Exalted Pariah wrote:It saddens me to think tha tmost people think "in god we trust" was always apart of america, when in reality, it was only added in 1950
But we must show those godless communists who is boss!
EDIT: As a side note, this is what happens when you live in the state with the 48th best education system in the country.
EDIT EDIT: Am I the only one who watches that Emmanuel guy and thinks he's a bit off his rocker (as in legitimately clinical crazy not just stupid crazy)?
Wow... I'm about half hour into this... it's disturbing to me the number of idiotic people running around this country... I actually find John Ragosta quite interesting in what he is pointing out of the "Christian history" of America...
I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
Unfortunately when the religious say/do something stupid its because religion made them stupid. When non religious people say/do something stupid, they're just stupid.
LordofHats wrote:Unfortunately when the religious say/do something stupid its because religion made them stupid. When non religious people say/do something stupid, they're just stupid.
Double standard and all that.
Religion doesn't make people stupid. I'm religious. Some stupid people use religion in stupid and dangerous ways.
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.
So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.
So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.
Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.
And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.
LordofHats wrote:Unfortunately when the religious say/do something stupid its because religion made them stupid. When non religious people say/do something stupid, they're just stupid.
Double standard and all that.
Religion doesn't make people stupid. I'm religious. Some stupid people use religion in stupid and dangerous ways.
Obviously. I'm commenting on an attitude that I feel is present on some of the anti-religion discussion that treats being religious as if its something that makes someone stupid.
LordofHats wrote:Unfortunately when the religious say/do something stupid its because religion made them stupid. When non religious people say/do something stupid, they're just stupid.
Double standard and all that.
Religion doesn't make people stupid. I'm religious. Some stupid people use religion in stupid and dangerous ways.
Obviously. I'm commenting on an attitude that I feel is present on some of the anti-religion discussion that treats being religious as if its something that makes someone stupid.
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate. So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.
So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.
So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.
Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.
And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.
What he said.
To add to it, basically religion often compels the non religious to act according to the morality of that religion, regardless of how moral the religion is on such things. I have no problem with compelling people not to murder or steal, but I do have serious problems with treating homosexuals and women as second class citizens because of a book that was written millennia ago. For too long decisions which affect us all have been decided based on a ethical code not all of us share, when there is a perfectly adequate ethical code we could all buy into quite happily "do unto others..." If the choices we took as a society were based on this pretty much everyone would be happy with it.
First off, Christianity is not all religions or philosophies. There are many religion that explicitly state that their rules are only for the followers of the religion. For example Judaism requires that a Jew must follow the laws given in the torah in order to be a good and holy person, but a gentile is held to a much lower standard. It is in fact possible for a gentile to be considered more 'good' then a Jew if the Jew isn't following the laws of the Torah.
So you can say that a christian group (note not all Christians but a group of Christians) is doing something but you can't say because of this that all religions or the religious are doing something.
youbedead wrote:First off, Christianity is not all religions or philosophies. There are many religion that explicitly state that their rules are only for the followers of the religion. For example Judaism requires that a Jew must follow the laws given in the torah in order to be a good and holy person, but a gentile is held to a much lower standard. It is in fact possible for a gentile to be considered more 'good' then a Jew if the Jew isn't following the laws of the Torah.
So you can say that a christian group (note not all Christians but a group of Christians) is doing something but you can't say because of this that all religions or the religious are doing something.
Judaism doesn't impose it's will on non followers? One word. Palestine.
LordofHats wrote:Unfortunately when the religious say/do something stupid its because religion made them stupid. When non religious people say/do something stupid, they're just stupid.
Double standard and all that.
Religion doesn't make people stupid. I'm religious. Some stupid people use religion in stupid and dangerous ways.
Obviously. I'm commenting on an attitude that I feel is present on some of the anti-religion discussion that treats being religious as if its something that makes someone stupid.
Criticizing your religion is not being anti religious. If you use your religion as a basis for something, like the earth being flat. Pointing out the earth isn't flat is not being anti-your-religion. Asking follow up questions about other fun things about the book you use to justify your belief, like talking snakes, donkeys, and bushes, is not bashing your religion. Surely if your holy book is some divinely inspired thing, then it should stand up to scrutiny right?
so its not so much a double standard, because the quotes normally go "I believe in something demonstrably wrong"
why?
"because the bible says it"
Now I'd say the idea of creationism is absurd and stupid and has no facts or data to support it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person is stupid for believing it. That just means that person is just wrong about that topic, and if being wrong about one thing makes someone stupid, then everyone on earth is stupid. does being stupidly wrong about one thing invalidate anything else you may be right about?
For separation of church and state, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, It has been defined and set in stone by the supreme court decisions over the years. And it now means, the government will not promote one religion over the others. so keep your religious symbols off from public property. If you think your religion should be taught in public schools, and get it made into law, then keep in mind all religions will equally be able to be taught in schools. So sooner or later it will come to pass all the "under god" and "in god we trust" references will be removed.
youbedead wrote:First off, Christianity is not all religions or philosophies. There are many religion that explicitly state that their rules are only for the followers of the religion. For example Judaism requires that a Jew must follow the laws given in the torah in order to be a good and holy person, but a gentile is held to a much lower standard. It is in fact possible for a gentile to be considered more 'good' then a Jew if the Jew isn't following the laws of the Torah.
So you can say that a christian group (note not all Christians but a group of Christians) is doing something but you can't say because of this that all religions or the religious are doing something.
Jews don't impose their will on non followers? One word. Palestine.
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.
youbedead wrote:
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.
A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.
sirlynchmob wrote:Criticizing your religion is not being anti religious.
I never said it did. If your going to make such a big post basing the religious, while claiming your not bashing them, at least be on topic. No one is defending the people in the documentary. But of course, like many, you take what they're doing and universally apply it to me... for some reason.
youbedead wrote:
Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.
A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.
No, Zionism is not religious cause its a political cause, nor is every Jew in support of Zionism. Zionism is a pro Israel movement not a pro judiasm movement there is quite a big difference
I don't think you can separate Jewish political interests from their religious interests because their religion is the defining aspect of their culture. Almost everything that happens for them is influenced in some way by their religion. Zionism is both political and religious.
youbedead wrote: Political will is religious morality now? Personally I think what Isreal is doing is fething sick and the US shouldn't be supporting them, but that is not a religion imposing its morality upon others thats a state treating a bunch a people like gak.
A state based solely around a religious cause, Zionism. Every bit of it's political will is concerned with that cause, hence it's political will is religious.
No, Zionism is not religious cause its a political cause, nor is every Jew in support of Zionism. Zionism is a pro Israel movement not a pro judiasm movement there is quite a big difference
I absolutely agree with you that Zionism is not Judaism, but it is an aspect of it. We aren't talking about religions in their purest form, but (mis)interpretations of them. It's not particularly Christian to have crusades or the Inquisition or a witch hunt against an Afghan vet but they were religious in their motivation.
sirlynchmob wrote:Criticizing your religion is not being anti religious.
I never said it did. If your going to make such a big post basing the religious, while claiming your not bashing them, at least be on topic. No one is defending the people in the documentary. But of course, like many, you take what they're doing and universally apply it to me... for some reason.
You claimed this was a anti religious thread. I addressed that.
I never bashed the religious, I said what I think of creationists that are in a majority in the US. see the difference?
if you are creationist, my opinion of them applies to you. But I never universally applied it to all religious people.
sirlynchmob wrote:You claimed this was a anti religious thread. I addressed that.
No I didn't. Frazz did. Read my immediate response. Calling these people in this documentary idiots is 100% warranted, because they are idiots. I was merely making an offhanded comment about anti-religious threads once the topic came up.
The scariest part of the documentary for me was when people are asked if they were in abraham's shoes would they kill their own child and even scarier was would they slaughter all the cainenites (spelling?) including women and children. Just terrifying to hear what some of them said.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
I grew up in Oregon, which according to most surveys, is the most unchurched and second least Christian state in the Union..... When I was in school, all Sex Ed. classes were abstinence based. The reason was simple... the school taught that if you do not already have an STD (from a parent who had it and passed during birth), you CANNOT get one from not having sexual contact. You also cannot get pregnant without trying VERY hard, if you do not have sex.
So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works
youbedead wrote:First off, Christianity is not all religions or philosophies. There are many religion that explicitly state that their rules are only for the followers of the religion. For example Judaism requires that a Jew must follow the laws given in the torah in order to be a good and holy person, but a gentile is held to a much lower standard. It is in fact possible for a gentile to be considered more 'good' then a Jew if the Jew isn't following the laws of the Torah.
So you can say that a christian group (note not all Christians but a group of Christians) is doing something but you can't say because of this that all religions or the religious are doing something.
Yeah, about that: you're wrong... Go take a look at the type of stuff that the Hasidic jews are trying to pull of in Israel then come tell me that Jews don't try to impose their rules on to others...
sirlynchmob wrote:
Now I'd say the idea of creationism is absurd and stupid and has no facts or data to support it, but that doesn't necessarily mean the person is stupid for believing it. That just means that person is just wrong about that topic, and if being wrong about one thing makes someone stupid, then everyone on earth is stupid. does being stupidly wrong about one thing invalidate anything else you may be right about?
It also helps that what you believe regarding the creation of the universe doesn't have much bearing on what you do while living in it. I find creationism annoying, at least the Young Earth variety, when people try to pass it off as equivalent to the theories produced by scientific method and observation, but it is generally harmless otherwise. Compare this to someone who believes homosexuals are evil and there is a stark contrast in terms of immediate effect.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:
So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works
Ensis, you're repeating the smokescreen arguments of the religious people who promote abstinence-only sex ed. Those are there only to provide the appearance of a non-religious basis; just like Intelligent Design is purely a mask for Creationism.
While it's true that if you don't have sex it's much harder to get an STI or get pregnant, in point of fact abstinence-only sex ed leads to higher rates of pregnancy and disease. Because a substantial percentage of kids do it anyway, and if you don't teach them about safer sex practices, or worse, lie to them (as many of the abstinence-only curriculums and teachers do) about condoms and other methods being unreliable, you set them up for trouble. Check out the CDC statistics. It's one of life's terrible ironies that folks who demonize sex and adopt a zealously-protective attitiude toward kids on this issue actually do more harm to them.
Frazzled wrote:So you don't actually deny the bias then...
Not at all, there is certainly an attempt at balance, but the film maker has a particular view and the film was made because of his strong feelings on the subject. He often asks leading questions of some of the religious interviewees in an attempt to trip them up and make them look stupid (a good few of them achieve this without any help at all), and the focus of the whole film is very much on the bad side of what Christianity can lead to. But it's a lot more balanced than some news pieces, and does allow right to reply on pretty much every issue.
The film amkers should let the videos speak for themselves, adding a sub-soundtrack is an insideous way of unbalancing the content.
Better if they had critiqued it openly. Subliminals are not conspiracy junk but a well known demonstratable phenomenon, subliminals heavily skew opinions without overtly engaging said opinions.
dæl wrote:Someone spewing "you're not welcome here" rhetoric = creepy and unnerving, so play creepy and unnerving music.
Someone who has had their windows shot out for raising a point that the Supreme Court agrees with = sad, so play sad music.
It still loads the video, it reinforces the intended viewpoint, fortified by using select one sided videos.
Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.
Also many religious people were side swiped by difficult questions they personally didn't know an answer to, such as slavery. there was creepy music at that point also. There are good answers to the questions posed, but generally only theologists know them, its not a point most Christians think on, as the Bible is not heavily focused on them. Slavery is distant past, so few Christians ever look at the whys and wherefores.
There are difficult questions you can pose to most atheists if you want to, were they posed? No.
The whole slavery question was irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse to make the interviewee appear ignorant. The Bible is a massive book,deep and encyclopaedic, most spiritual topics it holds are of little everyday use and involve deep doctrine. Most people leave much of it alone, it doesn't really concern their daily lives. It wasn't fair to be ambushed with questions like that, one cant be expected to know everything.
One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.
In fact where were the mild mannered intelligent mainstream Christian apologists in the video. there were some mild liberal Christian speakers, but no mild mainstream. You trying to tell me you cant find either they or atheist fanatics in North Carolina? Even the single Moslem interviewed was a very reasonable one. No jihadists to be found in NC eh? Did I miss one?
Orlanth wrote:
Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.
Documentaries are constructed to convey a particular message, news at 11.
dæl wrote:Someone spewing "you're not welcome here" rhetoric = creepy and unnerving, so play creepy and unnerving music.
Someone who has had their windows shot out for raising a point that the Supreme Court agrees with = sad, so play sad music.
It still loads the video, it reinforces the intended viewpoint, fortified by using select one sided videos.
Furthermore you don't have to go far to find an militant atheist in the US, where were they, why weren't they filmed, and where was the creepy music.
Cool, you wont find it hard to provide me with evidence of one of these "militant atheists" then, please do because I don't believe they exist.
Also many religious people were side swiped by difficult questions they personally didn't know an answer to, such as slavery. there was creepy music at that point also. There are good answers to the questions posed, but generally only theologists know them, its not a point most Christians think on, as the Bible is not heavily focused on them. Slavery is distant past, so few Christians ever look at the whys and wherefores.
Creepy music when someone says slavery is more moral than homosexuality? Totally unjustified!
/sarcasm
If good answers exist, then please provide a single "good" answer as to why the Bible condones slavery, while condemning homosexuality.
There are difficult questions you can pose to most atheists if you want to, were they posed? No.
Such as? I'll give it a go answering them for you.
The whole slavery question was irrelevant to the topic and just an excuse to make the interviewee appear ignorant. The Bible is a massive book,deep and encyclopaedic, most spiritual topics it holds are of little everyday use and involve deep doctrine. Most people leave much of it alone, it doesn't really concern their daily lives. It wasn't fair to be ambushed with questions like that, one cant be expected to know everything.
The whole slavery issue is very much part of the debate when it is claimed the Bible is a guide to morality, and it's tenets should be enshrined in law.
One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.
What!? The guy who is obviously well versed in the history of the Revolution makes a claim which you can look up yourself (or do you want proof for everything said to be provided? I don't have 8 hours to watch a documentary), or the guy who first claimed "in God we trust" was around at the time of the founding fathers until he gets called up on it, then says "I'm not too good with dates". Which of these guys, on balance, is more likely telling the truth?
In fact where were the mild mannered intelligent mainstream Christian apologists in the video. there were some mild liberal Christian speakers, but no mild mainstream. You trying to tell me you cant find either they or atheist fanatics in North Carolina? Even the single Moslem interviewed was a very reasonable one. No jihadists to be found in NC eh? Did I miss one?
You missed the two incredibly level headed baptist ministers. And again atheist fanatics? They don't exist mate. Noone says "I'm going to attack you in the name of reason," it's unreasonable.
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.
So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.
So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.
Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.
And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.
While I agree with some points, most of your points fall to political garbble, more then religion. Those areas your talking about are HEAVILY Christian areas, and so surprisingly, the politicians do whatever their constituents want them to do. Weird I know. Heres some numbers
According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly
The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College
Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc.), collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply
So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.
dæl wrote:
Cool, you wont find it hard to provide me with evidence of one of these "militant atheists" then, please do because I don't believe they exist.
Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.
dæl wrote:
If good answers exist, then please provide a single "good" answer as to why the Bible condones slavery, while condemning homosexuality.
Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.
Slavery was an ancient economic reality. If Hebrews were to practice it here were the caveats they had to jump through, a time of emancipation and naturalisation is part of the deal (Year of Jubilee). God would prefer you didn't take slaves though, this is evident throughout the Bible, and the Koran too.
As for cross referencing that with condemnation of homosexuality, the two subjects don't connect, and are not weighted against each other..
dæl wrote:
Such as? I'll give it a go answering them for you.
No need, you aren't hosting the video.
However in case you think I dont have any.
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
There are plenty of others but I dont want to digress the thread.
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the theread. these questioons have come up on Dakka before anyway.
dæl wrote:
The whole slavery issue is very much part of the debate when it is claimed the Bible is a guide to morality, and it's tenets should be enshrined in law.
Slavery is not a current biblical tenet, certainly not of Christianity which uses the New Covenant to complete the old. Slavery is technically 'acceptable' in the New Testament. The Epistles teach that a slave should not become a rebel. However freedom should be eagerly sought, so, long as it is done legally. In effect slavery is not acceptable, but it must be removed through legal means, not sedition. the New Testmant argues that human law is corrupt, but that doesn't mean we should use corruption to fix it. aka suffer a bad law rather than do wrong.
Judaism still revers the Pentateuch in an un-upgraded from, so the question of Biblical slavery is best put to them.
One interviewee made unsupported claims that anglicans persecuted baptists and presbyterians while demanding citations and blankly denying reports from another interviewee about religious meetings in the Capitol. It citation is needed for historical accounts, that should go both ways yes.
dæl wrote:
What!? The guy who is obviously well versed in the history of the Revolution makes a claim which you can look up yourself (or do you want proof for everything said to be provided? I don't have 8 hours to watch a documentary), or the guy who first claimed "in God we trust" was around at the time of the founding fathers until he gets called up on it, then says "I'm not too good with dates". Which of these guys, on balance, is more likely telling the truth?
Actually its not a matter of balance its a matter of citation. If the program is a history lesson the lesson should be sourced. Which contemporary sources claimed that baptists werre horswehipped in meets, and for that matter which contemporasry sources claimed relgios meeting occured in the Capitol with as sitting President present.
dæl wrote:
You missed the two incredibly level headed baptist ministers.
Those were liberal preachers, with arguments against flying the flag. That of itself is not a definition of level headed, which is based on presentation rather than content. There cant be no effective conservative christian apologists in North Carolina, I know there are, some of the speakers in the southern states are very effective orators and do not appear the least bit fanatical. You might not agree with what they believe, but they can put it across well. None of those interviewed could, unless chosen to speak for the other side..
dæl wrote:
And again atheist fanatics? They don't exist mate. Noone says "I'm going to attack you in the name of reason," it's unreasonable.
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'. There have been calls by atheist fanatics to ban religion, or head towards phasing out religion. Which is ominous as there will always be people who want to believe so how would it be phased out.
If you disagree with an atheist fanatics agenda, or find it personally illogical, I will freely accept a claim that you have no common moral ground with them. Do a google search on something like 'ban religion' see what you find.
However they do exist. I myself have seen persecution and been abused for holding to my religion, once by Moslems and at least three times by atheists. You can count that as one occurance as it was the same atheists each time. More seriously In knew a woman street preacher who was stabbed to death in my hometown because she would not renounce her faith. The perpetrator was anti-religious, not an Islamic or some such. I met her an hour before she died, I was one of the last people to speak to her.
I will admit this experience is unusual, martyrdoms are very rare in the modern west.
KingCracker wrote:
So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.
Actually, that is called "tyranny of the majority" and supposedly developed and democratic countries should protect their minorities from stuff like that, especially when otherwise you would have people that say that "homosexuality is worse than slavery" and that non-christians should be "beaten up" and "ran out of town" ruling the joint!
@KC So you admit that in heavily religious areas people wish to impose their will onto others. But then claim this is not because of Religion. I'm sorry chap, but you're wrong, every point that Ma55terFett made has behind it a religious motivation. It's awesome you fall into the tolerant crowd, but a vast majority of intolerance comes from religion, or at the very least, hides behind it.
Again, I personally dont agree with those actions. But its still how our world works. You put it to a vote. There shouldnt be some magical law that states if your in the minority then your vote counts as 3, thats now how it works. If MOST people dont want X thing, or if MOST people want Z person as Y whatever, then thats it, the voters have spoken. Now go ahead and look at states that arnt hardcore religious types and look at their voting records, youll see a HUGE difference in how things are gone about. The democratic process does work. Its the only "fair" way to do things these days. Because it was either at the tip of a sword or a gun barrel
Automatically Appended Next Post: That was meant for Phantom up there but kindda works. But to answer you Dael. Your talking about hardcore conservatives here. They really dont count for MOST religious people. The majority of religious types I know are in deed tolerable. But it just so happens that the majority of hardcore types live in that area of the country. So yes there, I will agree to a point with what your saying. But most other places, away from there, arnt like that at all. And its really an unfair argument on my part because your using these hardcore types as the basis for your argument. Thats like arguing with Muslims that they are all crazy Western killers because of 9/11. All of them? REALLY? Thats one serious stretch of the truth
Ma55ter_fett wrote:
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
I grew up in Oregon, which according to most surveys, is the most unchurched and second least Christian state in the Union..... When I was in school, all Sex Ed. classes were abstinence based. The reason was simple... the school taught that if you do not already have an STD (from a parent who had it and passed during birth), you CANNOT get one from not having sexual contact. You also cannot get pregnant without trying VERY hard, if you do not have sex.
