists" start talking, somehow something about God or religion is envoked. While I'll grant you there are certainly many atheists who make it their life's work to denounce a higher power and spread their opinion to others, i'd readily (and I think easily) argue that there are FAR more religious people who do exactly the same on behalf of THEIR beliefs. WAY more. Atheists have never killed, fought wars, tortured, imprisoned, or converted-by-force any people that I am aware of, at any time, ever, in the name of "there is no God". If i'm wrong, I welcome the education.

The Russian strain of Communism was atheistic, and it tortured, fought wars, killed, imprisoned and converted-by-force people who refused Communist docterine.

Removing one non-rational belief pattern (supernatural power) from play does not prevent someone from using a different pattern (materialist historical predestination) and committing the same kind of horrible mass sins on its behalf.

[xepherys]

I don't really understand how theism (or lack thereof) and morality have any relationship to one another at all.

You have moral: Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera.

You have immoral: Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Satanists, Agnostics, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, et cetera.

So... what gives? I suppose I consider myself a spiritualist, in so much as I believe in something beyond our mortal coil, but do not adhere to any organized religion. I am moral because I believe in being a good person. I also make mistakes because I am human. My upbringing, my spiritual concepts nor any other specific device is cause for my morality.

People suck...

[Infinite_Loser]

Originally Posted by analog

I can't recall the last time i've ever had an atheist try and convert me away from religion, or have ever heard of it. At best, what I see is when they and "theists" start talking, somehow something about God or religion is envoked. While I'll grant you there are certainly many atheists who make it their life's work to denounce a higher power and spread their opinion to others, i'd readily (and I think easily) argue that there are FAR more religious people who do exactly the same on behalf of THEIR beliefs. WAY more. Atheists have never killed, fought wars, tortured, imprisoned, or converted-by-force any people that I am aware of, at any time, ever, in the name of "there is no God". If i'm wrong, I welcome the education.

However, when I compare that side-by-side with most of the major religions on the planet who HAVE done all those things at some point in time, and continue to give people shit for not believing as they do, atheists don't pan out nearly as "equally" in terms of how they believe.

This reminds me of a recent episode of South Park.

In it, religion has been banned and the Unified Athiest League, the United Athiest Alliance and Allied Athiest Allegiance all fight to expand their brand of athiesm (The one "True" athiesm). It's pretty funny.

The entire two-part episode could be summed up by these two quotes:

Cartman: "Oh my God!"
Athiest #1: "Haha! You still believe in religion!"

---

I believe Yakk said it best. You can remove religion entirely; People will simply find another rationale to base their actions on.

[florida0214]

This issues has been talked about time and time again on TFP. All of these discussions have come to the same conclussion: Everybody disagrees with everybody.

I mean talk about beating a dead horse. Somebody should have used the search function. This is so redundant.

This topic always leads to each side trying prove that either God exists or he doesn't. Neither side really wins or make any arguement that cannot be refuted(don't know how that is spelled.) Anyway I think that everybody just simply needs to drop it and agree to disagree.

Stop trying to discredit eachother, becuase I guarantee nobody is going to change their view or opinion. People in TFP are way too stubborn and some just cannot pull their heads out their ass long enough to see daylight, let alone consider where somebody else might be coming from. Anyway Just my thought on this old and never say DIE topic.

[jorgelito]

I don't know man, I was very surprised at the tone of this thread. That is atheists find themselves under fire or ostracised in our society. In my experience, it has been the exact opposite. It has never been cool to be religious unless it was a non-Western variety. All my life as a Christian, I have been teased, ridiculed and subjected to some pretty heavy bashing. I always thought atheism was the cool thing to be.

[roachboy]

but there is validation in this "persecution" isn't there, jorgelito?
it works the same way for all sides.
isn't that what every version of this thread is ultimately about?

[jorgelito]

I think so Roach (although I'm not too clear what you mean by validation?)

At least in some philosphical sense. That is to say that at the end of the day we're all the same: There are some nice religious folk and there are some not-nice religious folk. There are some nice atheists (non-religious folk) and not-nice religious folk.

I guess there is one adage all religious and non-religious can agree on and live by: "Do unto others....."

For me at least, I adopt the philosophy of Cynthetiques signature.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I believe Yakk said it best. You can remove religion entirely; People will simply find another rationale to base their actions on.

Yes.

Both Communist "materilistic historical determinism" and Muslim/Jewish/Christian "omnipotent singular diety" are horribly dangerous and evil ideas.

Both place entire realms of thought into the "this is true, and if you disagree with it, you must be surpressed". They encourage fanatacism and a belief that "what you are doing doesn't really matter -- everything is going according to plan", which disassociates people from the true horror of the actions they are doing.

By providing a "greater good" to worship, they both excuse real physical evil done in the "greater good"s name.

I'm glad you understand the danger.

I am pretty sure there are monothiestic religious belief systems that aren't as dangerous as Communism is. The Dieism that was popular around the time of the American revolution (there exists a god, but we can't know much about him), for example.

Once you have generated docterine that states "You must be certain that people who disagree with this docterine deserve to be destroyed", the belief system passes the threshold into the valley of death.

On the other hand, most such belief systems have dogma that gets in the way of their believers gaining knowledge about the world. However, with the advent of nuclear bombs, the crippling features of dogmatic religion matter less -- the dogmatic fanatics don't need to figure out the laws of physics well enough to build nukes, they just need to possess them, and threaten to destroy other people unless one kowtows to them.

Sad, really.

[Gilda]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

I can't be arsed to read over this entire thread, but I'd just like to say that it's impossible to be a 'Christian' and believe in Biblical errancy. It'd be like me calling myself a Muslim but rejecting part of the Koran's teachings. Religion's an "All-or-nothing" kind of deal. It's not a salad buffet where you pick and choose what you want and don't want.

It is possible because there are Christians who don't believe in Biblical inerrancy.

Many people do treat their religion as a pick and choose what benefits them type of thing. I understand that you think Christians shouldn't do this, but that doesn't change the fact that many do.

Some religions even encourage this. Shintoists don't actually have to believe in any of the spiritual aspects of the religion to be members of the religion. Participation in certain rituals is enough.

[Xera]

I just a have few things to say about the original purpose of this post. It is just as MORALLY WRONG to say you are morally superior to me because you are an atheist as it is for me to claim the same because I'm a follower of the bit purple blob.

In actuality I would define myself as a Christian, but I don't think that really matters. I would be very wrong to say that only my view is valid. Explain how that is bad, but you saying that only your way is right is not equally as bad?

Where is the harm in beliefs? Is it harmful to others that I believe that a man was born from Immaculate Conception and that he died and was resurrected harmful to anyone?

No in fact the harm only comes into play when I try to force others to believe that same idea, or when I harass or ridicule them for not. The same holds true for every faith driven person, agnostic, or atheist.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by roachboy

which is why i find it strange that there are atheists who co-operate with this by continuing to take christianity SO SERIOUSLY.

i dont know when i stopped caring about all this....at some point i realized that i didnt really. which is nice because you can see what there is that can be therapeutic about these rituals--funerals for example are nice simply because they give you a structure to walk through when your are greiving, and having a structure at that time can be useful. and if i am around a cathederal, i might go to mass for the theater of it, because it looks and sounds cool.

one advantage of this distance is that it lets you see just how strange christianity really is.
but if you live in a community dominated by it, this may not be the happiest place to land.
but it is interesting.

roachboy, I came into this thread late, but I wanted to say that I really appreciated what you had to say here... that at some point, it's okay to really stop caring and stop being militant. I think I'm still in the anti-Christian stage (was evangelical for many a year, am now agnostic and not going anywhere else in a hurry), but not so much that I can't see the rituals for what they are... they really can be just works of art, or a form of entertainment, or soothing mechanisms... and there is nothing wrong with that. Why not enjoy them, as long as it is of your own free will to stop by and participate (e.g. not having a gun held to your head, as it can be in some countries).