So, the argument that abstinence only is religiously based, is, IMHO quite false, as there really is a lot of "science" behind how abstinence works
I never said that religion was the only reason for “abstinence only” sex education.
I said that in many southern states religion (and morals based on religious code) holds a lot of sway when it comes to determining the curriculum of the sex education.
Also your argument that (I believe this is what you were saying) “Oregon isn’t very Christian so if they teach abstinence only sex ed it proves that abstinence only sex ed isn’t due to Christian influence” is false. Why? Because up until recently states that had abstinence only education programs got extra funding from the federal government? If schools want that cha-ching! they have to go abstinence only. I wonder who proposed, backed, and voted for those programs? I'm guessing it's the same people who keep trying to get inteligent design taught in schools.
Regardless of why they choose to teach it they should really stop. Science may say that abstinence prevents pregnancy, but science also says that abstinence only education does not.
The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans and their living relatives Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person and their family.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.
Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.
Orlanth wrote:The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans. Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.
Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.
The memorial was for ALL fallen veterans but only christian iconography was represented.
Orlanth wrote:
Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.
I asked for proof, you provided none. Fail.
Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.
Slavery was an ancient economic reality. If Hebrews were to practice it here were the caveats they had to jump through, a time of emancipation and naturalisation is part of the deal (Year of Jubilee). God would prefer you didn't take slaves though, this is evident throughout the Bible, and the Koran too.
As for cross referencing that with condemnation of homosexuality, the two subjects don't connect, and are not weighted against each other..
I asked for a good answer, you provided none. Fail.
Slavery was an economic reality? That condones its morality?
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
In order:
Because Religion kills more than it saves. (I personally fall into the freedom of camp, but I'm answering a question)
Reason is not faith, reason will change its view when provided with new evidence.
Slavery is not a current biblical tenet, certainly not of Christianity which uses the New Covenant to complete the old. Slavery is technically 'acceptable' in the New Testament. The Epistles teach that a slave should not become a rebel. However freedom should be eagerly sought, so, long as it is done legally. In effect slavery is not acceptable, but it must be removed through legal means, not sedition. the New Testmant argues that human law is corrupt, but that doesn't mean we should use corruption to fix it. aka suffer a bad law rather than do wrong.
Judaism still revers the Pentateuch in an un-upgraded from, so the question of Biblical slavery is best put to them.
Not a "current" tenet? Then by that logic neither should homophobia be. "Slavery is not acceptable," when it clearly states in the Old Testament that it is. Fail.
Actually its not a matter of balance its a matter of citation. If the program is a history lesson the lesson should be sourced. Which contemporary sources claimed that baptists werre horswehipped in meets, and for that matter which contemporasry sources claimed relgios meeting occured in the Capitol with as sitting President present.
So everything said should be provided with a citation? I'm guessing you don't watch many documentaries, because that's not how it works, if you doubt something look it up for yourself.
Those were liberal preachers, with arguments against flying the flag. That of itself is not a definition of level headed, which is based on presentation rather than content. There cant be no effective conservative christian apologists in North Carolina, I know there are, some of the speakers in the southern states are very effective orators and do not appear the least bit fanatical. You might not agree with what they believe, but they can put it across well. None of those interviewed could, unless chosen to speak for the other side..
Oh so you want level headed that agree with you, rather than level headed.
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'. There have been calls by atheist fanatics to ban religion, or head towards phasing out religion. Which is ominous as there will always be people who want to believe so how would it be phased out.
If you disagree with an atheist fanatics agenda, or find it personally illogical, I will freely accept a claim that you have no common moral ground with them. Do a google search on something like 'ban religion' see what you find.
However they do exist. I myself have seen persecution and been abused for holding to my religion, once by Moslems and at least three times by atheists. You can count that as one occurance as it was the same atheists each time. More seriously In knew a woman street preacher who was stabbed to death in my hometown because she would not renounce her faith. The perpetrator was anti-religious, not an Islamic or some such. I met her an hour before she died, I was one of the last people to speak to her.
I will admit this experience is unusual, martyrdoms are very rare in the modern west.
Stalin? Name of reason? Had nothing to do with the Church being a threat to his power? Fail.
So you have been "persecuted"? Anecdotal evidence is anecdotal, and frankly so vauge that it's simply a waste of time even mentioning.
A preacher got stabbed to death in the street in Britain? Got a link to that?
So you have provided not a shred of proof which I asked for. Fail, must try harder.
KingCracker wrote:I think "idiots like those" run their mouths just as much as you non religious lot. Infact, if you look at the last, oh I dunno, lets say 5 "religious threads" they were started by posters that were anti religious anyways
That might have something to do with the fact that religion affects our lives and we would rather it didn't. Apart from the whole teaching evolution thing (which is absolutely right), do the non religious want everyone to act in a specific way, and try to force others to do so? Do they prevent personal choice, and not allow people to live as they wish?
btw, there is a very big difference between non religious and anti religious.
OT, I'm about 10mins in and even I know that the Constitution dictates a separation of Church and State, silly people claiming otherwise.
As far as I know, the only way most religious groups tell people what to do and how to act and such, is if your part of their organization, and even then its not to extremes. Its more along the lines of show respect, follow mass yadda yadda yadda, if you do not, then we will ask you to leave. So other then strict Muslims and a few other religious groups around the world persecuting women, Im not really seeing where your going with this.
So the fact that they teach abstinence only sex education in most southern states has nothing to do with religious groups that consider "birds and the bee's" discussions with kids highly inappropriate.
So the fact that homosexual marriages are still not recognized in many states has nothing to do with a religious majority imposing their views and values on others.
So the fact that there are constant attempts at legislating a woman's right to an abortion have nothing to do with the religion of the legislators or those who elected them.
So the fact that some old guy in Rome says that the use of contraceptives and condoms is a sin (unless you happen to be a male prostitute) has nothing to do with... you get the point.
Telling people how to live is basically what every religion does.
And it's not just the Muslims who have a thing for oppressing women’s rights KC.
While I agree with some points, most of your points fall to political garbble, more then religion. Those areas your talking about are HEAVILY Christian areas, and so surprisingly, the politicians do whatever their constituents want them to do. Weird I know. Heres some numbers
According to recent surveys, 83 percent of Americans identify with a religious denomination, 40 percent state that they attend services nearly every week or more, and 58 percent say that they pray at least weekly
The majority of Americans (76% to 80%) identify themselves as Protestants or Catholics, accounting for 51% and 25% of the population respectively, according to one survey by Trinity College
Non-Christian religions (including Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Wicca etc.), collectively make up about 5% of the adult population.[5][6][7] Another 15% of the adult population claim no religious affiliation.[5] When asked, about 5.2% said they did not know, or refused to reply
So wow, still finding it surprising that in those areas, they largely vote to ban gay marriage and so on? Because I dont, thats called the democratic process buddy. So blame religion, blame whoever you want, Im going to say, blame democracy for it, because thats how it works mostly. Im a religious person, but I dont believe in banning gay marriage and denying them rights I get as a strait male. I do believe you should have the PROPER sex talk with your children and provide them with birthcontrol and condoms. But I also think that as a PARENT, its their responsibility to teach their children these things, NOT the church, NOT to God. You the parent.
I was merely refuting your earlier statement that religious groups/people don't "tell people what to do and how to act."
Also yes they are political issues, but issues that have their root in organized religion.
Not every religious person is as open minded and tolerant as you profess yourself to be KC, more's the pity.
Orlanth wrote:The question should be looked at ethically on behalf of the fallen veterans. Just as a cemetery may have tombstones based on the soldiers faith, so if one of the fallen was a known Christian the flag would not be inappropriate. likewise if one is found to be Jewish or Moslem or anything else then the memorial can reflect the beliefs of that person.
I don't really know what a confirmed atheist memorial might be but a sensible serious addition should be looked at separately.
Removing symbols of faith relevant to fallen veterans, even at the behest of a living veteran is wrong. Even if the flag was there initially for other reasons.
The memorial was for ALL fallen veterans but only christian iconography was represented.
I personally agree with taking the flag down, heres why. The memorial is about what they did for our country. They served and died for this country, and TBH that has nothing to do with what the believed in if you ask me. There is only 2 ways to make this argument fair for all parties intended.
1. Find out what the religious beliefs for all the names on that memorial, and add their flags to the monument.
OR
2. Remove the religious flags and keep it about the veterans.
So the easiest path is to remove one flag. The families know what they believed in, they died knowing what they believed in. So why should it be a big deal to have the flag up or not up. Our country AND EVERYONE IN IT needs to learn tolerance of others. Instead of making such a huge stink over it, just suck in that bottom lip and deal with it. Not everyone is like you and has your same ideology. Show some tolerance and we can get along a lot easier that way, not everything needs to be taken so personal.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
That assumes all atheists support the removal of religion (From what I'm not sure, society?), which is an awful assumption.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
This assumes that atheism is a faith choice. It can be, but it isn't by necessity.
We've been over this dozens of times, but the absence of belief in X is not belief in the absence of X.
Orlanth wrote:
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the theread. these questioons have come up on Dakka before anyway.
Because you asked them and subsequently had it shown that they weren't difficult questions, and that the fact you believe them to be is indicative of a very poor grasp of what atheism is.
dæl wrote:
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'.
No, he killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.
dæl wrote:
Stalin killed millions of Christians in the name of reason. Removing religion was 'progress' and 'reason'.
No, he killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.
Frazzled wrote:One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail
We could, but I prefer the "the universe is nothing but the figment of a giant dreaming Persian cat's imagination" theory myself. Has about the same level of truth but is allot more cool!
Frazzled wrote:One can say God created the universe. One can also say God did it with evolution. poll fail
Did you read it? did you miss the "in the last 10,000 years" part?
"Forty-six percent of Americans believe in the creationist view that God created humans in their present form at one time within the last 10,000 years."
"While 58% of Republicans believe that God created humans in their present form within the last 10,000 years,"
Mannahnin wrote:Ensis, you're repeating the smokescreen arguments of the religious people who promote abstinence-only sex ed. Those are there only to provide the appearance of a non-religious basis; just like Intelligent Design is purely a mask for Creationism.
While it's true that if you don't have sex it's much harder to get an STI or get pregnant, in point of fact abstinence-only sex ed leads to higher rates of pregnancy and disease. Because a substantial percentage of kids do it anyway, and if you don't teach them about safer sex practices, or worse, lie to them (as many of the abstinence-only curriculums and teachers do) about condoms and other methods being unreliable, you set them up for trouble. Check out the CDC statistics. It's one of life's terrible ironies that folks who demonize sex and adopt a zealously-protective attitiude toward kids on this issue actually do more harm to them.
I went to a public school, so it was taught that "abstinence is the only SURE way"... but I had a cool teacher, who actually demonstrated for the "benefit" of everyone, how to properly use a condom (on a piece of produce, you sick people!), as the state also required the teaching contraceptives... At the time, it was just that the state's stance was, "we should teach high school aged kids about contraceptives, but also reinforce the notion that not doing any funny business is the best route to follow" did it work??? Feth NO!!! I would honestly say that at least 1/3rd of the females who walked across the graduation stage with me, either had a significant baby bump, or were at least known to be currently pregnant (hell... one actually went straight to the hospital for delivery as soon as we were released from the ceremony)
@Orlanth, from what I gathered in the video, the flag in question was not a grave marker sized flag... rather I think it was that 20 foot flag pole with the flag that's the same size as the US and service flags flying alongside.... And the initial vet brought up valid issues. It was a public site, paid for by public funds, therefore no single religious icon should be shown, or at least not shown in favor of another (that whole, if you have to show one, you need to show them all sorts of things). It would make sense to me to have a small hole placed in each service member's marker stone, so that a small flag may be placed (you know those really small ones that kids usually get to wave at parades? theyre about 4x6 or so in size?)
Orlanth wrote:
Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of religion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
That assumes all atheists support the removal of religion (From what I'm not sure, society?), which is an awful assumption.
Many forms of atheism require just that, thus ther quesrtion is fair. Asking a Moslem if jihad is acceptable is a fair question despite the obvious truth that some are jihadists, others are not. There are equal questions posed to Christians which Christians do not find unfair, asking a Christian if homophobia is justifiable for example. Some agree, some don't.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
We've been over this dozens of times, but the absence of belief in X is not belief in the absence of X.
Irrelevant, because no matter whether your claim a disbelief or claimed absence of belief you nevertheless make a faith choice as no proof is given.
Besides as stated over the dozens of times, unless you are ignorant of th concepts of religion the question has already been formulated.
Also as all of the proponents of the argument do so with some gusto a heart response has already been invoked. A fully detached atheist apologist cannot logically exist
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
You need not reply to them as it isnt the point of the thread. these questions have come up on Dakka before anyway.
Because you asked them and subsequently had it shown that they weren't difficult questions, and that the fact you believe them to be is indicative of a very poor grasp of what atheism is.
Trying to guess the inside of my mind again dogma, please stop, you are very bad at it.
As for the questions, I had not yet critiqued the answers.
Should I even be bothering responding further to you.
dael wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Hang around Dakka long enough and you will find plenty of people who wish religion is banned, and not just from forums.
I asked for proof, you provided none. Fail.
See for yourself. Check Off Topic. You know how the search function works? You need me to hold your hand?
dael wrote:
Orlanth wrote:
Look up Year of Jubilee, cross reference with prophetic type. Add scriptures about how God considers the Egyptian as a Hebrew after three generations, somewhere in Leviticus IIRC.
I asked for a good answer, you provided none. Fail.
I told you where to look, to see for yourself. I have better things to do than provide a ream of links. Would you check them if I did? I have learned the hard way its sometimes not worth putting in the extra effort if the question is closed.
dael wrote:
Slavery was an economic reality? That condones its morality?
In the ancient world, probably. God speaks peoples language. Same God, same principles but talking to different peoples. You might not be aware but humans thought and acted completely differently to how they do today back 3000 years ago.
God's morals are absolute, human morals are not. Much of the Old Testament is about concessions. I would prefer this, but as you are weak you can get away with that.
dael wrote:
Q. Atheists could be asked how a removal of religion is any morally better than freedom of relgion, especially in light of communism and other regimes that hostily expressed removal of religion as part of their dogma.
A. Because Religion kills more than it saves. (I personally fall into the freedom of camp, but I'm answering a question)
Does it now. Care to back that up. You may have heard of Torquemada, but have you heard about the many monks and priests who did not agree with or have anything to do with brutality like the Spanish inquisition. No, they dont make a big name, and notoriety speaks louder than fame, let alone quiet service.
Relgion does not kill more than it saves, the amount of people who claim to be part of a faith and those who kill in honour of that faith are widely disproportionate.
Even in Islam. Jihadists are a minority, a minority not dealt with, but a minority nonetheless, and I am reluctant to match Islam with other faiths.
If religion kills millions, it saves billions. Frankly I wouldnt go that far. The majority of religious people need not be actually 'saved' so we can cut the billions comment down to sizedown. Meanwhile those abusing religion to kill rarely do so out of honest relgious motives, utlimately it comes down to politics. If religion can be used a political tool to kill, and religion is to be blamed for it then this also accounts for communist atheist atrocities including Stalin and his brand of atheism. Its all for political end, so if some can be laid at the door the others can and Soviet atheism would have to logically join the Crusades, and modern Jihadism as amongst the bloody politico-religious choices man should be warned of.
dael wrote:
Q. Atheists can be asked why they consider their faith choice to be seperate from other faith choices morally, as their is neither proof for the existance or non existance of God.
A. Reason is not faith, reason will change its view when provided with new evidence.
Does it now? Actually it very often doesn't. So many times a new scientific theory is proposed and proported well yet many scientists reject it, because it goes against established thought, that is to say prefered though, thought they are used to. Do not underestimate a humans minds desire for continuency. even in areas of pure science personal preference can get in the way of logic.
One of the most dangerous bugbears within atheism is the idea that is is 'rational' and open to scrutiny. For some it may be, but a faith can be like that also. However humans may hold onto a 'reasoned' theory like a dogma.
Best example of this is the tale of the fall of the Pythagroean brotherhood. So this omne goes back to ancient Greece. The brotherhood fell apart because a young scholar kept on asking about the square root of two, an irregular number, wheras the pervading thought of the brotherhood was based on Pythagoras's theorems which show an order to mathematics that irregular numbers were an aberrance. So in order to shut out the dissenting voice the student was murdered. This put an end to the brotherhood as they understood that even a fraternity of pure reason was susceptible to wishful thinking.
If subjects like mathematics can get heated due to personal ideology how much more something where man has a vested soul interest, like atheism. Of course this is true of religious choices too, but everyone can see that, the bias inherent in human choice of atheism is the same but often overlooked.
dael wrote:
Not a "current" tenet? Then by that logic neither should homophobia be. "Slavery is not acceptable," when it clearly states in the Old Testament that it is. Fail.
Actually in the New Testament is calls for freedom from slavery. Also Gods principles of allowing free will of itself indicates that slavery is not wanted, just a part of life at the time.
God doesn't change his mind, just brings the relationship to a new level. So this is why God can concern the eating of snakes in the old Testament yet tell Peter to eat them in the New. its not as contradiction but as progression of understanding.
At first you may do this, you must do that , you cannot do the other. Can change to you ought to do this, you just so that, you can do the other because you now understand why.
You have to look at the Bible outide the limitations of literalism. Literalism is why some people cant get beyond the seventh day advent, wheras there are passages in the Bible itself which strojgly indicate that it is a parable and not to be taken literally. Even to the points of a divine day meaning a thousand years, which itself means a 'long time'. So the creation, from gods perspective could mean seven 'long times' from the perspective of a being that is timeless and 'sees the end from the beginning'. Why should Genesis 1 be looked at literally and from a human perspective if it describes existance prior to man and is from a divine perspective.
Bible is deep, and needs to be read that way if you want to critique it.
dael wrote:
So everything said should be provided with a citation? I'm guessing you don't watch many documentaries, because that's not how it works, if you doubt something look it up for yourself.
Fair enough, then check the references given rather than expect me to provide linked while crying 'fail'.
On the other hand an actual documentary TV program should contain sources if it goes into history.
dael wrote:
Oh so you want level headed that agree with you, rather than level headed.
I want level headed representatives of both sides, nothing to do with agreeing wirth me. In fact I posted i was against flying only the CVhristian flag there on a post before you wrote that. So its not 'agreeing with me', its looking for fair reporting.
dael wrote:
Stalin? Name of reason? Had nothing to do with the Church being a threat to his power? Fail.
Point is atheism was used as the methodology, as was reason. that sadly is the truth. Now Stalin might not be a good atheist, but likewise a reasonable Christian would disoen Torquemada. Still catholicism in general is blamed for the actions of some. If this is fair then look at atheist communism. Stalin is just the tip. Cghristians, and for that matter a lot of other religions had it bad under communism. Stalin is just a single simple example.
dael wrote:
A preacher got stabbed to death in the street in Britain? Got a link to that?
Seeing as she was a personal friend who was stabbed several times, I find that offensive. I was not posting that as evidence, just a background story. I don't have to show citation for you. Besides IIRC is never hit the press, stories like that get suppressed real quick.
dael wrote:
So you have provided not a shred of proof which I asked for. Fail, must try harder.
We are looking for proof are we, to possibly the single most important question in the history of humanity, on a gaming forum. Not asking much are you. You ask questions that demand long answers and asll you can come up with is half backed cries of 'fail'. If youn want a discussion you can have one, but repect the post and think about your replies, put some depth into it to make it worth my time.
If I had 'proof' I would be too busy collecting major awards to speak here. Proof either way, is something you want find. I think that is just how God wants it.
Creationists are the single largest group in that poll.
In america we call the largest group of a sample the plurality. If the largest group outpolls all the other groups combined (50% plus one) than it is the majority.
I believe other english speaking parts of the world use majority for the largest group and supermajority for 50% plus one.
So to an american interpreting this poll, those who believe in the evolution origin, whether guided or not, are closer to the majority than those who believe in a creation origin.
Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.
So a search of the OT section will find people calling for religion to be banned? I don't think so, I have contributed to most of these threads recently, and have seen no such thing.
Yes, I would check any links you provided, you didn't, neither did you give a good answer as to why slavery is moral and homosexuality is immoral.
Gods morals are absolute, but change over time? Yeah, I don't think you quite understand the concept of absolute, or morality.
Yes religion kills more than it saves, millions have died and still do because of religious wars and the AIDS epidemic, there will have been some people whose religious beliefs have caused them to show mercy, but these people would probably have had a decent moral compass regardless. Name a person who was saved by Religion.
Yes reason does change its view, look at the ever increasing expansion of the universe, was discovered not that long ago, now the Big Crunch theory has gone and we expect on current evidence that the Heat Death of the Universe will be what happens.
Again, moral relativism from a code of absolute morals. It is also an analogy, ok, so allowing slaves and genocide was an analogy for what exactly?
Ok you want sources, that isn't how films work but you keep wanting stuff.
It doesn't occur to you that one side might only have nutters on it because it's morally reprehensible?
Stalin studied to be a priest, he understood the power of religion and how it was a threat to his rule, that he hapened to be an atheist is irrelevant. His motivation was power, not the furthering of reason and the ethics of the Enlightenment.
The press suppressed it!? Do you have a tin foil hat by any chance? I'm sorry that you lost a personal friend but the story as you put it doesn't sound believable, and claiming it was suppressed makes it more unbelievable.
I didn't ask for proof of the existence of a deity, I asked for proof of "militant atheists" and that the Bible's morality is superior to the morality that is conventionally held by 21st Century civilised societies. Now that isn't that difficult is it?
Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.
This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.
You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.
Orlanth wrote:
Many forms of atheism require just that, thus ther quesrtion is fair. Asking a Moslem if jihad is acceptable is a fair question despite the obvious truth that some are jihadists, others are not. There are equal questions posed to Christians which Christians do not find unfair, asking a Christian if homophobia is justifiable for example. Some agree, some don't.
I don't know of any forms of atheism that require anything, its hard to require things when there is no one, or no thing, there to do the requiring. Unless you're positing that something like communism is a form of atheism. That's wrong of course, but not beyond you. In fact I think you've done it before.
But, assuming they exist, you'll note I never said it was an unfair question, I said it wasn't a hard question. There are many answers to it, most of them very easy. The first that comes to mind is that the removal of religion need not be morally superior to anything to be desirable. The question is only hard if you're arguing that atheism is morally superior to theism of all kinds, which not all atheists do. If you're going to ask a pointed question, you need to know you're pointing it at.
As to Muslims, that's a really, really easy question and the answer is "Yes." A hard question would be "What is Jihad?"
Orlanth wrote:
Irrelevant, because no matter whether your claim a disbelief or claimed absence of belief you nevertheless make a faith choice as no proof is given.
No, that's completely wrong. You don't make a faith choice when you do not believe that a thing exists, indeed that's the very essence of the distinction. If no proof is given, and I do not believe, I am not taking anything on faith. Instead I am aware of the absence of proof.
You are, as ever, clumsily trying to force a false dichotomy.
Orlanth wrote:
Besides as stated over the dozens of times, unless you are ignorant of th concepts of religion the question has already been formulated.
The question you asked?
There is no reason for morality to enter into it as the real issue is one of truth value, not the good, the right, or whatever particular ethical moray you want to reference.
If you mean the question of "Is there a God?" then a perfectly acceptable answer is "I don't believe so, but I don't know." which represents an appreciation of the lack of evidence without committing to an explicit belief on the level of certainty.
Orlanth wrote:
Also as all of the proponents of the argument do so with some gusto a heart response has already been invoked. A fully detached atheist apologist cannot logically exist
But the "heart response" doesn't need to be related to the actual question. For example, I don't have these arguments because I have any feeling regarding God/not God, I have them because they amuse me as most of the participants make really bad arguments.
So, yes, they can "logically" (You meant rationally, unless you intended to make a circular argument.) exist.
Orlanth wrote:
Trying to guess the inside of my mind again dogma, please stop, you are very bad at it.
I'm not guessing at anything, I'm interpreting your past behavior relative to this topic.
Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.
This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.
You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.
[/quote
Agreed. Whats interesting is that we keep getting drawn into these threads. Its like we can't help ourselves.
Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.
This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.
You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.
Maybe you should though, at least look up what athiesm is, and realize that one does not equal many.
Orlanth wrote:Wasn't the poll about should a flag be flown not whether people were creationists or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:Just wow, I haven't heard such nonsense in a long time. GG. To answer your points in order.
This is why I didn't bother to do the full legwork. With dismissive posts like this it wouldn't be worth an hour of my time.
I can answer your questions, but I don't see why I should bother, you will just dismiss the answers anyway.
You even heavily misread the answers I did give. Probably deliberately so. There isn't any point in posting after that.
I've misread nothing deliberately,
You claimed dakka's OT section was full of people calling for religion to be banned - Lie
You claimed that God didn't really mean what he said about slaves, because he was allowing for our flawed nature - Based on what? The fact it's said so now? It wasn't then. Which is right?
You claimed that religion has not killed more people than its mercy has allowed to live - I have no facts on this, but its quite obvious that interpretations of scripture have caused untold suffering and still do.
You claimed he reason doesn't change its view when presented with evidence - Blatant falsehood.
You claimed Stalin was attempting to further reason - You either don't understand what happened or are trying desperately to find a justification for your argument.
You claimed yourself persecuted but provide no details.
You claim a murder was suppressed from being reported - That doesn't happen in Britain, if it did would we know of Dr Kelly?
Essentially every point you made was either a falsehood or a shaky justification based on a tenuous connection.
ok, dogma, you are making an effort here, so you deserve a responce in kind.
dogma wrote:
I don't know of any forms of atheism that require anything, its hard to require things when there is no one, or no thing, there to do the requiring. Unless you're positing that something like communism is a form of atheism. That's wrong of course, but not beyond you. In fact I think you've done it before.
Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.
On a practical level due to human nature people defend their belief structures, often with gusto. Fervid indifference doesn't exist.
Too many people claim they have their 'lack of belief' rather than a 'belief of lack', and defend the argument emotively. This indicates that a personal choice has been made, an emotive inclusion in the choice of whether to believe in God or not reveals that a faith choice has been made.
Humans are emotive creatures, thanatonic existentialism is part of our core nature, we forsee our mortal end, we do so from an early age, we have understanding of hope so whether we agree with an afterflife or not and any attendant spiritual ethic we all have personal set opinions on validity of the religious. Those who claim they have not made a faith choice are deluding themselves, at some level or another we have all engaged the question emotively, because that is how man is wired. The best one can hope for with a logical mind is a temporary answer with hope to revise the answer when more data presents itself. whether intended to be temporary or not the answer is given and is a valid faith choice.
You me everyone has a faith decision made already, whether or not they think they will change it or are waiting for a better one..
dogma wrote:
But, assuming they exist, you'll note I never said it was an unfair question, I said it wasn't a hard question. There are many answers to it, most of them very easy. The first that comes to mind is that the removal of religion need not be morally superior to anything to be desirable. The question is only hard if you're arguing that atheism is morally superior to theism of all kinds, which not all atheists do. If you're going to ask a pointed question, you need to know you're pointing it at.
I have little interest in which faith choice is morally superior as the answer is subjective, we also cannot all be right. A Buddhist may think that they have The Way and a Christian might claim to have Light & Truth, an atheist may claim Reason. Each are paramount in their own minds. In fairness ones own opinion cannot be weighted higher than any other, even if one believes on is right. So is another person thinks they have it right and me wrong, i have no moral choice but to respect that if I consider the sentiment genuine.
That was a good question though dogma.
dogma wrote:
As to Muslims, that's a really, really easy question and the answer is "Yes." A hard question would be "What is Jihad?"
Jihad is explained in the Koran, that question can be echoed with a quote or two. Asking for whether an individual believer agrees with jihad as written is something else, it involves a moral choice and some aren't up with that the RAW says.
Same with Biblical comments on homosexuality. Its easy to ask what they are, its harder to justify the theology behind them..
dogma wrote:
No, that's completely wrong. You don't make a faith choice when you do not believe that a thing exists, indeed that's the very essence of the distinction. If no proof is given, and I do not believe, I am not taking anything on faith. Instead I am aware of the absence of proof.
Faith is evidence in the unseen, in the religious context specifically a choice whether to believe in the divine or not. There is no proof of God or proof against. If you do or do not believe God exists a faith choice is made, a category is chosen. I stop short of calling that actual 'religion' though.
dogma wrote:
There is no reason for morality to enter into it as the real issue is one of truth value, not the good, the right, or whatever particular ethical moray you want to reference.
If you mean the question of "Is there a God?" then a perfectly acceptable answer is "I don't believe so, but I don't know." which represents an appreciation of the lack of evidence without committing to an explicit belief on the level of certainty.
That does however remain a faith choice against. Few answers are certain, even those of faith have doubts, even those who make a faith choice to reject the concept of God might question it.. Richard Dawkins tried a model of belief in the divine on a rating of 1-7 with 1 being a firm positive and 7 a firm negative. He placed himself at 6. Despite his firm atheist beleifs he would not say there is definately no God.
dogma wrote:
I'm not guessing at anything, I'm interpreting your past behavior relative to this topic.
Which is to be patient for the most part and state my case firmly but as respectfully as I can. You are no less repetitive.
Of late I had lots of discussions with people who try the one liner dismissal which translates as 'lalala not listening'. When I get those I don't bother with a proper reply anymore, why put in the work if its to be dismissed out of hand.
To your credit you actually bother to post a reply now. We don't get on, but I should at least address your comments when you take the time to make them..
That at least is a form of olive branch.
Lastly on this:
dogma wrote:
No, he [Stalin] killed millions of Christians in the name of communism, which did involve "progress" as a rhetorical term, but not "reason". That's your addition.
Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'. Reason is a fair paraphrase IMHO. If you disagree I can replace 'reason' with 'Scientific Truth' as its is the phrase the Soviets actually used. To the Soviet Union the party embodied progress and the Soviet Union itself was the model for Scientific Truth, with it replacing all previous belief systems, which are considered erroneous and obsolete.
Stalin being Stalin he didnt put the point across a nice way, but the policy started with Lenin and was echoed by all following leaders until Gorbachev.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.
Again, that's entirely wrong. There is a difference between rejecting God based on the evidence, or lack thereof, that exists and rejecting the possibility that God exists. Rejecting the possibility is a faith choice. Rejecting the evidence, not believing that God exists, is not.
Orlanth wrote:
On a practical level due to human nature people defend their belief structures, often with gusto. Fervid indifference doesn't exist.
Sure it does. When people, such as yourself, try to tell others what they must believe fervid indifference follows naturally. Especially when you start talking about "spirit" and other such aesthetic nonsense as though it were somehow fact.
Orlanth wrote:
Too many people claim they have their 'lack of belief' rather than a 'belief of lack', and defend the argument emotively.
Sure, but others don't, and many do because people like you keep insisting that a faith choice is necessary when it absolutely is not. Even to insist as such is to completely misunderstand what faith is.
Orlanth wrote:
The best one can hope for with a logical mind is a temporary answer with hope to revise the answer when more data presents itself. whether intended to be temporary or not the answer is given and is a valid faith choice.
No, it isn't. If I claim "Given the available data, this must be true." I'm not arguing from faith.
Orlanth wrote:
Jihad is explained in the Koran, that question can be echoed with a quote or two. Asking for whether an individual believer agrees with jihad as written is something else, it involves a moral choice and some aren't up with that the RAW says.
"As written" is an interesting, and not particularly useful, phrase when applied to scripture.
Orlanth wrote:
Faith is evidence in the unseen, in the religious context specifically a choice whether to believe in the divine or not. There is no proof of God or proof against. If you do or do not believe God exists a faith choice is made, a category is chosen. I stop short of calling that actual 'religion' though.
No, it isn't. I cannot explain this more clearly. Not believing in a thing is not the same as believing it does not exist.
Orlanth wrote:
Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'.
Orlanth wrote:
Soviets did want 'progress' but the watchphrase used for (amongst other things) the persecution of religious communities was 'Scientific Truth'.
"As i said before, i wouldnt classify slavery as immoral"
Jeez, Lady, why the hell would you say that?
And the slaves that where treated well?
Where is my rage button?
Orlanth wrote:
As for the other issues. I am going to agree to disagree today. We have been over this before, and likely will again.
Not seeing many direct quotes regarding "scientific truth".
"Scientific atheism" is not the same thing, though the author you're quoting makes that mistake (and is basically just paraphrasing the weak argument you've made before).
not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"
So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well
As to those enraged by the slavery comments... my argument is that, if you want to put a modern term to things, it's an extended Prisoner of War period.... When most people think of slavery, the first thing they think of is the model developed and used in the 17 to mid 1800s, wherein one specific group was targeted and sold... But in ancient days, when you conquered a nation, you further ensured your victory by taking prisoners of that nation and enslaving them, this would further reduce the enemies will and ability to resist your nation, as well as making yours stronger, if only in appearance. So, slavery in that context can be seen as a "moral" act, whereas the more modern version would definitely be seen as immoral. But of course, because the lady who makes her comments has no first hand knowledge of slavery, much less any historical studies background, she couldn't articulate why she thought it would have at one point in time, been ok to enslave people but then it be changed to where slavery was wrong.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"
So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well
As to those enraged by the slavery comments... my argument is that, if you want to put a modern term to things, it's an extended Prisoner of War period.... When most people think of slavery, the first thing they think of is the model developed and used in the 17 to mid 1800s, wherein one specific group was targeted and sold... But in ancient days, when you conquered a nation, you further ensured your victory by taking prisoners of that nation and enslaving them, this would further reduce the enemies will and ability to resist your nation, as well as making yours stronger, if only in appearance. So, slavery in that context can be seen as a "moral" act, whereas the more modern version would definitely be seen as immoral. But of course, because the lady who makes her comments has no first hand knowledge of slavery, much less any historical studies background, she couldn't articulate why she thought it would have at one point in time, been ok to enslave people but then it be changed to where slavery was wrong.
Having a model of expediency behind an act doesn't make it moral. Extended POW? I don't think so.
Ensis Ferrae wrote:not to throw a wrench into the argument of "atheism is not a religion" I beg of people to look up Unitarian Universalists.... There's a church... center (not really sure what to call it really) that's sign says "question with boldness the existence of a god"
So, while I know that there are definitely atheists out there who do not ascribe to any religious teachings, there are also those who have made a whole religion out of it as well
Unitarians aren't atheists. They're just nondescript theists, very much like Spinoza.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism requires the absence of theistic belief, and therefore a non-belief in God/gods or whatever. The reason for the absence is of less importance than the absence. And no matter what the reason is as the qwuestion o9f God is placed and rejected, for any reason, a faith choice is made.
It doesnt though does it? I mean, I used to say I was an atheist, now I dont much give a feth, ive mellowed with age, so im pretty much agnostic until I decide otherwise.
The only possible way that an atheist can make a faith choice is if he is a ridiculous atheist, a militant douchebag type of which even Richard Dawkins isn't one because he said "maybe there IS something" out there. I wont deny that there are some atheists out there who are nuts about it, and just seem to like the idea of pissing in peoples chips out of spite, but most people without faith are definately like the vast majority of British people, basically, dont think about it very much-agnostic, who likely have C of E on their birth certificate.
So, that being the case, if most of us, and even RD hasn't made a choice (he isn't 100% certain) surely no faith is required?
I don't definitely think that there isn't a God, I just think its very unlikely, and even more unlikely that the God is the Christian/Muslim one that massively gives a feth about my sex life.
How does that require faith?
You lot just keep going on about it Orlanth (Christians-and creationists especially) because your the ones who are desperate for it to be the case. If we all make a faith choice, then your faith choice looks less silly.
I haven't made a faith choice, I just reckon its likely I am right. I will gladly change my mind if God speaks to me, or I see/dream something that convinces me otherwise!
The trouble is matty, so many atheists say they have no faith, its all lack.
If this was so why the fervour. You just cant get worked up over a non-belief, however if a beleif system is engaged then human nature steps in and a proportion rant and rage.
You made a lot of comments in the past about religious this and religious that. You are free to do so, but don't avoid the fact you are emotionally engaged, its not all cold hard reason, if it was you wouldn't write what you do, neither would I. You have made a heart decision to pick a side for one faith set or another, in your case a form of atheism.
Atheists don't fit into boxes no more than Christians or Buddhists do, many believe different things and to different extents, but the full fervour of relgiosity can be found there similar to any other faitch choice group.
I dont care why someone says they are Buddhist, if the box is ticked its their choice. atheists are just the same, but some want to place atheism on a different pedestal, call it all reason and claim to be above religiosity.
Many of the same atheists then bad mouth other faith choices with no less venom than a jihadist.
The dangeorus fallacy, and it is dangerous, is to let atheism off the hook of scrutiny required to keep all people of faith choices on the level. Because the worst kind of fanatic is one who blindly thinks they are reasonable.
Any honest man will need to self assess, heart choices lead to fervid opinions. This is ok, this is human nature, but to be in denial of ones own emotional engagement is risky.
There is no firm reason behind atheism, its a choice, evidence can be seen either way, its how you prefer to view it. Some people will look at testimony and think 'I see the divine in this' other might think 'I see nothing', our choices are not determined solely by the evidence but by our internal jury. We individually have our own standards as to what is admissable as evidence.
You rove his here, you accuse some faith choices as being a 'silly' I might agree with you, over certain ones and term other rational in separation to you. To some denying God in the face of what you se all around you is wshat silly, you might and probably do flat out disagree with that, but both are personal choices, emotive choices, and in a very real way faith choices.
If you put you and I in a room and told to describe what is on the table, we would choose different words. Those words would indicated what we might consider important about what we see. This is human nature. We all choose our own path, and think that reasonable - unless we set out to be deliberately unreasonable, which we will leave out for now.
So even well intentioned people will have different viewpoints with the same information, with an emotive subject like religion this results in emotive argument.
Faith isnt simply a question of God: Yes or No. It goes much deeper than that, if it didnt we would probably all get along, if it didnt different faith groups would, even centuries ago see each others no more than appreciators of a different artform, or as people who have different favourite colours.
Sadly its not like that, faith engages. Atheism engages as much as Islam, if there is a difference in how many go off the wall its because education and ancillary factors are different. If Iran was an atheist state, but run as its run by people brought up as they are brought up now they would be hollering and screaming for the no-God.
Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged. Sure Dawkins isn't 100% certain God doesn't exist, whoop-e-do he still hates enough for several who do. Just look at what he writes and the contempt he holds for others of a different world view. 'Deluded', how can they be deluded if he is not even sure they are wrong, the answer is because he feels they are.
We are all potentially as fanatical as each other, depending on how we act upon our own biases. One of our biases is our spiritual belief system and one of those options is atheism. I am no better than an atheist in this respect, but it depends on which atheist, some understand we are all creatures of desires, instincts and whims, Dawkins himself knows that from his biology days.
However some thing that atheism is a different thought medium not a different conclusion. Please dont kid yourself, those with a 'lack of belief' get to foam at the mouth with the best of 'em. Welcome to the human condition.
Orlanth wrote:
If this was so why the fervour. You just cant get worked up over a non-belief, however if a beleif system is engaged then human nature steps in and a proportion rant and rage.
You can get worked up over non-belief when people make crap arguments that attempt at requiring their necessary faith.
You can also just get worked up over people making crap arguments, especially when they start talking about "human nature" like its a particular thing.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged. Sure Dawkins isn't 100% certain God doesn't exist, whoop-e-do he still hates enough for several who do. Just look at what he writes and the contempt he holds for others of a different world view. 'Deluded', how can they be deluded if he is not even sure they are wrong, the answer is because he feels they are.
Strawman.
How do you not see that what hate is directed at is important? Is the hatred of broccoli sufficient to qualify as the hatred of those who believe God does not exist?
Same old dogma. Why post as reason when you can call an argument 'crap' and walk off.
You get too involved hating the poster its hard to take your post seriously. I could write the most enlightening thing you ever read (not expecting to though, my ego isnt that big). You would probably still wave a hand call it 'crap' and avoid saying why. Its not like you haven't done this many times on many thread on many topics.