Humans have been applying such tools to their life-course transitions and painful circumstances for thousands upon thousands of years; for that reason in itself, I cannot see to judge anyone for celebrating or grieving via a ritual (religious or otherwise), and I consider it a privilege when I am invited/allowed to participate. The range of human experience is too wide and beautiful for me to restrict myself to only practicing what I believe (or not practicing what I don't believe, which is even more narrow). I may be well on my way to atheism (or may just dwell permanently at agnosticism), but it is simply in my nature to want to experience and understand what other people do to get through life on their own terms. As long as their terms expect nothing from me, of course. Then I find it justifiable to be semi-militant...

[analog]

Originally Posted by Yakk

The Russian strain of Communism was atheistic, and it tortured, fought wars, killed, imprisoned and converted-by-force people who refused Communist docterine.

Originally Posted by analog

Atheists have never killed, fought wars, tortured, imprisoned, or converted-by-force any people that I am aware of, at any time, ever, in the name of "there is no God".

Was their cause of converting people to Communism, or to atheism? I believe the entire intent was to forcibly convert people to Communism- one part of that overall societal structure being an abolishment of religion.

Saying that is an example of atheists forcibly converting, is like saying the Church of England is responsible for any spread of the British Monarchy after it was made the official religion- we're talking about a conversion of societal structure as a whole, more about the economic and governing powers. If those in power believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't change the fact at all that it was Communism that was being forced on people, the center of the killings and violence. Atheism was just a part of the package that came with their brand of communism.

[KeithC2006]

Sometimes people are outspoken to try to make themselves feel better about things they deep down know are wrong.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by KeithC2006

Sometimes people are outspoken to try to make themselves feel better about things they deep down know are wrong.

Interesting. Ted Haggard would be the poster boy for this philosophy, I assume?

[aKula]

Originally Posted by abaya

roachboy, I came into this thread late, but I wanted to say that I really appreciated what you had to say here... that at some point, it's okay to really stop caring and stop being militant. I think I'm still in the anti-Christian stage (was evangelical for many a year, am now agnostic and not going anywhere else in a hurry), but not so much that I can't see the rituals for what they are... they really can be just works of art, or a form of entertainment, or soothing mechanisms... and there is nothing wrong with that. Why not enjoy them, as long as it is of your own free will to stop by and participate (e.g. not having a gun held to your head, as it can be in some countries).

Humans have been applying such tools to their life-course transitions and painful circumstances for thousands upon thousands of years; for that reason in itself, I cannot see to judge anyone for celebrating or grieving via a ritual (religious or otherwise), and I consider it a privilege when I am invited/allowed to participate. The range of human experience is too wide and beautiful for me to restrict myself to only practicing what I believe (or not practicing what I don't believe, which is even more narrow). I may be well on my way to atheism (or may just dwell permanently at agnosticism), but it is simply in my nature to want to experience and understand what other people do to get through life on their own terms. As long as their terms expect nothing from me, of course. Then I find it justifiable to be semi-militant...

I'd also say that the individual's involvment and experience with christianity can vary greatly. Denomination clearly plays a role in this but so does the family's and community's general involment. Any backlash would clearly also be influenced by previous experiences.

[MrVisitor]

If you follow atheism to its logical conclusion you arrive at the realisation that there is nothing 'above' humanity. The human is the ultimate being in the universe, free to decide how to live their lives.

If there is no 'higher power' or being to have a guiding moral impact, then whatever each person decides is true.

If I decide to kill you, and I believe that to be morally correct, what moral grounds do you have to say I'm wrong to do so? Law in most countries is derived from religion. Western countries law is based on Christian values (although unfortunately we're moving further from that) and Muslim countries often apply Sharia law.

True atheists do not believe in morals, because they do not believe there is a source of moral guidance or right. They believe that man should decide what is right and wrong, or society. But what if society (for instance Nazi Germany or Communist Russia) decide that persecuting certain minorities was ok? Who do we look to then for moral guidance?

Atheism is man's way of trying to make himself God.

Also, in response to someone's previous statement that Christians 'can' believe the bible is flawed, then read 2 Timothy 3:16. "ALL scripture is God-breathed" etc, look it up.

The Bible is easily misinterpreted by the atheist, or someone who wants to discredit Christianity. Even by someone who doesn't see the big picture of the Bible. The Pope makes mistakes. The Bible doesn't.