We are not too dissimilar in that we both dont know the answers, we just think we do, to our own satisfaction. You made your choice I made mine. I however am not going to sink into the delusion that my faith choice was entirely a rational calculation, its how I choose to read the evidence.
If we knew for certain the truth, not only wouldn't we be having these threads but we could tell straight up who is right and who is wrong. However we don't know, so when you dismiss alternate viewpoints on the same subject as 'crap' you only prove your own bias.
Thats ok, I am biased too. However the difference is I know I am and am happy to admit it. I made my faith choice. I choose to believe a portion of the possibilities, rather than another. By being so dismissive of parts you have chosen part, you might want the remaining part to be as large a part of the whole set as possible to keep options open, but still you have made your choices and engaged your own mind to formulate your own biases.
This is your choice, don't kid yourself its a straight line computation. We just arent mentats, but emotive persons who make emotive choices, that is the kernel of a faith choice..
Except that emotion != faith. The one has absolutely no bearing on the other precisely because, being human, we have the tendency to inject emotion of some kind into all of our actions.
Faith is the belief in something despite the absence of proof. That is the actual definition of it.
You could argue that Atheism is a belief system (albeit one of belief in proof) just like Theism, but I fail to grasp how you can say that it is a faith choice when its the exact opposite.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, it's emotionally engaged......
How do you not see that what hate is directed at is important? Is the hatred of broccoli sufficient to qualify as the hatred of those who believe God does not exist?
Of course what hatred is directed at is important, its half of hate, the emotion and the target are two halves. 'Hating' brocolli and 'hating' another faith viewpoint are two different things. You talk about 'strawman', was it a warning you were about to resort to one.
The point remains, the hatred indicates that the issue is emotive. One hates brocolli or a TV show in a different way to one haters a viewpoint that conflicts with an emotively held viewpoint. At least assuming a fair degree of sanity.
Maybe one could want to preach zealotry against brocolli, but whatever floats your boat.
Still I think I can safely apply Jesus' teachings here, 'you will know them by their fruit'. Its a really good way of sorting out where people are spiritually, and makes philosophical sense to non-Christians too.
If a religion thread appears and and one gets emotive on it (which again isn't a bad thing per se) its a good indicator that it is an emotive issue to one. If its an emotive issue and still one that transcends the limits of where we can draw the line regarding known hard scientific fact then it is safe to say that one is emotively engaged beyond the ability of pure logic to support ones point of view. If logic is not the base for such fervid opinion then the only thung remaining is a personal choice, that choice is faith.
Orlanth wrote:You are free to do so, but don't avoid the fact you are emotionally engaged, its not all cold hard reason, if it was you wouldn't write what you do, neither would I. You have made a heart decision to pick a side for one faith set or another, in your case a form of atheism.
Too true, the thing is, we get emotionally engaged about everything! Be it football, politics or choice of favourite restaurant. The reason I rarely post in these threads anymore is because I am sick of the same old back and forth and I am convicned that nobody will get their mind changed, so whats the point? Also, I get along with most Religious people because most arent mad fethers, and thirdly because my side has won in two out of the main three cases I feel strongly about. I used to get angry as a young lad because I thought I needed to get involved lest things change, but in the UK they wont.
America, maybe I would be more involved.
The three main reasons I would get involved I can easily arrive at.
1. Euthanasia
2. Abortion
3. Sexuality
If Religious people didn't all agree on these points I would have far more respect for them. But its a blanket dogma they all seem to teach, and then pretend that they all really really think about it, but all miraculously arrive at the same conclusion! And that's why It annoys me, and It's also why I've no major issues with the far more forward thinking C of E.
In a nutshell, its cos the gak they do affects me. That's why people are emotionally involved!
After my mum snuffed it following a long battle with cancer, the idea of random Religious people denying her the right to top herself if she wishes it (she didnt want to, so she rotted to death the hard way, but the choice should ultimately have been her and my old mans, and no fether else's)
If I was a chick and I got pregnant, they are my fething ovaries.
If I was gay, its my set of balls.
So of course, Its an emotional involvement, but anything involing other humans forcing their will onto me is. Its hardly got anything to do with a Religious debate has it?!
As I said, I've no real issue with Religion because they aren't going to go banning being gay, or banning abortions. But the simple fact is, small groups of people shouldnt be able to force gak onto everyone else, so clearly that is a good reason to get annoyed!
But, we have done this many times before.. so feth it eh?
Emotion isnt faith. If one weeps or falls in love, that isn't faith.
If one is emotionally involves in a faith issue, thats an indicator that one is personally involved. As it is already known that we must go beyond what is scientifically known to make our personal assumptions on religious choices the emotive content of the opinions is evidence that one has moved beyond a non interest and engaged a personal opinion, that personal opinion as it has no scientific standing tis therefore faith.
Emotional involvement is not the reason why atheist are people with a faith choice, its only the litmus test. The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based. The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all. That rules out everyone on this thread, and pretty much everyone else also.
a not-sure is a form of yes or no depending on which way your personal preference leads you. After all contrary to the way it has been assumed even the most devout, both ways, have an element of 'not sure' in them. I have a strong faith, but am 'not sure' on many issues and certainly cannot make any definitive claim to be right around anything. I have faith, not no certainty.
We are all in the not sure boat, so even I fall into the 'lack of belief' camp to some level. The Bible even expects this: 'I beleive, help me with my unbelief'.
Now some might like to claim they avoid a faith choice by having a 'lack of belief'. Still those people still have religious opinions, and hold them with no small amount of fervour. That is no lack, its personal engagement. The true absolute delimiter at when someone can say my lack of belief denies the inclusion of a faith choice is when religion is an alien concept, an undiscovered concept in that persons life. For everyone else there is a measure of choice, and that choice bears fruit.
Orlanth wrote:Same old dogma. Why post as reason when you can call an argument 'crap' and walk off.
If your argument is good, then explain to me what "human nature" is, specifically.
Orlanth wrote:
You would probably still wave a hand call it 'crap' and avoid saying why. Its not like you haven't done this many times on many thread on many topics.
I generally do explain why arguments are crap. For example, I stated above that your argument was crap because you used "human nature" as a particular thing. This is like claiming that "common sense" is a particular thing. Its lazy, and indicative of a crap argument.
Orlanth wrote:
We are not too dissimilar in that we both dont know the answers, we just think we do, to our own satisfaction. You made your choice I made mine. I however am not going to sink into the delusion that my faith choice was entirely a rational calculation, its how I choose to read the evidence.
You're already lying to yourself, as you said there was no evidence above.
And yes, we are dissimilar, very much so, because I'm not even claiming a faith choice, or stating a belief or absence of (or telling you what you believe). I'm telling you that what you are saying is nonsense because it is fundamentally incorrect.
Orlanth wrote:
If we knew for certain the truth, not only wouldn't we be having these threads but we could tell straight up who is right and who is wrong. However we don't know, so when you dismiss alternate viewpoints on the same subject as 'crap' you only prove your own bias.
This isn't a subject of question. We're not talking about whether or not God exists, we're talking about what atheism is. This is a term with a very specific technical definition that can be reduced to logical necessity. You could talk about it in terms of reason, but you don't, because you (intentionally or otherwise) attempt to co-opt logic in order to support you own blatantly non-logical ends.
Orlanth wrote:
We just arent mentats, but emotive persons who make emotive choices, that is the kernel of a faith choice..
We also make choices that aren't emotive, which means we make choices that aren't based on faith; certainly faith of the religious sort.
Orlanth wrote:The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based.
Completely wrong, especially since you plugged in "religion" instead of "theism".
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all.
No, as had been said, there are three answers:
X = I believe in God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
Whether or not you believe all 3 are equally likely has no bearing on whether or not they're possible.
And from this we see why atheism needs to be seen alongside other religious options/choices/beliefs etc and watched for signs of fanaticism.
There will always be some who are abusive, and all the worse for claiming to be on the side of 'reason'.
Blanket writing off entire opposing religious viewpoints as"crap", that no respect is due to vocal followers of said viewpoints; and by that 'understanding' think they have a right to go beyond discussion into outright savagery.
Its wrong when religious fundamentalists act this way, its equally bad when anti-theist ones do also.
There are plenty of nice atheists out there, I must remind myself of that, thankfully some are on these boards and on this thread so that is not difficult to do They know we might disagree with each other strongly, but know enough to do so respectfully.
im anti religion i have no qualms in saying it, i dont believe in any god or gods, but do i defend others right to do so? your god damn right i do lol (i get the irony), to give you all an example, my niece wants to believe in god, i have no issue with this, but i do encourage her to think outside the box of the catholic school she goes to, this encourages her to look at it from diferent angles and consider other opinions, if she still chooses to believe and it makes her a better person... great i have no problem with this, she is a very inteligent person (so proud of her) and anything that helps this is all gravy in my eyes.
anyone who picks on her or calls her "stupid" for he beliefs can get stuffed (this applies to both religeous and non people), intolerance from religeon (and other sources) has caused enough harm in history, and Devout (heeheh) atheism could result in the same issues one day
Orlanth wrote:The actual reason has been explained before, noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion and what is not, so we all have to make an assumption, temporarily or permenantly and that assumption is de facto faith based.
Completely wrong, especially since you plugged in "religion" instead of "theism".
Care to explain why.
I deliberately used religion rather than theism as the inclusion of a single God or pantheon of Gods is not a sufficient description of religion. After all atheism goes beyond whether the aforementioned God or Gods exist despite the literal origin of the word. Hence the meme 'atheism vs religion' rather than 'atheism vs theism'.
Besides I never liked the word theist, noone calls themselves a theist or is refered to as such, they, we, are religious.
Hence 'noone knows for sure what is the truth about religion' was written to limit the number of hairs that could be split, I know what you are like. In this I was not successful on this occasion. Apologies for the confusion.
dogma wrote:
Orlanth wrote:The only way around that even in theory is to never think about religion at all.
No, as had been said, there are three answers:
X = I believe in God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
Whether or not you believe all 3 are equally likely has no bearing on whether or not they're possible.
There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.
W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.
I'm oblivious and only I can make blanket statements about other viewpoints.
How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.
So how is it respectful to tell others what they think and what they believe? Shouldn't you ask them, and actually listen and hear what their answer is.
I'm oblivious and only I can make blanket statements about other viewpoints.
How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.
So how is it respectful to tell others what they think and what they believe? Shouldn't you ask them, and actually listen and hear what their answer is.
Or maybe some people found a little spot they can all circle jerk about how bad religion is, instead of dealing with much more important and relevant topics like developing your personal Zombie Games plan.
sirlynchmob wrote:
How many people need to tell you atheism is not a religion.
One or two is enough:
Iosif Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili
Mao Zedong
There are plenty of others.
Its what they do with that doctrine that matters, and explains why it ought to be resisted.
Plenty of nice atheists out there who can carry on with their choice without interference from me, but others use their choice in the same way a religious fundamentalist uses it. Atheism can take formal place of a state religion. 'Reason' becomes the call to progress, removing all other faith options in favour of the one espoused, and those who resist suffer the fate of those opposing empowered religious fanatics in world history.
The only difference between a theocracy and and the atheist state is that the latter can appear by the back door. Someone wants Islamic law, you can see them coming. Someone wants national atheism, it starts small with fair sounding principles like 'separation of church and state', or 'demystifying education', or establishing 'reason'.
The average Moslem isn't reponsible for Jihad, relgion even Islam isn't the problem, people are. People like being in power, and some people like being in power by any measn necessary. Religious fervour is one such means, atheist fervour is handled exactly the same way as religious.
No atheism is not a religion, on a personal level its a choice of faith group. Like other faith choices it can get very personally important and triggers deep set emotional triggers, just like a religion does. People can let slide that we prefer different flavours of food or different colours, but sporting teams can raise a bit of bother, but nothing compared to a religious choice. In this respect atheism is no less a danger than any other, its as useful to a demagogue to take control, if not more so, because if atheism is considered separate from religion its fundamentialist elements can be successfully disguised. One doesnt need to be a bloody dictator to do that either, Blair managed it quite well as a tool to disenfranchise the incumbent establishment.
Atheism isn't a religion.
Howeever atheism is a faith choice, I get a lot of disagrerement over that, however we can tell because atheists behave like religious people and are emotionally engaged like religious people. Atheism fills the religion shaped hole in the human psyche, which means it can act as the catalyst for our belief structures. Hence we get atheist apologists, atheist martyrs and shining beacons of atheist doctrine, many of whom are transparently charged people who would be called holy if their fervour was fueled by a different faith choice. However you also have atheist variants of hate preachers, demagogues and fanatics, this is why atheism should be categorised firmly alongside religious choices.
This is not unfair. Some militant Christians want Christianity cartegorised away from other religious choices, because Christianity isn't as 'religion', its a 'faith relationship with God'. I wont go into the reasons behind that, for a start I dont agree and even if the actual definition of religion and faith are different normally they both dovetail, especially amongst Christians who claim to be faith filled but not religious.
Its far safer to categorise all whether its belief in Allah, Jehovah, Buddha, Jesus or any other God or no-God at all actively or passively as a personal preference regarding religion, and those preferences should have equal weighting in law and in human scrutiny. Fanaticism should not be tolerated, and under any form of cloak. This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring against the rise of fanatics who wish to forcibly beat their faith system into others, whether they choose to put on a cassock or a lab coat as their authority.
I wouldn't post this if I didn't feel it important. I have no problem with you being an atheist, or anyone else. Why get upset if I want to see you categorised like religious people are, we have good reason. Noone has no right to interfere with anyones religious preferences. If they think they have a reason, like saving an unbelievers soul, or freeing them from superstitious mumbo jumbo, let them try gentle persuasion without coercion, and one gets to ignore them or argue back. If one isn't interested and wants to disengage and prosthelitization persists to the point its a nuisance, then its harassment, like any other.
Nobody asserts that Hitler or Pol Pot's policies were based on their religious belief, because they weren't. Neither were Mao's or Stalin's, to claim that because of such people you get to call atheism a religion is just another example of you shakily justifying your position based on tenuous arguments that only you see.
How many times must you be told, a lack of belief is not the same thing as a belief, a lack of faith is not faith.
As many times as I tell you the opposite.
You wont drown me out, I gave reasons why I disagree with the above. So you just repeat it, that isn't progress.
dæl wrote:
Nobody asserts that Hitler or Pol Pot's policies were based on their religious belief, because they weren't. Neither were Mao's or Stalin's, to claim that because of such people you get to call atheism a religion is just another example of you shakily justifying your position based on tenuous arguments that only you see.
Mao and Stalin used atheism as their tool, they never tried to hide it. Quotes like 'religion is poison' and others. Just as Torquemada and other monsters like him used the church, what they queitkly beleived in person wasnt relevant, their actions were. Nevertheless the atrocities happened and need be guarded against happening again just as we guard against a rise of the far right. The dogmatised atheist state is a genocidal nightmare compressing the horrors of other faith system dogmas used as tools of leadership into under a hundred years. The Communists in all likelihood slaughtered as many people under their form of progress than the Crusades did under their dogma, maybe more, maybe less.
These arguments arent 'tenuous', nor visible only to me. To claim so flies in the face of recorded history and is revisionism of a moral repugnance equal to Holocaust denial.
Orlanth wrote:To claim so flies in the face of recorded history and is revisionism of a moral repugnance equal to Holocaust denial
My argument is as morally repugnant as Holocaust denial? That has left me in almost tears of laughter. Well done sir, well done.
Please provide an outline of "atheist dogma" (and actually do this time, rather than your "proof" of militant atheists that I'm still waiting to see), after all I should probably learn this stuff. I mean you'd have thought that being an atheist I'd know such things, so please, enlighten us all.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
As many times as I tell you the opposite.
You wont drown me out, I gave reasons why I disagree with the above. So you just repeat it, that isn't progress
Actually if you read my post, there is a link there which provides a number of reasons why you (and only you mind, I don't see anyone else arguing your opinion) are wrong. Or do you not read links? The very thing you accused me of when you didn't even provide one.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:The dogmatised atheist state is a genocidal nightmare compressing the horrors of other faith system dogmas used as tools of leadership into under a hundred years.
Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
dæl wrote:And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
I should have realised the parallels between your position and that of a holocaust denier earlier. It would have saved a lot of wasted time.
So daring to claim that Stalin's motivations were political rather than religious makes me equivalent to a holocaust denier does it? I guess there are a lot of equivalents to holocaust deniers in the world then, probably everyone other than you.
Do you even realise how ridiculous you claiming me the moral equivalent of a holocaust denier is? It is a level of idiocy I though unreachable even by the likes of yourself, and is really quite offensive.
There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.
Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia
noticing a trend yet?
There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.
Religiously motivated violence and secular violence both exist, and it really isn't a contest to know which was the bigger donkey-cave as they both win and get a trophy. Gold stars all around! Both have massive body counts attributable to them, and neither get to have the moral high ground on the subject.
Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia
noticing a trend yet?
There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.
Horse gak.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:Religiously motivated violence and secular violence both exist, and it really isn't a contest to know which was the bigger donkey-cave as they both win and get a trophy. Gold stars all around! Both have massive body counts attributable to them, and neither get to have the moral high ground on the subject.
I am forced to agree with Frazzled and Orlanth on this one.
We all know that Comunist states practised their religious persecutions because of political motives (they found the churches to be in direct competition to their power), but they did it in the name of Atheist Marxist doctrine.
That is the exact same thing as the Inquisition, the Crusades and every other case of religious based atrocities. They were done for political reasons but used Religious doctrine as their excuses.
Yes ok, faith based dogma has provided only leadership and has never been the cause of a single atrocity anywhere, ever. I think you will find that social control based on fear isn't "leadership." And there is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state."
*USSR
*China
*North Korea
*Communist Cambodia
noticing a trend yet?
There is no such thing as a "dogmatised atheist state." There have been communist states, their dogma was political, not religious, or lack thereof.
Horse gak.
Not really, no. Their dogma, as said, was not religious. It may well have been anti-religious, but that's not the same thing.
But if thats the best you have, people who've been dead for years. well if thats the way we're going, then you get hitler. The last time the had a religious government we called it the dark ages. The inquisitions, the crusades, and you're still way ahead on the death count.
Now on top of all that you have your church who thinks since they have a majority in the US they can pass laws to discriminate against any minorities they want.
So speaking of monitoring fanatics, we should be monitoring the christians more than any other group in the US.
Why get upset if I think all christians should be labeled a terrorist organization?
Its still not a faith choice, I'm basically calling you a liar. You claim some gods and souls exist, I say prove it. the best you can offer is a book of metaphors, ie fiction. Which is like saying "hey look, hogwarts is real its in this book" Do you have faith hogwarts isn't real? does it take faith to say hogwarts isn't real? Is not believing in hogwarts a religion to?
You mean christians here right? You're projecting the faults of your religion onto others again.
Orlanth wrote:
"This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring against the rise of fanatics who wish to forcibly beat their faith system into others, whether they choose to put on a cassock or a lab coat as their authority. "
Can you not see your own hypocracy?
Orlanth wrote:
Plenty of nice atheists out there who can carry on with their choice without interference from me.
This includes formally identifying atheists as a religious group(s) for terms of human classification and for monitoring
No you won't interfer with them, you just want them monitored, and put on lists by the government. Why is that? So the government is watching a peacefull group of americans leaving the christians to carry on with their terrorist plots?
How about you clean up your own house before projecting all your own faults onto others, without cause.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:
Ditto comes screaming to mind.
Should the atheists decide if its a religion or not? Just because the chrisitans believe it does not make it true.
Frazzled you do talk nonsense sometimes, so much so that even someone as ignorant about North Korea as me, can refute you without so much as a google search, I know this gak from pub conversations because it is laugh out loud funny!
How on earth can you claim North Korea is an "atheist state" with a straight face?
This is the country with a regime that claim Kim Jongs Dad WAS(Is?) a God, Kim jong scored 12 hole in ones on his first ever golf game because of the Gods might, and when he died all the birds stopped singing and there was an earthquake.
How in the fething world, does that sound like people who are sceptical about the existence of Gods?
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.
Seaward wrote:I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.
It provides me with much amusement.
I can see their POV if they are talking about people that are 100% convinced, utterly utterly certain of no supreme powers at all, militant douche-bag atheists. If an atheist claims he is that certain, then he is as much filled with faith in his position as a full on baptist creationist who is toppers with Jesus juice! But they are a tiny tiny minority. Definitely a tinier minority than there are Muslims who think that women should be banned from getting an education.
As I said, most atheists, or secularists, or humanists, or general people that don't really give a flying feth either way, can not be tied up with them, because they merely say " It doesn't sound like there is a God to me" so how on earth can they be "making a faith choice" when you are so obviously sitting on the fence, and you are so willing to change your mind if you decide to (maybe some better evidence turns up)
They know it as well, I know for a fact they do. . you cant possibly be as intelligent as people like Orlanth and claim to believe it with a straight face. How can you claim that a hunch is a certainty? You might as well claim that white is black.
But they are desperate to claim that everything is a Religion and everyone is Religious because if that's the case, they sound much more sensible and we are all in the same boat.
Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.
It provides me with much amusement
No. we just get tired of your bs fanaticism.
if you didn't care, you wouldn't care. judging by the weekly anti Jesus freak thread, its clearly wrong on its face.
Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.
Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.
Im sound mate, but as I said, Im hardly an ardent one. I just reckon Gods pretty unlikely, and if there is one, I reckon its even less likely he is the Christian one, and maybe he would get even more pissed at me if he was one of them weird Indian ones or the Muslim one, so I take my chances with scepticism on the off chance I might be getting thrown into a pit of burning dog gak for all eternity when I die.
As you say, its not interesting to me. If it wasnt for my strong feeling in the Euthanasia/Abortion debate, I wouldnt have an axe to grind at all with Christians... 99.9% of them don't bother me at all.
Frazzled wrote: if you didn't care, you wouldn't care.
That, unfortunately, is not the way the world works. To "not care" oftentimes means ceding the right to decide and legislate to religious individuals who want to impose their belief in the supernatural on me and my family. I truly do not care what you believe, and personally find it to be thoroughly wacky, but you know what? Keep it amongst your own and you'll never hear a peep out of me. Attempt to legislate based solely on your religious convictions, on the other hand, and you oblige me to oppose you. And when your only reason for backing legislation I stand opposed to is your religion, I have nothing else to argue against.
Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.
Other than that, I don't think on atheists at all, other than the fervent hope I'll meet an ardent one one day who isn't a complete donkey-cave. I'm sure they exist (and some on Dakka strike me as that), but, like Diogenese I've never met one in person.
Im sound mate, but as I said, Im hardly an ardent one. I just reckon Gods pretty unlikely, and if there is one, I reckon its even less likely he is the Christian one, and maybe he would get even more pissed at me if he was one of them weird Indian ones or the Muslim one, so I take my chances with scepticism on the off chance I might be getting thrown into a pit of burning dog gak for all eternity when I die.
As you say, its not interesting to me. If it wasnt for my strong feeling in the Euthanasia/Abortion debate, I wouldnt have an axe to grind at all with Christians... 99.9% of them don't bother me at all.
Muslims on the other hand.....
Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).
Seaward wrote:
I honestly believe the fervent desire to classify atheism as a religion originates in the subconscious acknowledgement that an argument from reason is inherently superior to an argument from faith. It is insecurity, an attempt to try and, in short, drag atheism down to religion's level and even the playing field.
It provides me with much amusement
No. we just get tired of your bs fanaticism.
Ditto comes screaming to mind.
So look at the 1st page of this thread, and see which group starts the argument first. Go ahead Ill wait.......
Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).
This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people. If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates. The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.
Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force. This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it. Thankfully many of us religious folks are capable of viewing the world other than through the lens of our religion.
Mannahnin wrote:The exact phrase separation of Church and State does not appear; it's implied.
I stand corrected. Did GW write it? They like a good dose of ambiguity in their writing style.
The US constitution is one of the most ambiguous constitutions ever written. That is one of its strengths, because it allows flexibility in what government can do, but it is also its greatest weakness, as it can be very easily abused/misunderstood.
_Tim?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:Exactly. I proffer atheists are most other populations. The fanatics represent 10% - 20%.
The thing is though, I've physically met very few professed atheists, and they were complete dillweeds. I've met hardcore Christians. Half are coockoo, half are really really good people.
Same for Budhists (actually the really good people was more like 80%).
This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people. If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates. The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.
Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force. This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it. Thankfully many of us religious folks are capable of viewing the world other than through the lens of our religion.
Good post, Mannahin! Thank you for representing the sane side of religion and atheism.
Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.
Not everyone. I went away in order not to feed troll.
Mannahnin wrote:
This is linked with what the atheists have been saying in the thread. The vast majority of atheists or agnostics don't care a fig about religion. It doesn't enter into their internal dialogues or lives, except through other people.
So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.
Mannahnin wrote:
If you're not religious, you have no dogma. No holy text or voice in your head telling you that you must convert the unbelievers or change the law of the land to suit your religion's dictates.
"Atheism is a campaigning organization and our mission is to oppose faith and religion.
Our campaigns are against anything based on faith or religion, always from the atheist perspective: God does not exist."
This was from the first Uk based website I found promoting atheism. There will be others. Let us look at one issue in which religious people are coming under attack by militant atheism, faith schools.
I found to my horror that Atheist Uk, the site putting these mission statements forward, is not considered an extremist atheist group but a mainstream one.
Some atheists in the UK have publically called for the abolition and/or restriction of faith schools for example:
Why? They perform better than secular schools on average. Some atheists just cannot abide the presence of religion. Even when it is benign. That is evidence of dogma and fundamentalism of the sort normally seen in a theocratic state. in fact I have never heard for even ther Islamics to call for the closure of non-Islamic faith schools. When atheist groups are being more intolerant than the Islamics, you know something is wrong.
Mannahnin wrote:
The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.
People arent forced to make their children attend a faith school, however some do because the grades are higher David Milliband brother of the current opposition leader and former minister, and a self confessed atheist sent his kids to a faith school even though a secular school was closer, probably because of the quality of education received. I don't have a problem with that. Its just indicative that people in a position to be clued up on the education system who have known atheist agendas are happy for their own kids to go there. So faith schools must be doing something right.
However some atheists want to close them, or abolish the religious aspects of them. On the evidence purely on a point of dogma. The website below is clear enough about what it wants:
"Atheism’s sole object is the advancement of atheism. Our ultimate goal is the end of faith – the false and irrational belief that God exists – and of religion, the social manifestation of faith. The world would be a better place without them. We aim to achieve this by opposing the propagation of faith."
Why? Cant they send their kids to another school and leave others alone. No, because its not to do with resisting the annoyance of religion intruding into their lives, its because their own dogma wishes religion gone. And why is that? Fundamentalism, findamentalism as bigoted as can be found in any minority of a faith group.
Mannahnin wrote:
Mao and Stalin weren't driven by their atheism. They were driven by political dogma, and lust for power. Religion was a competing ideology, so was seen as a threat/opposing force.
To some degree I agree with you, politics was the motive,. but that is almost universal at that level of abuse. The same can be said about the medieval popes. Popes decreed crusades not out of any religious principle but due to political ends, there is no Biblical doctrine to support a crusade, but the political principles were loud and clear.
However the trapping of the religious choice were there, and so Christianity at some level can be blamed for the Crusades. The same goes for the atheist state. Neither Mao nor Stalin minced words as to why they were persecuting religious groups. Stalin might not have needed excuses to murder anyone, but his followers did for the most part, and the atheist reasonings behind the persecutions of religous people were not disguised, but openly propogated so those who did the work knew why they were doing what they did.
What is fair to do is to allow right thinking atheists to share our disgust at these atrocities and say that Mao and Stalin (and others) do not conform to the atheist ideal and can be disowned by atheists as an imposter abusing their philopophy for amoral ends. After all this is preceisly how most Christians, I would go as far as to say all real Christians perceive people like Torquemada.
Mannahnin wrote:
This doesn't make atheism a religion, no matter how many times some religious folks want to repeat it.
Which funnily enough is not what we are saying. At least it isn't what I am saying. If you think it is, quote me.
No, I say religion is faith choice, big difference. We can tell that by the way some atheists behave in the emotively charged manner as religious people so to the extremes of intolerance. the intolerance shown has no basis in atheist philosophy, which as you rightly say would not care about Gods and religions. Atheism has members that behave like they are in a religion, even to the worst extremes of what relghious people do. So you shouldnt be suprised if some want atheists measured with the same yardstick.
I think you're contradicting yourself. Based on the evidence of one political advocacy organization and some poor grammar on their website you're painting atheism as a monolithic, dogmatic group. And yet you're now hedging on whether you consider atheism to be a religion.
I'll concede that there are some politically-active atheists out there who want to oppose religious influences in society (including faith-oriented schools), but again, those folks are a tiny minority, and they're not guided by a book of dogma or a pretense of being guided by a god to their chosen course of action.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Orlanth wrote:
Mannahnin wrote:Frazzled? Everyone was pretty much agreeing with each other up to that point.
Not everyone. I went away in order not to feed troll.
You didn't post on the first page, did you? KC asked which side, on page 1, first turned the thread into an argument.
If this is the stuff you want to teach your kids, go ahead. Its probably a good indication on why the US is 17th in the world for science education, and dropping. Well behind Canada, I might add
Oh, Orlanth I still love how you cite 1 person and relate it to some. ie more than one. "some atheists in the UK" you cite one richard dawkins.
I love the way you generalize though, "1 atheist sends his kids to a religious school so all faith schools must be doing something right"
You should probably state that you are referencing the atheists in the UK, and not project their actions onto all atheists in the world. In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion, but in the US and Canada they are not (to the best of my knowledge). so be careful what you wish for, if you really want to start comparing atheists to christians and other religions, you might not like where your religion places.
Orlanth wrote:So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.
You seem to be confused. A lack of religious belief does not require me to respect your religious belief, else I become, by default, religious. While I certainly respect your right to believe what you want, I do not by any stretch of the imagination respect your faith in the supernatural. That does not suddenly make my atheism just another religion.
Mannahnin wrote:I think you're contradicting yourself. Based on the evidence of one political advocacy organization and some poor grammar on their website you're painting atheism as a monolithic, dogmatic group. And yet you're now hedging on whether you consider atheism to be a religion.
That one political advocacy group, is the only one with main website and is a member of a supergroup of international atheist organisations. Now supergroup organisations exist for many groups, largely with the same purpose. Partly networking, but mostly accreditation. The Christians have one called the Evangelical Alliance, it is there to internally define what is Christian, after all many organisations use the name Jesus or Church in their title, yet are not Christian, so it was considered important.
Mannahnin wrote:
I'll concede that there are some politically-active atheists out there who want to oppose religious influences in society (including faith-oriented schools), but again, those folks are a tiny minority, and they're not guided by a book of dogma or a pretense of being guided by a god to their chosen course of action.
Are they a tiny minority, the group linked to is accredited by the Atheist Alliance International, were it an unwelcome extremist fringe it would not be. Besides other than individuals there are no other Atheist organisation websites in the UK, at least that I could find. There are the Humanists but they are not formally atheist.
As for dogma, you assume without reason that a God is required for one. These atheists show dogma and fanaticism similar to religious fundamentalists and thus it is entirely logical that they be treated the same.
Besides you mentioned that:
If you're not religious, you have no dogma. and
The only atheists who bother talking about it are the ones who are annoyed by religion intruding into their lives.
Even when I have shown you strong evidence to the contrary, from atheists themselves, not what Christians et al say of them, and yet you have not withdrawn that position.
Let me leave you with this little 'gem' of artheist fundamentalism, from artheist Uk's mission statement on relgious eduication. Important points highlighted in bold.
We will campaign for the abolition of compulsory religious education (except as a branch of anthropology), collective worship and ‘faith’ schools – on the grounds that they are founded on a falsehood: God exists. We are also developing strategies to advance atheism within existing RE law.
Ignoring the rest of this sickening statement just concentrate on the bits in bold, and yes they are connected in context. Some atheists have the belief in the non-existance of God a belief taken as certain or near certain from their statement, a belief that can very literally be a faith choice on the ground of their certainty, this is not even the thinest veil of an excuse to try the lack of belief vs belief of lack here. Anyway on the grounds of these beliefs they demand that faith schools be abolished in order to prevent the propagation of religious beliefs contrary from their own.
That sir is the type of fundamentalist oppression we expect to see from Iran.
Now let us look at your next comment, that it is only a "tiny minority". Perhaps it is, but if it is a "tiny minority" its one an endorsed one, and second an unchallenged one. This points should be looked at in more detail.
When fundamentalist 'christian' nutjobs like Westboro Baptists spew their bile it is not just the atheists, veterans families and homosexuals who complain, so do the Christians. It has got to the point that noone tries anymore to pin Westboro Baptists filth on Christianity in general save for a few bigots who are largely ignored, the Christians in the US and abroad have made it known that Westboro Baptists views do not represent their own, or that espoused in scripture. When Westboro Baptist leaders tried to visit the UK, the churches joined in the move to petition for their entry into the country to be blocked.
Now AtheistUk doesn't seen quite the same level as Westboro Baptists, however if they truly are an unwelcome "tiny minority" not speaking for mainstream atheists then
1. Why are they accredited by an umbrella group?
and
2. Why are there no disclaimers of their rhetoric by mainstream mild decent atheists?
I tried to find a condemnation of Atheist UK's views online and have so far not found anything from the atheist community disowning the viewpoints I provided in the links. If mainstream atheists, in the UK at least, are not going to bother to challenge fundamentalist atheists attempts to enforce discrimination against other faith groups, that how can they claim to write off the concerns others have at atheist fundamentalism, and its status as a faith at a very minimum at the point where these atheists, the only atheist body operating in the UK, clearly claim a de facto yet unsubstantiated belief in the non-existance of God.
Perhaps the Uk's atheists might want to address this travesty. According to the website Atheism UK is Britain’s only distinctively atheist organization. I dont know if that is true or not , but I dont see any atheists queuing up to disagree with them.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh, Orlanth I still love how you cite 1 person and relate it to some. ie more than one. "some atheists in the UK" you cite one richard dawkins.
Actually Richard Dawkins and Atheist UK. Check the links. Both are after similar things. I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead. This strongly implies that the opinions of some atheists to discriminate against faith schools is not isolated.
I ought to add for absolute clarity that I have no problem with, and in fact firmly endorse, atheist parents rights to ensure their children are not educated in faith schools.
sirlynchmob wrote:
I love the way you generalize though, "1 atheist sends his kids to a religious school so all faith schools must be doing something right"
Again try reading all of what you critique. Faith schools are doing alright because they have on average better results than secular schools. a single example was given to highlight a well known phenomenon. David Milliband was a good example because as a former cabinet minister and someone who tried to run for the job of Labour party leader (and thus potentially could have been Prime Minister) it is not unreasonable to suggest that he would be aware as to which are the best schools are the best for his own children.
If I had said 'some random bloke i heard of claimed to be an atheist an sends his own kids to a faith school' then you would have a point. As its a senior politican, the current Shadow Foreign secretary and a previous Minister of State for Communities and Local Government, then its safe to say he is fairly clued up, or at a minimum connected into the system to find out where best to send his kids.
sirlynchmob wrote:
You should probably state that you are referencing the atheists in the UK, and not project their actions onto all atheists in the world.
I mentioned UK a lot, which should be a hint, and used a British atheist leader and a British politician as examples.
Still it wasn't that long ago that everyone was saying 'its not happening' now you are least are saying 'its not happening outside the UK'. The Atheist Alliance International website linked me to atheist websites in US and Canada, both of which were far milder than Atheist UK. That isn't to say fundamentalism isn't happening, when you have enough atheists some will be, and even more if mainstream atheism is in denial over the possibility, or even the plausibility of fundamentalist atheism.
Besides the point has been made, backed up straight from the websites of atheists. Wheras many here on this thread flatly refuse to believe in the existance of militant or fundamentalist atheism i say I have seen some, and more importanly it is unchallenged by those who consider themselves mild and reasonable atheists.
Consequently my position that atheism should be watched for signs of fundamentalism as much as other faith groups has been vindicated. Atheist fundamentalists out to remove peoples rights are out there, and being unchallenged, perhaps because some people are convinced of the dogma that atheism is entirely rational and not religious that they cannot see that some are slipping into fundamentalism.
sirlynchmob wrote:
In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion, but in the US and Canada they are not (to the best of my knowledge). so be careful what you wish for, if you really want to start comparing atheists to Christians and other religions, you might not like where your religion places.
Don't worry, we are covered, this is where having a holy book is an advantage let alone an understanding of the dangers of fundamentalism. When we see stories about kidnapping 'ministers', paedo Catholics and other scum we say with full conviction, not in our names, and not in the name of Jesus.
Also please remember that the Christian church is the largest organization in human history, and its largest single component the Catholic church has a population more or less similar to that of China. With so many people isn't it understandable that some shouldn't belong. If you were part of an organization the size of a very large nation, you shouldn't be surprised to find that some are not on the level, and that there are gangs of some not on the level. That is no excuse, but it does add some perspective to the problems the Catholics are having. Too many Popes, bishops and cardinals took the cowards way out and covered up rather than cleaned house.
Orlanth wrote:
I deliberately used religion rather than theism as the inclusion of a single God or pantheon of Gods is not a sufficient description of religion.
Really? Whoever would have thought that theism didn't mean religion?
Want an explanation, fine:
Theism entails no dogma, nor does atheism, they're categories or classification. The use of them as anything beyond that is either lazy, or a bald-faced misunderstanding.
Orlanth wrote:
After all atheism goes beyond whether the aforementioned God or Gods exist despite the literal origin of the word.
No, no it doesn't, and you treatment of "theism" illustrates why I've only now found the energy to deal with you. One can believe in God/god without religion, just as one can do the opposite with respect to the absence of belief, or disbelief.
I suspect your reply will center on "the human heart" or some other nebulous "thing".
Orlanth wrote:
Hence the meme 'atheism vs religion' rather than 'atheism vs theism'.
And? Why is that name appropriate? Because some atheists have little comprehension of religion? Because some religious theists have little comprehension atheism?
Orlanth wrote:
Besides I never liked the word theist, noone calls themselves a theist or is refered to as such, they, we, are religious.
And theists.
Orlanth wrote:
There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.
W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.
"I do not believe in God." and "I maybe believe in God." are the same.
Orlanth wrote:So this means they can respect an opposing opinion, and remain patient if it is doesn't disappear? Apparently not on this thread.
You seem to be confused. A lack of religious belief does not require me to respect your religious belief, else I become, by default, religious. While I certainly respect your right to believe what you want, I do not by any stretch of the imagination respect your faith in the supernatural. That does not suddenly make my atheism just another religion.
I am not confused because hat is not what I said. Atheism is a faith choice, because its a choice amongst options that accepts or denies the existence of God, for whatever motive required, including lack of evidence. The desire for some to sink into vicious personal attacks is indication that they have been emotionally charged by the concepts in a manner similar to a religious fanatic.
We must all ought to be able to keep to the issues and post our points fairly with room to accept that others do not share ones view and that neither side need surrender their position due to the force of the other.
There is no such thing as fervid detachment, you can be logical and detached, or fervid, not both. To some on this thread their atheism is a religious issue, its their choice and they get angry when its challenged, just like a fanatic. Of course non atheists can be like that too, but everyone knows this and we watch out for it, including watching ourselves. Some may be so secure in the knowledge that they are of reason they might not be aware they are not until to late.
I must say I have no excuse to place you in that category, you appear reasonable and argue your side well and both you and your worldview have my respect, regardless of how firmly I disagree.
Orlanth wrote:
Atheism is a faith choice, because its a choice amongst options that accepts or denies the existence of God, for whatever motive required, including lack of evidence. The desire for some to sink into vicious personal attacks is indication that they have been emotionally charged by the concepts in a manner similar to a religious fanatic.
Or, minimally, that they think your arguments are tired.
Orlanth wrote:
We must all ought to be able to keep to the issues and post our points fairly with room to accept that others do not share ones view and that neither side need surrender their position due to the force of the other.
This is funny, given how you have spoken of the "PC dogma".
Orlanth wrote:
There is no such thing as fervid detachment, you can be logical and detached, or fervid, not both.
One can be fervidly attached to the rules of logic.
But then, since you continually misunderstand "logic", I shouldn't be surprised at this.
dogma wrote:
Or, minimally, that they think your arguments are tired.
Except that I post a whole lot of fresh stuff, which is ignored
In favour of making the same 'tired' arguments used earlier.
dogma wrote:
This is funny, given how you have spoken of the "PC dogma".