[ktspktsp]

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

If you follow atheism to its logical conclusion you arrive at the realisation that there is nothing 'above' humanity. The human is the ultimate being in the universe, free to decide how to live their lives.

If there is no 'higher power' or being to have a guiding moral impact, then whatever each person decides is true.

If I decide to kill you, and I believe that to be morally correct, what moral grounds do you have to say I'm wrong to do so? Law in most countries is derived from religion. Western countries law is based on Christian values (although unfortunately we're moving further from that) and Muslim countries often apply Sharia law.

True atheists do not believe in morals, because they do not believe there is a source of moral guidance or right. They believe that man should decide what is right and wrong, or society. But what if society (for instance Nazi Germany or Communist Russia) decide that persecuting certain minorities was ok? Who do we look to then for moral guidance?

Atheism is man's way of trying to make himself God.

Also, in response to someone's previous statement that Christians 'can' believe the bible is flawed, then read 2 Timothy 3:16. "ALL scripture is God-breathed" etc, look it up.

The Bible is easily misinterpreted by the atheist, or someone who wants to discredit Christianity. Even by someone who doesn't see the big picture of the Bible. The Pope makes mistakes. The Bible doesn't.

No. Atheists (or believers or anybody really) do not live in a vacuum, they live in a society too. Society has its moral rules. Which is why atheists do not go on merrily killing others.

Also, you cannot prove that the bible is not flawed because the bible says it is not flawed. It's just not a valid logical statement.

[abaya]

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

If you follow atheism to its logical conclusion you arrive at the realisation that there is nothing 'above' humanity. The human is the ultimate being in the universe, free to decide how to live their lives.

If there is no 'higher power' or being to have a guiding moral impact, then whatever each person decides is true.

You are equating atheism with absolute moral relativism, my friend, which is simply a very flawed argument. Do you *know* any atheists? Are you friends with them? Do you love them? I do, and they are not amoral people, nor are they smiling down on all kinds of human suffering and excusing it as "human freedom." The ones I know are as compassionate and concerned about humanity as the best Christians in my circle of friends. They do not excuse themselves from making moral judgements, by any means. I don't know what kind of atheists you associate with, but it's a pity that your sample size is so biased.

And quite frankly, I prefer the company of atheists over Christians, since I feel the former don't have an agenda to press upon me regarding all of my life decisions (none of my atheist friends are "militants," I should add). They're simply human, not clouded up with ideas of being somehow "touched by God" or divinely ordained to smother their truth over me. I find that kind of person a lot easier to sit around and just BE with, than someone who is anxious to get me out of the fires of hell because I'm inherently corrupted, in their eyes. I imagine Jesus would be something like that... not quick to condemn or preach Bible verses at me, but willing to just sit and be, and get to know me as a person.

I think that if Jesus saw the way that most evangelical Christians went about "asserting" themselves and their faith on the world, he'd get nauseous and throw up his hands at the whole lot. Shoving Bible verses down someone's throat when they have done you no harm is just plain insensitive, and self-righteous to boot. Shoving atheist dogma down someone's throat in the same manner is just as rude; both deserve a place in Dante's inferno, gnawing on each other for all eternity (now that would be justice!).

Sometimes I think it's a pity that I no longer believe in hell.

[Bill O'Rights]

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

True atheists do not believe in morals, because they do not believe there is a source of moral guidance or right.Atheism is man's way of trying to make himself God.

So...basically, because I believe the Bible to be a flawed document, I am immoral? I have no values because I do not believe in a god? That because I do not believe in a "divine creator", I am setting myself up as a god?

Sorry, MrVisitor. But I do know, and recognize, right from wrong. I do not walk the path of darkness simply because I refuse to fall to my knees and worship any mythological deity. Although I do not recognize the Bible as the word of God, I can, and do, recogize that the Ten Commandments are a pretty good set of rules to live by. Most of 'em, anyway. And that by themselves, form the basic structure of any society.

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

Also, in response to someone's previous statement that Christians 'can' believe the bible is flawed, then read 2 Timothy 3:16. "ALL scripture is God-breathed" etc, look it up.