Dogma need not be exclusively religious, you at least ought to understand that
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.
Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.
You are working under the fallacy that faith and reason are mutually exclusive. This can lead to the error of failing to detect the existence of emotive draws upon what is intended to be reasoned arguments.
My observation that atheist fundamentalism exists and drawing parallels to other types of fundamentalism is based on reason. My theory that this is a recurring pattern comes from an understanding of faith.
Both can work together.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:
Theism entails no dogma, nor does atheism, they're categories or classification. The use of them as anything beyond that is either lazy, or a bald-faced misunderstanding.
Sadly your explanation doesn't survive the real world.
Dogmas can arise from atheist thought in practice, one can have the belief that atheists frees humanity from religious mumbo jumbo via reason, a dogma that works on the ideology that atheism is pure reason based and draws heavily on the faith based ideology that the opposing religious viewpoints are certainly wrong.
Orlanth wrote:
There are four answers not three, and they blend into two because noone not even fervid cases like Dawkins, or myself, are truly certain.
W = I believe in God.
X = Maybe there is a God.
Y = I do not believe in God.
Z = I believe there is no God.
X is a subset of W, Z is a subset of Y.
"I do not believe in God." and "I maybe believe in God." are the same.
Actually they are not. 'I do not believe' indicates a measure of negative uncertainty, 'Maybe there is' is unsurity with hope.
W and Y deal with faith bases 'surities', they are tied into two other options which deal with unsurity with a hope/desire element towards one or other faith based surity.
Two answers are therefore faith based, two answers apparantly not but nevertheless faith tainted.
The emotive side of human nature exerts a subtle influence
Orlanth wrote:
Except that I post a whole lot of fresh stuff, which is ignored
In favour of making the same 'tired' arguments used earlier.
No, not really. You talk about alot of what you believe and then claim something "bold", then insert the equivalent of "profit" and make some nonsense claim.
I guess that's "fresh" somewhere.
Orlanth wrote:
Dogma need not be exclusively religious, you at least ought to understand that.
No, but when people drop "religion" as universally equivalent it is hard to step aside.
sirlynchmob wrote:In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion
To my knowledge it is to give people who are not religious the same protections and benefits as those who are, as well as demonstrate how silly it is to give protections/benefits to select groups because they have a boss who cannot be proven to exist while everyone else has to get along without them... rather than any belief (hehe) that atheism is actually a religion (which I would suggest that most athiests would not agree with).
Funny that, most of the stuff you two seem to spend so much time arguing about in this off topic forum looks like nebulous bs to me. Usually the first point one of you makes is valid and the rest is just a perpetual argument fuelled on one-upmanship.
Oh well. maybe some philosophr out there will fall upon this small section of a wargamning forum one day and all of the grey is black or white arguments will have maybe an iota of meaning.
I oppose faith schools for exactly the same reason I oppose private schools, they promote segregation and if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise. There is nothing dogmatic to it, I have no opposition to sunday schools.
dæl wrote:if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise.
What makes you think this?
Peersonally I would think that tiered schooling would significantly increase the standards of education being provided - the brightest students go to schools which cater for academic skills, the students best suited to more vocational learning go to trade schools and apprenticeships, etc...
dæl wrote:if they were abolished then the standards of comprehensives would rise.
What makes you think this?
Peersonally I would think that tiered schooling would significantly increase the standards of education being provided - the brightest students go to schools which cater for academic skills, the students best suited to more vocational learning go to trade schools and apprenticeships, etc...
I think this because all the people who are most concerned with their child's education would then have to engage with the comp system, and funding would all go to the same schools.
So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?
dæl wrote:I think this because all the people who are most concerned with their child's education would then have to engage with the comp system, and funding would all go to the same schools.
Funding per child for even reasonably standard independent schools is usually in excess of funding for comp schools. And remember that for every child who is not in comp education, their parents are paying taxes to support those who are; banning private schools just puts all those kids into the system so while an individual comp school may get slightly more (as they are usually funded per student to some extent), the overall funds available for education go down unless they draw them from somewhere else.
You also have a problem in that a lot of the staff in private education only carry on working because they are not working in the public sector; a number of people I know who teach (either public or private) have said that they ultimately do not want to work in the public sector and want to go to a private school (or remain at one).
So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?
Not entirely sure where I said any of that...
A publicly funded multi-level school system (like we had back in the old days) helps stream children based on ability and aptitude, independent of wealth or faith. Granted some areas will tend to produce children less interested in education than others, but there is not a great deal that schools can do about that...
However, having the option of private education does nothing to the detriment of learning in public schools.
Valid point on funding, I was more thinking along the lines of those with power, be it directly political or in lobbying, tend to privately educate their children. If forced to use the comprehensive system they would ensure it was the best it could be.
So a child's intellect is defined by where they live? or what faith they are (or claim to be)? or how much money their parents have?
Not entirely sure where I said any of that...
I was referring to our current system.
I also stand by the point that it encourages segregation, and can dictate a child's future simply by where they've been schooled.
sirlynchmob wrote:In the UK they might be trying to get atheism listed as a religion
To my knowledge it is to give people who are not religious the same protections and benefits as those who are, as well as demonstrate how silly it is to give protections/benefits to select groups because they have a boss who cannot be proven to exist while everyone else has to get along without them... rather than any belief (hehe) that atheism is actually a religion (which I would suggest that most athiests would not agree with).
I get that part, I can see in some countries how being label a religion could be beneficial. But I also thought that's why we have the Flying Spaghetti Monster
@Orlanth Atheism is not some world wide organization, It is not a religion, its just INDIVIDUALS that don't accept your claims of a god. But on the whole atheism is not a religion. It doesn't even need to be a choice. All babies are born atheists, and remain so until they put their faith in a god. Also any groups that have never heard of god/gods are atheists. If you accept the FSM as your god, then you are a theist.
Oh no the horror of those UK atheists, "abolition of compulsory religious education" How dare they not want your god taught to their kids, how sickening . Because of that you think they are extremist and should be watched by the government? get a grip. Can you agree that if we are looking for fundamentalists and extremists we should be watching christians with a higher priority than atheists? Because while you might say christian extremists are not acting in Jesus name, the extremists have faith and believe they are acting on behalf of jesus. And the last time it was brought up, about who is and is not a christian the only group to be labeled not christians were the mormons. so even the christians on this site accept that the westboro baptists are christians. And as you are claiming who are true christians and who are not true christians, then please explain which of the 42,000 types of christians is the correct one? And how do you know jesus agrees with you and not the extremists, did he tell you?
"I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead"
He's no such thing and implies nothing other than his opinions.
dæl wrote:Valid point on funding, I was more thinking along the lines of those with power, be it directly political or in lobbying, tend to privately educate their children. If forced to use the comprehensive system they would ensure it was the best it could be.
Or they would send their kids overseas, which some of the richer, more powerful people tend to do anyway. Although it is probably not going to be much different from now where people move into the catchment area of good schools to "ensure" their children will go to a good school.
The bad schools will still get left behind. Although having said that, a number of programs have turned some of the worst schools around, or at least improved them. However, the problem with "bad" schools isn't always the school itself, it is the generational slums that generally constitute their catchment areas...
I was referring to our current system.
I also stand by the point that it encourages segregation, and can dictate a child's future simply by where they've been schooled.
Sure, in the same way that if you go to a "good" university, you are seen as "better" than someone with the same qualification who went to a former poly where you need to be able to grunt your own name to get onto the course (for example).
The only thing that will happen in your proposed system is the best state schools will continue to be over-subscribed (in the same way they are now, only now the "richer, more powerful parents" (who according to you are the main driving force behind the now banned private sector) will be pushing their kids in at the expense of "normal" kids, whose parents can no longer afford to move into the catchment area of "Awesome School" ), and there will probably be an even greater demand for private tutours to give those same kids from "better" backgrounds an edge over people who only use the public system...
sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh no the horror of those UK atheists, "abolition of compulsory religious education" How dare they not want your god taught to their kids, how sickening .
Religious education is compulsory as it grounds children in the religions and faith choices present in our society. It doesn't focus on one religion the syllabus covers Christianity in several forms, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism. This is so kids today grow up less ignorant of the multi-faith culture inherent in the UK today. Faith schools do focus on one religion, not always Christianity so there is genuine diversity in the system. Those who send their kids to a Christian or Jewish school etc expect that the respective religions will feature heavily in the schools culture, even so the formal syllabus doesnt change and the children must be at least aware of the basic tenets of the various major religious and faith choices out there. Besides noone is forced to send their children to any such school by the government or schools system.
What Atheism UK wants to do is ban this, completely, for the stated aim of abolishing religion by preventing it from belief propagated across the generations.
Why not concentrate on the real message behind the link the erosion of religious liberty and the entrenchment of atheist fundamentalism by force of statute irregardless of the wishes of the populace.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Because while you might say christian extremists are not acting in Jesus name, the extremists have faith and believe they are acting on behalf of jesus.
No they aren't if they blatantly fail to keep Jesus' commands. Most notably for combating fundamentalism this one:
Luke 6:31 Do to others as you would have them do.
sirlynchmob wrote:
And the last time it was brought up, about who is and is not a christian the only group to be labeled not christians were the mormons.
Oh really. Mormons are on the list, but so are Jehovahs Witnesses, Christadelphians and Christian Scientists. That isnt isnt a complete list either.
Rather than guess check out the Evangelical Alliance, thats the major body set up by the Christian denominations to decide and delimit who are essentially Christians.
sirlynchmob wrote:
so even the christians on this site accept that the westboro baptists are christians.
Who exactly. I don't know of any, but I have seen Westboro baptists disowned by Christians on every thread they come up. Even ther Christian bashers on the site do not try and force this one,
sirlynchmob wrote:
And as you are claiming who are true christians and who are not true christians, then please explain which of the 42,000 types of christians is the correct one? And how do you know jesus agrees with you and not the extremists, did he tell you?
Work according to cross reference with the Biblical standards with broad agreement of the major Christian denominations. Some borderline cases exist that are harder to define than others.
Dojng this is not against Biblical principle either, numerous passages support the idea of being wary of the false brother and how to discern them.
sirlynchmob wrote:
"I added Dawkins in order to double source and because he is an important atheist figurehead"
He's no such thing and implies nothing other than his opinions.
Dawkins, not an important atheist figurehead. If you say so.
Orlanth..I've been sitting on the side on this thread since I looked at it late. I don't know if you use the ignore feature( I do)..but I recommend not wasting your time with sirlynch. He/she doesn't care to have a reasonable discussion.
Case in point how he/she thinks Christians believe that westboro baptists are Christians and how he/she misrepresents what Christians believe on the matter. While there may be someone out there that thinks they are Christians, he/she presents it as if it's the general consensus of Christianity.
Kilkrazy wrote:I wonder if the desire to treat atheism as a religion is indicative of an aspect of cognition.
Perhaps it shows a drive to comprehend things within a faith based rather than a reason based framework.
I think that this is highly likely.
I think it's more of a position of denial. I don't mean that to be insulting, but I believe that certain athiests are self deluded into thinking that a world view based on reason, means that they do not use faith...at all
And from this denial..they can assume a position of superiority in their own minds. "I don't have faith, only stupid/crazy people have faith, therefore I'm superior"
Belief or unbelief does not exist in a vacuum...there are inputs human beings think about/ ponder/ study....and making decisions on these inputs is what triggers a decision. Whatever decision that is.. it requires some aspect of faith.
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.
How do you know with absolute certainty that the speed of light has always been what it is now? (used to measure astrological time)
How do you know with absolute certainty that decay rates of the radio isotopes have always been the same as they are now? (used to measure geological time)
generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.
How do you know with absolute certainty that the speed of light has always been what it is now? (used to measure astrological time)
How do you know with absolute certainty that decay rates of the radio isotopes have always been the same as they are now? (used to measure geological time)
GG
Well the speed of light is used the theory of general relativity and is a constant, I'm not hugely versed in physics but I can't imagine that messing around with c works.
The decay rates of radio isotopes are just causality, you can take two and start them at different times, they will decay at the same rate over time.
What exactly are you trying to prove? That evidence of things is the same as things there is no evidence for?
generalgrog wrote:Orlanth..I've been sitting on the side on this thread since I looked at it late. I don't know if you use the ignore feature( I do)..but I recommend not wasting your time with sirlynch. He/she doesn't care to have a reasonable discussion.
Case in point how he/she thinks Christians believe that westboro baptists are Christians and how he/she misrepresents what Christians believe on the matter. While there may be someone out there that thinks they are Christians, he/she presents it as if it's the general consensus of Christianity.
GG
I never use the ignore feature, it avoids controversy for the wrong reasons. I believe that a challenge should be responded to for the benefit of third parties reading the thread, very rarely do I feel I have much to add directly for my detractors. Those who will not listen wont listen, but all too often someone snips my posts down to one or two usually cyclic comments and uses that to drown out what I am saying. Especially when it is vehemently opposed. You can get away with calling any argument 'stupid' or 'crap' etc and if unchallenged those reading may be misled into agreeing without thinking why too much.
Though I do tend to reply more often than I should to some who use these tactics. However part of the strategy is that if I actually make a fresh point, rather than look at the thread as a whole ignore it and ask the same old questions on parts that echo points raised on previous pages or even threads. Then the value is drowned out.
I found proof of atheist fundamentalism, and strong evidence that mainstream atheism isn't challenging it. Powerful evidence that something is wrong with a portion of the atheist movement and that its excesses are not being reined in by the rest. Have the atheist apologists tried to look at this, not much, in fact most quote a single sentence from that or the next thread bypassing the topic, attack that in the hope that my points will eventually disappear two or three pages down the thread.
When my opponents critique my work I try to do the honour of critiquing back wholecloth, covering much of not all the content. I am not paid the same courtesy because honest debate is simply not the intention of some, sad to say.
generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.
This is where your argument breaks down; all science is based upon reproducable evidence, I can research the evidence for every single genuine scientific discovery and with sufficent resources I can duplicate it. If I can't duplicate it then the discovery may be wrong and others will then do further work to find out what fits the available evidence best.
Incidentally no scientist should ever accept anything without question and nothing in science is ever absolutely certain. The closest that we come to it is that, for example evolution, is highly statistically likely and all our evidence supports it. If evidence was found that did not support it then it would be investigated and if found to be real then evolution would be modified to suit or scrapped all together. That is how science works
Faith in the reilgious sense is the certainty that your diety(ies) are real and that the tenents of your faith are correct. Atheists on the other hand, at least those that i have talked to about this (which in fairness isn't that many), are not absolutely certain that there is no god, just that it is extremely unlikely to the extent that it isn't worth the bother worrying about.
Basically scientific 'faith' and religious faith are unrelated.
generalgrog wrote:
Athiests usually take an approach of scientific certainty, which is to say that they believe enough of what modern science teaches, seemingly without question.
This is where your argument breaks down; all science is based upon reproducable evidence...
Respectfully I think you just proved my argument. You have to have faith in the now. Faith that what we observe now...is what actually happened in the past. Sure we can guess relatively close to what the speed of light is now..We can measure decay rates they way they are now And from those now measurements make postulations...but those postulations are only valid if the now is the same as the past.
Can you prove that these now events have always been that way?
I will always take faith in the tangible over faith in the intangible.
You are missing what I am saying. There is always an element of doubt in science, it is the very foundation of the scientific method. Religious faith leaves no room for doubt while scientific 'faith' depends on it, the two are not the same.
In essence you are attempting to prove that science is the defacto religion of atheists and that is simply wrong.
There are ways to examine past events such as nuclear decay and get a time rate, for example by examining Carbon-14 decay in layers of known age.
That is to say, you determine the age of the layer by an independent factor, like Iridium content, and see if the Carbon-14 decay reading gives the same age. When it does, you put your non-religious faith in the idea that God didn't play a shell game with reality to make history different to the bible story in order to screw with his creations' heads.
Nothing is ever proved in science. It is only indicated with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.
Kilkrazy wrote:There are ways to examine past events such as nuclear decay and get a time rate, for example by examining Carbon-14 decay in layers of known age.
That is to say, you determine the age of the layer by an independent factor, like Iridium content, and see if the Carbon-14 decay reading gives the same age. When it does, you put your non-religious faith in the idea that God didn't play a shell game with reality to make history different to the bible story in order to screw with his creations' heads.
Nothing is ever proved in science. It is only indicated with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.
KK...You said a lot of different things there...and you kind of repeated what I said. There ARE assumptions that science makes to come to their conclusions. It doesn't matter if iridium 192 can give a similar date as carbon 14..the fact is that the assumptions underlying them both are the same.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Oh no the horror of those UK atheists, "abolition of compulsory religious education" How dare they not want your god taught to their kids, how sickening .
Religious education is compulsory as it grounds children in the religions and faith choices present in our society. It doesn't focus on one religion the syllabus covers Christianity in several forms, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism. This is so kids today grow up less ignorant of the multi-faith culture inherent in the UK today. Faith schools do focus on one religion, not always Christianity so there is genuine diversity in the system. Those who send their kids to a Christian or Jewish school etc expect that the respective religions will feature heavily in the schools culture, even so the formal syllabus doesnt change and the children must be at least aware of the basic tenets of the various major religious and faith choices out there. Besides noone is forced to send their children to any such school by the government or schools system.
What Atheism UK wants to do is ban this, completely, for the stated aim of abolishing religion by preventing it from belief propagated across the generations.
Why not concentrate on the real message behind the link the erosion of religious liberty and the entrenchment of atheist fundamentalism by force of statute irregardless of the wishes of the populace.
Funny I didn't see them saying anything about banning all churches. Can't you still teach your religion in your churches? Can't you, as a parent, read the bible or whatever to your kids? Not teaching religion in schools does not erode religion liberty.
What definition are you using for compulsory? to me that says all kids are required to learn it regardless of what school they are at. judging by your use of the word atheist and your understanding of it, I don't think your school did a very good of a job teaching about it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:Orlanth..I've been sitting on the side on this thread since I looked at it late. I don't know if you use the ignore feature( I do)..but I recommend not wasting your time with sirlynch. He/she doesn't care to have a reasonable discussion.
Case in point how he/she thinks Christians believe that westboro baptists are Christians and how he/she misrepresents what Christians believe on the matter. While there may be someone out there that thinks they are Christians, he/she presents it as if it's the general consensus of Christianity.
GG
Learn to read. I said nothing of the sort.
Can you state with absolute certainty that god exists?
Can you state with absolute certainty the religion that god (if he exists) wants you to follow?
Kilkrazy wrote:There are ways to examine past events such as nuclear decay and get a time rate, for example by examining Carbon-14 decay in layers of known age.
That is to say, you determine the age of the layer by an independent factor, like Iridium content, and see if the Carbon-14 decay reading gives the same age. When it does, you put your non-religious faith in the idea that God didn't play a shell game with reality to make history different to the bible story in order to screw with his creations' heads.
Nothing is ever proved in science. It is only indicated with a greater or lesser degree of confidence.
KK...You said a lot of different things there...and you kind of repeated what I said. There ARE assumptions that science makes to come to their conclusions. It doesn't matter if iridium 192 can give a similar date as carbon 14..the fact is that the assumptions underlying them both are the same.
GG
The comparative tests are between factors that are independent of each other and don't share assumptions.
In other words, you can test iridium deposited by meteor strikes, pollen deposited by plants, and carbon 14 decay in animal remains. These are three different and independent indicators of the age of a sample. The decay rate would not agree if the strong nuclear force had changed during the time involved, but the strong nuclear force change would not have affected pollen deposition. If they all agree, it seems as if one might consider this to be evidence that the carbon decay was correct, and therefore the strong nuclear force had not changed during the time since deposition.
It is possible that the tests are wrong, of course, and that is why science is open to revision. The underlying assumption is that the world exists and operates according to a set of rules. Secondly, that we are capable of making tests to discover the rules, and of testing the tests to be sure they work.
Glorioski wrote:
Funny that, most of the stuff you two seem to spend so much time arguing about in this off topic forum looks like nebulous bs to me. Usually the first point one of you makes is valid and the rest is just a perpetual argument fuelled on one-upmanship.
Oh well. maybe some philosophr out there will fall upon this small section of a wargamning forum one day and all of the grey is black or white arguments will have maybe an iota of meaning.