OMG...you're right!! Look at that! How could I have been so blind?!? The Bible can't be flawed, because it says it can't be flawed. This is so awesome! So...I'm not overweight, because I say I'm not overweight. I love this reasoning.

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

The Bible is easily misinterpreted by the atheist, or someone who wants to discredit Christianity. Even by someone who doesn't see the big picture of the Bible. The Pope makes mistakes. The Bible doesn't.

The Bible is easily misinterpreted because it is replete with contradictions, vague generalities, and outright twisted "laws" (Leviticous, anyone?). It is a book. A book written by men. It has mistakes. To believe otherwise is pretty dangerous thinking, in my not so humble opinion.

[Charlatan]

Mr. Visitor... I'd really hate to live in the world you paint.

Secular Humanism.

Look. It. Up.

[Xera]

There is a difference between having no exteranally placed moral compass and having no morals. Anyone that understands that he or she has the ability to harm others and makes the choice not to for the reason of not harming others and no other reason has morals.

The only difference between atheists and believers is that the believer bases his or her moral compass on the rules of his or her religion and the atheist bases his or her moral compass on an internal conscience.

The only problem witht the internal conscience is that it is going to be different from person to person. but really is that any differnet from all the different exteral morals represented by different religions? Its really not, regardless of faith or lack of faith, every person is going to have slightly differnet moral beliefs. Thats why we have governments to set up a legal standard to meet the moral beliefs of those governed. Hopefully.

The fact that I believe that my conscience is God whispering in my ear and nonbelievers think its just the natural guilt associated with doing what is wrong, the result is the same, meaning that neither is any way superior to the other.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by MrVisitor

But what if society (for instance Nazi Germany or Communist Russia) decide that persecuting certain minorities was ok? Who do we look to then for moral guidance?

Pretty funny that you mention Nazi Germany. Nazi was a mostly christian group with a few pagan rituals tossed in at the last minute. Who did they look for to moral guidance ? Why many of the nazis thought that since the pope did nothing, and said nothing, then it was ok to ...ahem...send the jews to madagascar....

And you can avoid the Irish civil war examples all you want, but all sides in Ireland use "moral" highground all the time. Which religion is "right and moral" ?

Religion doesn't stop unjust wars. (Crusades up to Iraq) Nor does it strengthen moral codes. It helps sometimes, but religion cannot be relied upon when its followers are wishy washy and covered with infighting.

Lastly, you have avoided use of the term ethics. I posit that the same amount of athiests have functioning ethics as religious people have functioning morals. Ethics and morals are 99% synonyms except for the God part that is included in my definition of morals.

Jonathan, the good agnostic.

[Infinite_Loser]

Unlike theism, athiesm is an abstract concept with no concrete set of moral and ethical codes.

Anyway... Anyone who thinks that a lack of religion will ultimately be better than religion is kidding themselves.

[roachboy]

why's that, infinite loser?

[Infinite_Loser]

Because people will simply find another rationale upon which to base their actions.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by analog

Was their cause of converting people to Communism, or to atheism? I believe the entire intent was to forcibly convert people to Communism- one part of that overall societal structure being an abolishment of religion.

Saying that is an example of atheists forcibly converting, is like saying the Church of England is responsible for any spread of the British Monarchy after it was made the official religion- we're talking about a conversion of societal structure as a whole, more about the economic and governing powers. If those in power believed in the Flying Spaghetti Monster, it wouldn't change the fact at all that it was Communism that was being forced on people, the center of the killings and violence. Atheism was just a part of the package that came with their brand of communism.

The English empire didn't force the Church of England down the throats of the entire Empire.

Most uses of Religion in war are about increasing obedience to the secular powers.

In the case of Communism, the Atheism requirement was about removing alternatives to the Communists social structure. By banning or surpressing organized religion, they removed organizations that did not line up with their belief systems.

Religions, typically in the human experience, have been about governing people. The divine right of kings. Sharia law. The Church of England broke away from the Catholic church because the King wanted to do something against Catholic rules, and didn't want the Catholics messing with him. Abortion bans. Creationism teachings.

It is only in a handful of recent Western nations do they claim that Religion and State are seperate spheres.

[analog]

Originally Posted by Yakk

In the case of Communism, the Atheism requirement was about removing alternatives to the Communists social structure. By banning or surpressing organized religion, they removed organizations that did not line up with their belief systems.

So what I said was correct. It was not about "spreading" or "converting" atheism, atheism was just a change to facilitate the broader purpose to rule people under Communism.

Religions, typically in the human experience, have been about governing people. The divine right of kings. Sharia law. The Church of England broke away from the Catholic church because the King wanted to do something against Catholic rules, and didn't want the Catholics messing with him.

Specifically it was because he wanted a divorce so he could marry someone else. He was fine otherwise. The divine right of kings was used primarily to control the people by making the head of the country not only their ruler by human law, but also by church mandate. The kings got the blessing of the Pope in order to further solidify their stance as ruler of the land. In this way, the people were fearful of their rulers from both a legal and religious obligation.

It is only in a handful of recent Western nations do they claim that Religion and State are seperate spheres.

They didn't "claim" anything. America was created because of the idea of a separation of church and state, specifically so that those living here could be free to worship whomever they chose (or not worship anyone at all). It's not that some "western nations" distorted the otherwise normal combination of church and state; they intentionally cleaved the two apart.

[Lizra]

Originally Posted by analog

They didn't "claim" anything. America was created because of the idea of a separation of church and state, specifically so that those living here could be free to worship whomever they chose (or not worship anyone at all). It's not that some "western nations" distorted the otherwise normal combination of church and state; they intentionally cleaved the two apart.

Hear hear!
For those who wish to think an atheist's moral conscience is the same thing as religious guidelines, fine, interchange them if you wish ......but there is no way I'm going to believe in the ever present religious fairy tales.....thats just plain silly imo. So.....I'll go with my atheistic moral conscience.

[FoolThemAll]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Unlike theism, athiesm is an abstract concept with no concrete set of moral and ethical codes.

Individual religions certainly come with a "concrete set of moral and ethical codes", but theism in general? I'm not so sure. I'd more likely attribute to a bare-bones belief in God the same thing you attribute to a bare-bones disbelief: on its own, it implies no moral/ethical code. After all, basic theism doesn't tell you what kind of God you have.

[Yakk]

Originally Posted by analog

So what I said was correct. It was not about "spreading" or "converting" atheism, atheism was just a change to facilitate the broader purpose to rule people under Communism.

But, how in the hell is that different than why european colonialist governments spread religion amoung their colonies?

By spreading their religion, they produced people more governable by their Empire. By blocking out and supressing other religions, they made the people resistant to opposing the Empire.

Communist cared if people where athiests -- religion was a counter-revolutionary force, and other pseudo-theological hand-wavey labels where used to explain why having a Religion was evil.

Same shit, different pile.

Specifically it was because he wanted a divorce so he could marry someone else. He was fine otherwise.

That is oversimplistic. One might say "wrong".

There where many points of friction between secular authorities and the Pope. Most of the changes done in the Anglican Catholic Church where simple repeals of the Authority of the Bishop of Rome over the Bishops of England. Acts done after the fact, such as the claiming of large tracts of Church land for the nobility, point out exactly how much secular governance the Bishops of that era where engaged in.

And why, again, was the divorce desired? He thought the people of England where not ready for a Queen, and his first wife had only produced a live Daughter. A secular matter of inheritance was the reason behind the religious schism in England.

The continuance of the Anglican church, and the religious wars that followed, where shockingly lined up with the succession. Mary, Queen of Scots, was legitimate if and only if the schism with the Catholic church was invalid, and Elizabeth was legitimate if and only if the schism with the Catholic church was valid.

Can you guess what the professed religion of Mary and Elizabeth was?

Saying that "Communism used Atheism as a means to and end", and not acknowleging that religions, historically, have been an important part of social glue that was merged continuously with secular life. The seperate of church and state is a historical anomoly -- one that I like -- but claiming secular motives for religious wars and crimes is no evidence that the wars where not religious in nature. If that was your standard, then you get to throw out most religious wars -- even the Crusades involved secular kingdoms.

I see little difference significant between the "religion" of Communism and the "religion" of Catholicism and the "religion" of Anglicanism. The Communist religion is Athieistic, the Catholic and Anglican religions are monotheistic.

The divine right of kings was used primarily to control the people by making the head of the country not only their ruler by human law, but also by church mandate. The kings got the blessing of the Pope in order to further solidify their stance as ruler of the land. In this way, the people were fearful of their rulers from both a legal and religious obligation.

Yes.

They didn't "claim" anything. America was created because of the idea of a separation of church and state, specifically so that those living here could be free to worship whomever they chose (or not worship anyone at all). It's not that some "western nations" distorted the otherwise normal combination of church and state; they intentionally cleaved the two apart.

It is normal, as in "if you don't use lots of social force, it will happen", that Religion and State end up mixing. It happens in the USA right now -- find me a single US congresscritter who will admit to being an Athiest.

I'm not saying that "normal" is good. "Normal" is just what usually happens when you don't explicitly try to do something. "The normal state of affairs for a rock is lieing on the ground. The normal state of affairs for water is flowing downhill."

America, the USA, was created because of tax disagreements with an incompetent regency in England. You had a king who was being run by a regency who where bleeding the soon-to-be American colonies dry.

There was, by this time, a heck of alot of religious freedom in the British Empire. As an example, a huge number of Penn. Amish fled the USA for the colony of upper Canada (Ontario, the Waterloo/Kitchener region) because they knew the British Empire was tolerant of religious minorities, and didn't trust the newly formed USA to be nearly so tolerant.

The US revolution was a tax revolt, first and foremost, and those that led it also added the newfangled French idea of "the state and the church are seperate" in order to help pacify fears by the large number of religious groups in the USA that they would be surpressed by a new state religion.

We are living in strange times. Failing to realize this will make you see history with a seriously warped bend.

[opus123]

Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser

Unlike theism, athiesm is an abstract concept with no concrete set of moral and ethical codes.

Theism and atheism are both abstract concepts. Neither have proof. Which is why I am agnostic.

Morals and ethics change over time and not set in concrete by either theists or atheists. I went to the Dead Sea Scrolls exhibit today and it was amazing the large number of deletions, mistakes, and additions to the bible over a thousand years. The Psalms were particularly edited, cut, and revamped many many times. And even the messiah myth of the coming of the son of God changed many times as well. At some points the messiah was to be a violent warrior and later he was rewritten to be a bringer of peace and healer.

Some of the changes could be due to translation errors, but other deletions could only be scribes and priests changing their ethics and morals as they saw fit.

Jonathan

Originally Posted by analog

America was created because of the idea of a separation of church and state, specifically so that those living here could be free to worship whomever they chose (or not worship anyone at all). It's not that some "western nations" distorted the otherwise normal combination of church and state; they intentionally cleaved the two apart.

Actually the US was mainly formed as a defense against England. Individual states were given huge powers to govern themselves as they saw fit. Some of the states actually kept it so only one or maybe two religions were allowed power in that particular state. Congregationalists held most all power for a long while in certain states. And some states had religion and government which were not very separated. It wasn't until I think Rhode Island was a state that allowed the most religions, but it was mainly Baptist. The Rhode Island charter expressly talked about the freedom of any religion and Jews went there in great numbers as they were persecuted in many other states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colony_...ce_Plantations

And for awhile Massachussets had laws against Quakers, Amish, and other religions. I think they had 2-3 days to leave the state or they would be hanged. However some cities were more liberal than others. That is why MA is still called a Commonwealth to this day. However, I don't think many people were hanged during the Revolutionary war because of religion. Mostly just for being Loyalists to the English Crown. Which some of them were actually Anglican faith and maybe they never were doing anything like treason. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachussets

It wasn't until 1818 that Connecticut separated church and state.

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

Virginia had 4 religions and they all banded together mostly to fight the English.

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

New Jersey allowed all religions, but probably mainly encouraged Christian religions only. I couldn't find much info on New Hampshire.

Another good thing to read is this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separat...urch_and_State

Jonathan