Strangely I've spent a good chunk of my life studying philosophy, and arguing with people who do philosophy (read: teach philosophy) for a living.
What you're seeing here is pretty much how it goes outside journal articles, and sometimes in them as well.
If you want to draw a parallel, the divide between Orlanth and myself is essentially the same as the divide between continental and analytic philosophy.
Orlanth wrote:
Religious education is compulsory as it grounds children in the religions and faith choices present in our society. It doesn't focus on one religion the syllabus covers Christianity in several forms, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism. This is so kids today grow up less ignorant of the multi-faith culture inherent in the UK today.
Wait, I thought you disliked "PC dogma"?
generalgrog wrote:
Respectfully I think you just proved my argument. You have to have faith in the now. Faith that what we observe now...is what actually happened in the past.
No you don't. It is not faith to presume that what is observed is consistent with took place before, because if you're attempting examine the past you essentially have nothing else to go on.
Orlanth wrote:Thankyou for th cold water Glorioski.
dogma, we arent going to agree, and both of us 'know' the other is wrong. Lets call it a day, between ourselves at least.
I actually know you're wrong, because continental philosophy, as it has attempted to keep pace with analytic philosophy, has fundamental problems developing conclusions from its penchant amorphous terminology.
Orlanth wrote:
Religious education is compulsory as it grounds children in the religions and faith choices present in our society. It doesn't focus on one religion the syllabus covers Christianity in several forms, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism and Atheism. This is so kids today grow up less ignorant of the multi-faith culture inherent in the UK today.
Wait, I thought you disliked "PC dogma"?
Becoming aware of different worldviews and forcing people to join them are not one and the same.
An example where PC dogma can and does interfere is when equal opportunities are lobsided. In the case in point Christian faith schools are placed under far greater and harder scrutiny to the point of unfairness than say Islamic schools.
It is not uncommon for a minority to be pandered to for fear of causing offence.
There is a world of difference between, 'we wont allow children whose fathers are service personnel to be highlighted in bring a parent to work day for fear it offends Moslems' and 'lets learn about different faiths including Islam'. And yes the former is a problem in dogmatised schools with high ethnic catchments.
Sometimes it helps to look at the problem through mature eyes able to see how a subject is approached in a detached way. Learning about Islam in schools doesnt necessary mean 'pandering' or 'cultural dilution', it merely means education. No dogma need not be attached to it, but I should not be surprised if you couldn't distinguish between education on a subject and emotive involvement.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Palindrome wrote:
generalgrog wrote:
Palindrome wrote:We are not omnipotent, we have to rely upon assumptions, but these assumptions are tested as well as we can manage.
As I have already stated, twice, that does not make science a religion. The very idea is absurd.
I didn't say science was a religion..I said there is faith in accepting scientific conclusions.
GG
Whhat are you trying to say then? Science does not work on blind faith.
Faith itself need not be blind either. Evidence is there, even if proof is withheld.
Orlanth wrote:Faith itself need not be blind either. Evidence is there, even if proof is withheld.
No, it isn't. Not of the empirical sort. Anecdotal, perhaps.
Also, you claimed earlier in this thread that you'd "proven" the existence of "atheist fundamentalism." Perhaps you could define what that means for me?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
generalgrog wrote:
Palindrome wrote:We are not omnipotent, we have to rely upon assumptions, but these assumptions are tested as well as we can manage.
As I have already stated, twice, that does not make science a religion. The very idea is absurd.
I didn't say science was a religion..I said there is faith in accepting scientific conclusions.
GG
There is not, no. There is observation and extrapolation of conclusions from observation, and all the freedom in the world to completely reverse those conclusions in light of new observation. There is never belief that is not based on evidence.
Orlanth wrote:Faith itself need not be blind either. Evidence is there, even if proof is withheld.
No, it isn't. Not of the empirical sort. Anecdotal, perhaps.
The difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal is the number of steps between the observer and the one proporting the evidence. This assumes unfairly that people of faith do not see the evidence for themselves, when indeed many can and do. Its also unfairly delimits the value of a religious testimony compared to other. If one noticed a chimpanzee making a specific tool not previously seen is that anecdotal or empirical evidence? It might be claimed to vbe empirical evidence depending on who did the observation.
There is plenty of evidence for the charismata for example, but if you don't want to believe that then no matter how much evidence is presented it will be flatly rejected as hearsay. Again I argue that the rejection or acceptance of said evidence as one whims is due to the faith based nature of our study of the religious.
Most people looking at a religious topic have already found their conclusion before seeing any evidence, because that is their preferred personal choice.
Seaward wrote:
Also, you claimed earlier in this thread that you'd "proven" the existence of "atheist fundamentalism." Perhaps you could define what that means for me?
Read previous posts and the links provided.
The atheist fundamentalism is plain to see.
If you still cant find it ask yourself this:
If you edited the Atheist Uk website and replaced the titular references to atheism with Islam, and edited their issue to remove through modifying the education system the 'lie that God exists' with 'rejection of Allah' you would see the threat and it would be clearly definable as Islamic fundamentalist extremism.
Removing other religious choices through force or pressure is what fundamentalist extremists do, people are best and most clearly defined by their actions and their desires. If some atheist groups adopt this strategy they should not evade the classification as fundamentalist extremists or scrutiny against extremism that to due to protect the public.
Now by its original definition 'fundamentalism' just means going back to basics. So from a theological point of view fundamentalist of any kind is not necessarily harmful, just someone who tries to adapt to the core belief or knowledge of a system rather than ancillary knowledge. However when 'fundamentalism' is mentioned here it is on the grounds of the modern colloquial definition used today in the media and in mainstream politics, as in violent or dogmatic to the point of wanting to propagate a belief system irregardless of the rights of others.
Children in primary school are forced to engage in a certain amount of prayer each day, that is compulsory. That is absolutely wrong and discriminates against atheists, there should be a choice. If schools were forced to teach about santa claus people wouldn't allow that, and to certain people teaching about a man in the sky is the same as teaching about a man in Lapland. Neither is real, and neither is an effective use of time that would be better spent learning Maths or English or modern languages.
IMHO, all schools should be secular, the same as all governments. There is plenty of time to teach a child about your religion when they are at home. I don't mind Religious Education classes, but they should be done from an objective viewpoint, not preferring one over the other, this did not happen when I was at school, and I doubt it happens now.
dæl wrote:Children in primary school are forced to engage in a certain amount of prayer each day, that is compulsory. That is absolutely wrong and discriminates against atheists, there should be a choice.
Children only have to engage in compulsory prayer each day if their parents sent them to a faith school.
In a secular school there is a secular assembly, this does not necessarily involve prayer of any kind, and that parayer it does is multi faith and indicative of how or why people pray rather than propogating one world view in favour of another..
Take for example July's curriculum for secular primary school assemblies
Didn't we have a lovely time: A seaside celebration Celebrates the experience of a day at the seaside.
Giving up your place An Olympic-themed assembly that looks at how sacrifice is better than winning.
Keep going like Billy and Wilma An Olympic-themed assembly that seeks to inspire pupils to have courage despite obstacles.
The martyrdom of the Bab (9 July 2012) Looks at faith in the context of the Baha’i religion. (This assembly is taken from an assembly taken from Primary Schools Assemblies for Religious Festivals, edited by Ronni Lamont (SPCK, August 2012).)
Ramadan (20 July to 18 August 2012) Considers how denying ourselves something we crave teaches us self-control and makes us more grateful for those things we take for granted. (This assembly is taken from Primary Schools Assemblies for Religious Festivals, edited by Ronni Lamont (SPCK, August 2012).)
Ignatius of Loyola (Feast day 31 July) Reflects on the life and ministry of Ignatius of Loyola, the founder of the Roman Catholic Jesuit movement. (This assembly is taken from Primary Schools Assemblies for Religious Festivals, edited by Ronni Lamont (SPCK, August 2012).
Laughter is the best medicine: A leavers' assembly Considers facing new challenges with laughter
Team challenge: The London 2012 50p Sports Collection An Olympic-themed assembly that affirms and encourages teamwork.
Now teaching children about three different mutually exclusive religions is counterproductive if the idea is to indoctrinate them, but helpful if the goal is to educate them so that faith systems are not alien to them.
This is not to say that dogma isn't introduced by dogmatised teachers, thats a problem nowadays, but the assembly system as intended breaks down boundaries rather than constructs them.
dæl wrote:IMHO, all schools should be secular, the same as all governments.
The abolition of faith schooling prevents the parent from choosing the culture into which they wish their family values to be reinforced from. As parents have jobs to go to a large percenrtage of a chids time is outside of their purview. Children need role models and religious families have every right to consider that protecting their own ethical standard by reinforcing it in the school culture is acceptable.
Besides one of the reasons behind the success of faith schools is what they stand for and how that affects the learning environment.
dæl wrote:Children in primary school are forced to engage in a certain amount of prayer each day, that is compulsory
In what country mate?
Not the UK right? I don't remember any of that gak in primary school anyway!
A friend of mine is training to be a primary school teacher, she is more pissed off about this than anything else.
@Orlanth You argue we must teach religion because it promotes integration, then argue that we should segregate children based on their parents religion.
Now I'm all up for Catholic School Girls to carry on, purely for the selfish reasons that Frank Zappa noted, although any leaving school now would be a bit young. But I do think there would be considerably less intolerance if people were forced to integrate with people they wouldn't normally do so with.
Orlanth wrote:The difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal is the number of steps between the observer and the one proporting the evidence. This assumes unfairly that people of faith do not see the evidence for themselves, when indeed many can and do. Its also unfairly delimits the value of a religious testimony compared to other. If one noticed a chimpanzee making a specific tool not previously seen is that anecdotal or empirical evidence? It might be claimed to vbe empirical evidence depending on who did the observation.
There is plenty of evidence for the charismata for example, but if you don't want to believe that then no matter how much evidence is presented it will be flatly rejected as hearsay. Again I argue that the rejection or acceptance of said evidence as one whims is due to the faith based nature of our study of the religious.
Most people looking at a religious topic have already found their conclusion before seeing any evidence, because that is their preferred personal choice.
Well, that's all remarkably incorrect. There is, full stop, no verifiable evidence for supernatural phenomena. We can, on the other hand, rather easily verify that a chimpanzee uses said tool for whatever task.
Read previous posts and the links provided.
The atheist fundamentalism is plain to see.
If you still cant find it ask yourself this:
If you edited the Atheist Uk website and replaced the titular references to atheism with Islam, and edited their issue to remove through modifying the education system the 'lie that God exists' with 'rejection of Allah' you would see the threat and it would be clearly definable as Islamic fundamentalist extremism.
So, in other words, if I completely changed the message, it would be Islamic fundamentalism? Sure, I'll agree to that.
You are confusing atheism with anti-theism. You really need to stop.
Removing other religious choices through force or pressure is what fundamentalist extremists do, people are best and most clearly defined by their actions and their desires. If some atheist groups adopt this strategy they should not evade the classification as fundamentalist extremists or scrutiny against extremism that to due to protect the public.
The problem for you is, you have shown zero evidence of atheists anywhere attempting to remove an individual's ability to choose freely their religion. You have certainly shown evidence of a small group of atheists attempting to have the teaching of religion removed from schools, but that no more impugns on your freedom of religion than removing beer from campuses impugns on your freedom to drink.
Orlanth wrote:
Sometimes it helps to look at the problem through mature eyes able to see how a subject is approached in a detached way. Learning about Islam in schools doesnt necessary mean 'pandering' or 'cultural dilution', it merely means education. No dogma need not be attached to it, but I should not be surprised if you couldn't distinguish between education on a subject and emotive involvement.
Well, if PC dogma is a thing, then any approach to a topic has to be predicated on dogma, it would simply be one which you find acceptable. For example: "Learning about religion is good." or "Learning is good."
Either way, I'm not seeing emotive involvement as being a necessary issue of "PC dogma" (should it exist). If doing something, say sending soldiers to career day, is feared as it may offend people, and people really are likely to be offended, it doesn't seem to be a uniquely emotive response to not allow soldiers at career day. Hell, one could argue that ignoring the potential for offense is simple nationalism or patriotism and, as Sean Connery told us all, that is the virtue of the vicious.
Orlanth wrote:
The difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal is the number of steps between the observer and the one proporting the evidence.
In this context, no. Empirical evidence, as relevant to the sciences, requires not only derivation from observation, but reproducibility.
Of course, there's always Kuhn, but that only matters in terms of interpretation.
Orlanth wrote:
If one noticed a chimpanzee making a specific tool not previously seen is that anecdotal or empirical evidence? It might be claimed to vbe empirical evidence depending on who did the observation.
Anecdotal. And it would be treated as such by all reputable scientists.
Seaward wrote:
You are confusing atheism with anti-theism. You really need to stop. .
He can't. Its what he really believes, right or wrong (wrong).
Orlanth wrote:Faith itself need not be blind either. Evidence is there, even if proof is withheld.
No, it isn't. Not of the empirical sort. Anecdotal, perhaps.
The difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal is the number of steps between the observer and the one proporting the evidence. This assumes unfairly that people of faith do not see the evidence for themselves, when indeed many can and do. Its also unfairly delimits the value of a religious testimony compared to other. If one noticed a chimpanzee making a specific tool not previously seen is that anecdotal or empirical evidence? It might be claimed to vbe empirical evidence depending on who did the observation.
There is plenty of evidence for the charismata for example, but if you don't want to believe that then no matter how much evidence is presented it will be flatly rejected as hearsay. Again I argue that the rejection or acceptance of said evidence as one whims is due to the faith based nature of our study of the religious.
Most people looking at a religious topic have already found their conclusion before seeing any evidence, because that is their preferred personal choice.
Speak for yourself, that might be what you're doing, but please stop projecting your ideas onto most people.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empirical_research 1 Observation: The collecting and organisation of empirical facts; Forming hypothesis.
2 Induction: Formulating hypothesis.
3 Deduction: Deducting consequences of hypothesis as testable predictions.
4 Testing: Testing the hypothesis with new empirical material.
5 Evaluation: Evaluating the outcome of testing or else
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anecdotal_evidence In science, anecdotal evidence has been defined as:
"information that is not based on facts or careful study"
"reports or observations of usually unscientific observers"
"casual observations or indications rather than rigorous or scientific analysis"
"information passed along by word-of-mouth but not documented scientifically"
so your statement of "The difference between empirical evidence and anecdotal is the number of steps between the observer and the one proporting the evidence" is completely wrong. the difference between the two is testing. Its not based on whims, its based on what you can predict, test, and evaluate. And if you can prove it, other people should be able to do the same test and get the same results. This is where the religious claims for god fail, just because 1 person survives a plane crash is not proof of any gods. Now if that same person survives 10 or more plane crashes you might be onto something. But then we'd get into if there is a god, well what god is it? there's over 2,000 to choose from. And what would that prove anyways, god likes that one person, but damn the other passengers of those 10 crashes. Or just if he's on the plane, be sure to get off it as quick as possible? I'd bet if we studied that one person, we could find out scientifically how he survives all those crashes with a natural explanation.
I've asked for evidence many times in these topics, and have never been provided any. I asked you early in this thread as well and was likewise not provided any. You claim god exists, now please formulate your hypothesis, make predictions based on it, test it, then let others evaluate and re do your tests. If your claim can pass the scientific process it could one day become a theory based on the amount of data you have to support your hypothesis.
If you can prove a god exists, then prove it is your god, I would look at your evidence then make a knowledge based decision on if I should join your religion or not. til then I don't accept any claims a god exists without proof, and that does not magically put me into some other religion or world wide organization. See, speaking for myself with no appeals to authority.
MrDwhitey wrote:We did the lords prayer in primary school at every assembly. That was what, 15 years ago?
Oh gak yeah!
I remember now.. I think every Friday we y did it. I recall having "Hymn practice" once a week too. My missus thinks its funny I know all the words to the songs.
I like all the hymns though, I never really equated them to God or anything, I just liked the singing bit, and one of our teachers was the gak on the piano!
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dæl wrote:
A friend of mine is training to be a primary school teacher, she is more pissed off about this than anything else.
Aye funny that, I figured we would have moved on a little by now... the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Hah! I didn't go to a convent, It was a normal C of E primary school, the funny thing about the UK is we still have separate ones for Catholics, I remember because mine was called "Chandlers Ridge" and the other Primary School a mile down the road was a Catholic one called Saint Bernadette's.
Maybe its all changed these days.. I think I'm getting old.
Its funny though, I always mock my missus about America being super Religious, but she doesn't know any hymns!
My old man always told me that services are a performance first and foremost. Maybe that's why I am the way I am? No matter, I'd go to that service just to listen.
First of all, faith and reason don't go well together by definition. Faith is believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, whilst Atheism UK is rather keen that religion be removed from education, they're not suggesting we go and kill anyone over it, unlike most religious fundamentlists.
Thirdly, all this gak about how faith schools allow parents to bring up their children in their culture is, well, gak. What about the wishes of the children? What if little timmy doesn't want to be a Jew and wants to keep his foreskin? Should he be made to go to a Jewish school anyway?
Squigsquasher wrote:Looking at this thread makes me facepalm.
First of all, faith and reason don't go well together by definition. Faith is believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, whilst Atheism UK is rather keen that religion be removed from education, they're not suggesting we go and kill anyone over it, unlike most religious fundamentlists.
Thirdly, all this gak about how faith schools allow parents to bring up their children in their culture is, well, gak. What about the wishes of the children? What if little timmy doesn't want to be a Jew and wants to keep his foreskin? Should he be made to go to a Jewish school anyway?
A court ruling in part of Germany has actually gone on with the aim delaying the act of circumcision until the child can consent.
Squigsquasher wrote:Looking at this thread makes me facepalm.
First of all, faith and reason don't go well together by definition. Faith is believing in something despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Secondly, whilst Atheism UK is rather keen that religion be removed from education, they're not suggesting we go and kill anyone over it, unlike most religious fundamentlists.
Thirdly, all this gak about how faith schools allow parents to bring up their children in their culture is, well, gak. What about the wishes of the children? What if little timmy doesn't want to be a Jew and wants to keep his foreskin? Should he be made to go to a Jewish school anyway?
Apparently Germany may be banning circumcision for non medical reasons (aka, "we want him circumcised just because we can" or "we want him circumcised because we're religious") until the person being circumcised is old enough to be able to choose for themselves if they want it. This is thirdhand info though.
That kind of attitude really pisses me off. Suggesting someone's wishes aren't relevant just because they're below a certain age, especially with regards to things such as religion or circumcision is absurd. If a child doesn't want the end of their penis shorn off, it doesn't seem right to ignore them or tell them it has to happen because "god says so". Let the kids decide for themselves if they believe in god or not.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Also, I'm confused. I am saying it is good that children can't be circumcised without their permission for non medical purposes. How is that gak feth tons of pain? Or did you misunderstand?
Squigsquasher wrote:That kind of attitude really pisses me off. Suggesting someone's wishes aren't relevant just because they're below a certain age, especially with regards to things such as religion or circumcision is absurd.
If it makes you feel better, I think the wishes of most people are irrelevant.
And no, it isn't absurd. Kids are dumb, it is a fact of being a kid. Would you consider a desire for 50 lbs of candy relevant if it came from a 5 year old?
Squigsquasher wrote:
If a child doesn't want the end of their penis shorn off...
Not what circumcision is.
Squigsquasher wrote:
...it doesn't seem right to ignore them or tell them it has to happen because "god says so". Let the kids decide for themselves if they believe in god or not.
Whether or not you have foreskin is far from life altering.
Squigsquasher wrote:
Also, I'm confused. I am saying it is good that children can't be circumcised without their permission for non medical purposes. How is that gak feth tons of pain? Or did you misunderstand?
Who would consent to a scalpel on their penis with the ability to recall it?
Exactly. So maybe the frankly stupid practice of unnecessary circumcision (not counting medically required circumcision obviously) can come to an end. It can cause increased risk of some diseases (I don't know specifically which as I'm not an androcologist) and it also stops one from pleasuring oneself. Todays sexually repressed youths are tommorows rapists.
Take it from someone who knows. it doesn't. As someone who had that operation comparatively late, I can tell you there's no problems in that regard. Also I would recommend it to everyone, if it wasn't so akward a subject. The ladies prefer it, you know, not being served a face full of cheese.
Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
The younger someone is the easier it is to circumcise, the less complications there are and the less trauma it causes a there is no anticipation. Adult circumcision is very painful, which is why it is used as a rite of passage in some tribal societies.
Female cicumcision on the other hand is an abomination.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
The younger someone is the easier it is to circumcise, the less complications there are and the less trauma it causes a there is no anticipation. Adult circumcision is very painful, which is why it is used as a rite of passage in some tribal societies.
Female cicumcision on the other hand is an abomination.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
If it is such a hinderance why is the foreskin there in the first place? It obviously plays some role or evolution would have gotten rid of it and you would have to be a complete minger to let cleanliness become a genuine issue, certainly to the extent that it is more serious than performing amateur surgery on an infant. The only benefit to curcumcison that I am aware of is that it cuts down on HIV transmission (the foreskin has cells with CD4 receptors) but given that HIV is under a century old I don't think that is really relevent.
It is genital mutilation, it is after all removing a part of the penis; it may not be as bad as female curcumcision but lets not mince words.
The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442.[33] According to UNAIDS, it stated that circumcision was unnecessary for Christians;[34] El-Hout and Khauli, however, regard it as condemnation of the procedure.
"In the 1890s, it became a popular technique to prevent, or cure, masturbatory insanity. In 1891 the president of the Royal College of Surgeons of England published On Circumcision as Preventive of Masturbation, and two years later another British doctor wrote Circumcision: Its Advantages and How to Perform It, which listed the reasons for removing the 'vestigial' prepuce. Evidently the foreskin could cause 'nocturnal incontinence,' hysteria, epilepsy, and irritation that might 'give rise to erotic stimulation and, consequently, masturbation.' Another physician, P.C. Remondino, added that 'circumcision is like a substantial and well-secured life annuity...it insures better health, greater capacity for labor, longer life, less nervousness, sickness, loss of time, and less doctor bills.' No wonder it became a popular remedy."
http://familydoctor.org/familydoctor/en/pregnancy-newborns/caring-for-newborns/infant-care/circumcision.html Are there any benefits from circumcision?
Studies about the benefits of circumcision have provided conflicting results. Some studies show certain benefits, while other studies do not. The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision are not significant enough to recommend circumcision as a routine procedure and that circumcision is not medically necessary. The American Academy of Family Physicians believes parents should discuss with their son's doctor the potential benefits and the risks involved when making their decision.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
If it is such a hinderance why is the foreskin there in the first place? It obviously plays some role or evolution would have gotten rid of it and you would have to be a complete minger to let cleanliness become a genuine issue, certainly to the extent that it is more serious than performing amateur surgery on an infant. The only benefit to curcumcison that I am aware of is that it cuts down on HIV transmission (the foreskin has cells with CD4 receptors) but given that HIV is under a century old I don't think that is really relevent.
It is genital mutilation, it is after all removing a part of the penis; it may not be as bad as female curcumcision but lets not mince words.
The development of foreskin in evolution has only theoretical basis in actual function. The most likely reason for it's development is the Mrs. chimps found it more attractive.
Orlanth wrote:
Female cicumcision on the other hand is an abomination.
genital mutilation-
yet another wonderful gift from religion, the gift that just keeps on giving.
ftfy
I gratefully accept your fixing in this instance, I dont save all of my ire for Islam as you are well aware..
What I never figured out was, if so many people think getting rid of the foreskin is a good idea, and they think God made us.. then why did God give us a foreskin?
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
If it is such a hinderance why is the foreskin there in the first place? It obviously plays some role or evolution would have gotten rid of it
Like evolution got rid of the appendix.
The appendix is a special case, it can't get any smaller without significantly increasing the risk of appendicitis so we are basically stuck with it. It is also not totally useless as it helps prime the immune system during childhood.
Orlanth wrote:
Female cicumcision on the other hand is an abomination.
genital mutilation-
yet another wonderful gift from religion, the gift that just keeps on giving.
ftfy
I gratefully accept your fixing in this instance, I dont save all of my ire for Islam as you are well aware..
What I never figured out was, if so many people think getting rid of the foreskin is a good idea, and they think God made us.. then why did God give us a foreskin?
That's a pretty good one, I shall file it with "If God made Eve out of Adam, why do men have nipples?"
Orlanth wrote:
Female cicumcision on the other hand is an abomination.
genital mutilation-
yet another wonderful gift from religion, the gift that just keeps on giving.
ftfy
I gratefully accept your fixing in this instance, I dont save all of my ire for Islam as you are well aware..
What I never figured out was, if so many people think getting rid of the foreskin is a good idea, and they think God made us.. then why did God give us a foreskin?
Well God as he exists in jewish literature is a total douche who does everything to inconvenience the human race he can. So it makes complete sense.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
If it is such a hinderance why is the foreskin there in the first place? It obviously plays some role or evolution would have gotten rid of it and you would have to be a complete minger to let cleanliness become a genuine issue, certainly to the extent that it is more serious than performing amateur surgery on an infant. The only benefit to curcumcison that I am aware of is that it cuts down on HIV transmission (the foreskin has cells with CD4 receptors) but given that HIV is under a century old I don't think that is really relevent.
It is genital mutilation, it is after all removing a part of the penis; it may not be as bad as female curcumcision but lets not mince words.
The development of foreskin in evolution has only theoretical basis in actual function. The most likely reason for it's development is the Mrs. chimps found it more attractive.
The fact that it is there strongly suggests that it has a function, the most obvious reason would be to physically protect the glans.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
If it is such a hinderance why is the foreskin there in the first place? It obviously plays some role or evolution would have gotten rid of it and you would have to be a complete minger to let cleanliness become a genuine issue, certainly to the extent that it is more serious than performing amateur surgery on an infant. The only benefit to curcumcison that I am aware of is that it cuts down on HIV transmission (the foreskin has cells with CD4 receptors) but given that HIV is under a century old I don't think that is really relevent.
It is genital mutilation, it is after all removing a part of the penis; it may not be as bad as female curcumcision but lets not mince words.
The development of foreskin in evolution has only theoretical basis in actual function. The most likely reason for it's development is the Mrs. chimps found it more attractive.
The fact that it is there strongly suggests that it has a function, the most obvious reason would be to physically protect the glans.
Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.
Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.
Given that the foreskin essentially disappears during an erection its not likely to play much of a role in courtship.
Its there and it does no harm, therefore curcumcision is unnecessary surgery. You may as well start lopping off earlobes.
As others have said, it aids cleanliness. Some men who have foreskin and think they clean down there properly may as well be calling their rectums clean really.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages. This is why the biblical law was introduced.
The Catholic Church condemned the observance of circumcision as a mortal sin and ordered against its practice in the Council of Basel-Florence in 1442.[33] According to UNAIDS, it stated that circumcision was unnecessary for Christians;[34] El-Hout and Khauli, however, regard it as condemnation of the procedure.
What happened in 1442 is not really relevant to the modern day. At the time Catholicism wanted to further distance itself from other Abrahmaic religions like Judaism and Islam both of which practice circumcision.
By declaring circumcision unholy it was a short cut to declaring Jews unholy(unholier than before), its good political copy.
Biblically there is no condemnation of circumcision. The Bible presents the opinion that Christians can practice it, but if they do so they ought to practice Judaic law. Circumcision is an issue clearly dicussed in the New Testament and has clear Biblical principles preattached (1 Corinthians 7:17-20, Galationa 6:11-16) especially note Galatians 6:15 For in Christ Jesus neither circumcision nor uncircumcision avails anything, but a new creation. The Council of Basel-Florence in 1442 should be considered a political event not a religious one, there is no scriptural basis for its findings whatsoever and it directly defied Biblical teaching for political ends.
sirlynchmob wrote:
Are there any benefits from circumcision?
Plenty.
1. Because the skin is exceptionally thin under the foreskin the risk of disease transmission is much higher through unprotected sex.
2. Circumcision is an aid to genital cleanliness.
Both of these are reasons why circumcision was practiced in the ancient world, STI's are better protected by condoms and male genital cleanliness requires soap and water and a little diligence.
Like I said. There is no evidence that that is true. And aesthetic appearance plays a huge role in evolution.
Given that the foreskin essentially disappears during an erection its not likely to play much of a role in courtship.
Its there and it does no harm, therefore curcumcision is unnecessary surgery. You may as well start lopping off earlobes.
As others have said, it aids cleanliness. Some men who have foreskin and think they clean down there properly may as well be calling their rectums clean really.
It's more comparable to removing an appendix.
Don't be ridiculous, an appendectomy is major abdominal surgery and is life saving. Curcumcison is removing some peripheral skin and is done for religious reasons with only some vague muttering that it is healthier. It is unnecessary surgery in almost all cases, even worse it is unnecessary surgery on infants.
Its not hard to clean the penis to an acceptable level, seriously. Masterbation is also a pretty good way of 'cleaning' the penis, maybe thats why it evolved
sirlynchmob wrote:
Are there any benefits from circumcision?
Plenty.
1. Because the skin is exceptionally thin under the foreskin the risk of disease transmission is much higher through unprotected sex.
2. Circumcision is an aid to genital cleanliness.
Both of these are reasons why circumcision was practiced in the ancient world, STI's are better protected by condoms and male genital cleanliness requires soap and water and a little diligence.
A complete removal of the skin covering the shaft of the penis, causing the penis to appear to have been completely surgically removed.
Too much bleeding. Stitches may be needed to stop the bleeding.
Serious, life-threatening bacterial infection.
Partial or full removal (amputation) of the tip of the penis. (This is extremely rare.)
So for something that is really just cosmetic surgery, you're risking having it amputated or a 1 in 500,000 chance of your son dying.
Don't be ridiculous, an appendectomy is major abdominal surgery and is life saving. Curcumcison is removing some peripheral skin and is done for religious reasons with only some vague muttering that it is healthier. It is unnecessary surgery in almost all cases, even worse it is unnecessary surgery on infants.
Its not hard to clean the penis to an acceptable level, seriously.
Removing the appendix as a preventative measure to deny the chance of getting appendicitis is certainly comparable to removing the foreskin, which can prevent diseases also.
It only takes common sense to know you can clean the chassis better when you take body work off.
Palindrome wrote: Masterbation is also a pretty good way of 'cleaning' the penis, maybe thats why it evolved
And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.
it was working a minute ago. Basically its for a couple of developmental defects and extremely severe balanitis (but that takes a lot of soap dodging).
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glorioski wrote:Removing the appendix as a preventative measure to deny the chance of getting appendicitis is certainly comparable to removing the foreskin, which can prevent diseases also.
It only takes common sense to know you can clean the chassis better when you take body work off.
Its nothing of the sort. Seriously. Elective appendectomies are not performed anymore anyway.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Glorioski wrote:
And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.
Ah that forum favourite, the personal attack, has reared its overly familar head.
Palindrome wrote:Its nothing of the sort. Seriously. Elective appendectomies are not performed anymore anyway.
Neither is removing ear lobes to my knowledge. The procedure you stated was more comparable.
Palindrome wrote:
Glorioski wrote:
And this is why Mrs Palindrome is such a lucky girl.
Ah that forum favourite, the personal attack, has reared its overly familar head.
Wasn't really an attack. It's a fairly relevant piece of information when someone who thinks masturbation is a good way of cleaning behind their foreskin denounces circumcision as pointless.
Glorioski wrote:. It's a fairly relevant piece of information when someone who thinks masturbation is a good way of cleaning behind their foreskin denounces circumcision as pointless.
Heh, masturbation is a really good way of mechanically removing dead skin and debris, exactly the kind of thing that would lead to infections. Perhaps you should think things through before denouncing me.
Removing earlobes is on exactly the same medical footing, or as near as damn it, to removing foreskins. Appendectomies are life saving, curcumcisions aren't.
As we appear to have reached that fluffy pink level that these threads always seem to degenerate to its time for me to do something else; perhaps talk to my sexually frustrated wife about why my son has red hair?
Mannahnin wrote:The same faith of believing that the Earth will still be there beneath your feet between one step and the next.
I think we've all been at the point in our lives, where that faith was tested. In those situations I find it best to lay down and hold onto the ground for dear life.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ahtman wrote:
Palindrome wrote:Whhat are you trying to say then? Science does not work on blind faith.
And yet you can still be blinded by science.
Only if you can smell the chemicals.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
mattyrm wrote:
dæl wrote:Children in primary school are forced to engage in a certain amount of prayer each day, that is compulsory
In what country mate?
Not the UK right? I don't remember any of that gak in primary school anyway!
Actually I've found from personal polling there's a lot of prayer right before pop quizzes...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Seaward wrote:
mattyrm wrote: Its funny though, I always mock my missus about America being super Religious, but she doesn't know any hymns!
American religiosity is really more of the, "Do as I say, not as I do," variety.
No.
I don't want you to do as I say. I just want you to stay the hell off my lawn.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
dogma wrote:I've been circumcised, and I assure that pleasuring myself has never been a problem.
Orlanth wrote:Male circumcision is helpful, its aids cleanliness and has other health advantages.
That statement is about 30 years behind the medical studies. There's no difference in health standards between circumcised and not, as either way a basic level of cleaning is needed, and the cheese that is more likely to build up is anti-bacterial anyway.
Doctors now will tell you do or don't for cultural or personal reasons, it doesn't really mean anything medically. Except for the very small number of cases where a foreskin might cause problems, obviously.
Ma55ter_fett wrote:I've always wondered about people who say that intercourse is more pleasureable if you still have your foreskin.
Do they try it with, and then get operated upon to try it without?
Its a known fact that the head of the penis gets desensitized when it doesn't have the foreskin to protect it. An uncircumcised person will find it extremely uncomfortable to the point of actually being painful if the head of the penis is kept in contact with their underwear, for example.
Also, what is so difficult in pulling back your foreskin and actually washing your gland? If people do this every time they shower then there really shouldn't be any issue of cleanliness. Provided that people shower at least once a day that is, but if people don't shower regularly I'm guessing having foreskin or not is the least of their problems...
IF you read the materials you would know it is people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference, but that those who had it done as a child report no such issues. So the question then remains whether it is the surgery, or the timing of the surgery, or some psychological factor, or a combination of them. We don't have an absolute answer to that question, and those who say we do just have an axe to grind. We know the medical reasons aren't quite once what was thought, as sebster pointed out above, but saying that we absolutely know that a circumcised man can't, or doesn't, enjoy sex as much as an uncircumcised one is silly.
Ahtman wrote:
IF you read the materials you would know it is people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference, but that those who had it done as a child report no such issues. So the question then remains whether it is the surgery, or the timing of the surgery, or some psychological factor, or a combination of them. We don't have an absolute answer to that question, and those who say we do just have an axe to grind. We know the medical reasons aren't quite once what was thought, as sebster pointed out above, but saying that we absolutely know that a circumcised man can't, or doesn't, enjoy sex as much as an uncircumcised one is silly.
You said it yourself: "people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference", of course people that were circumcised as a child didn't note a difference, they are babies, they don't even remember the procedure let alone if they had more or less sensitivity in their glands before it, they have no frame for comparison!
Why is it silly if the reports say otherwise? Because you say so?
Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure carried out for psychological and social reasons.
There isn't any reliable medical evidence that it promotes or degrades penile health. That's based on millions of men in dozens of countries with different customs in the area.
Simple: A glans with circumcision is dry. The foreskin evolved exactly for this purpose: to keep the glans wet and sensitive. The glans skin is a membrane and like any membrane, when it's dry it loses sensitivity as the nervous terminations can no longer work.
Simple: A glans with circumcision is dry. The foreskin evolved exactly for this purpose: to keep the glans wet and sensitive. The glans skin is a membrane and like any membrane, when it's dry it loses sensitivity as the nervous terminations can no longer work.
This is comical.
Indeed, If that was true and your wang was way more sensitive if you were uncircumcised, then my missus wouldn't routinely complain about my crude and pathetic performances in the sack, culminating in me ejaculating far too early and going to sleep only moments after starting.
On a serious note, she also said that most Americans are circumcised for no reason at all?
I am, but only cos I went for a piss when I was about 6 and it hurt, so they took it off for some sorta medical reason. I remember walking around the hospital as a kid trying not to brush my bell-end against the front of my dressing gown for a few days.
I am aware were hugely OT, but if that is true, why the feth is that the case?! In the UK If people aren't doing it for a medical reason, I reckon 99% of blokes come as nature intended!
Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said
PhantomViper wrote:You said it yourself: "people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference", of course people that were circumcised as a child didn't note a difference, they are babies, they don't even remember the procedure let alone if they had more or less sensitivity in their glands before it, they have no frame for comparison!
You are making an assumption that those who where circumcised as infants have just adjusted but don't truly have the same sensation, but you have no medical proof to back that up. Anyone who has surgery later in life notices a difference, so there isn't necessarily anything to say this is somehow a special case. Outside of that we don't have evidence that circumcised men don't enjoy sex just as much as uncircumcised, but do have studies that say that they do.
It isn't because I say so, but because science doesn't work by filling in the blanks with what you want. I'm not pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision, but I am against calling an assumption is a fact.
That link doesn't exactly strike me as The NEJM or OJM, and the language used seems questionable as well. For example, referring to circumcision as only done to control a boy's sexual sensitivity because of personal bias. That isn't medical language.
SilverMK2 wrote:Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said
mattyrm wrote: On a serious note, she also said that most Americans are circumcised for no reason at all?
I think tha last number I saw was something like 56%, but it wasn't for no reason at all. Much of it was from the idea that it was healthier to do so. There are some benifits, but it was considered much greater at the time. We are finding out new things all the time though.
I think KK has cut to the meat of the issue though with "Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure carried out for psychological and social reasons."
PhantomViper wrote:You said it yourself: "people who have surgery on their penis later in life that notice a difference", of course people that were circumcised as a child didn't note a difference, they are babies, they don't even remember the procedure let alone if they had more or less sensitivity in their glands before it, they have no frame for comparison!
You are making an assumption that those who where circumcised as infants have just adjusted but don't truly have the same sensation, but you have no medical proof to back that up. Anyone who has surgery later in life notices a difference, so there isn't necessarily anything to say this is somehow a special case. Outside of that we don't have evidence that circumcised men don't enjoy sex just as much as uncircumcised, but do have studies that say that they do.
It isn't because I say so, but because science doesn't work by filling in the blanks with what you want. I'm not pro-circumcision or anti-circumcision, but I am against calling an assumption is a fact.
That link doesn't exactly strike me as The NEJM or OJM, and the language used seems questionable as well. For example, referring to circumcision as only done to control a boy's sexual sensitivity because of personal bias. That isn't medical language.
The linked referenced a study done by the British Journal of Urology International, while the article posts some questionably biased language, the study that they reference was what I was trying to get at. If you prefer, you also have this paper:
That is a "Humanities and Social Sciences" piece, not a Medical piece, and while interesting, has all the medical weight of Freud saying "It's always your mother". The idea that all circumcised men are lying about being fine and many of them having PTSD strikes me as odd. Sort of a 'when did you stop beating your wife' sort of dichotomy. If you say that you suffered trauma from an event when you an infant you are in touch with your feelings, but if you don't then you are in denial about it.
mattyrm wrote:
There must be foreskins floating all over the fething place Stateside!
A man walked down a street in a Jewish part of town, window shopping, he came to the first shop, through the window he saw racks of lamb, it was of course a kosher butcher, but he didnt need to buy any meat that day. So he went to the next shop, in the window he saw hand crafted shoes, a shoemaker, but he didnt want to buy shoes that day. So he went along to the next shop, in the window were clocks, lots of clocks; wall clocks, tower clocks, mantlepiece clocks, cuckoo clocks, all hand made by skilled craftsmen. He always wanted a clock so in he went.
"How much for one of your cuckoo clocks?", he said to the man behind a desk in the shop front.
"I am sorry, but the clocks are not for sale", was the reply.
'Hold on, why are there all these clocks in the window if they are not for sale?", he asked with a confused expression.
The man behind the desk sighed and said, "I am the local circumcist, what else should I put in my office window."
SilverMK2 wrote:Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said
mattyrm wrote:
There must be foreskins floating all over the fething place Stateside!
A man walked down a street in a Jewish part of town, window shopping, he came to the first shop, through the window he saw racks of lamb, it was of course a kosher butcher, but he didnt need to buy any meat that day. So he went to the next shop, in the window he saw hand crafted shoes, a shoemaker, but he didnt want to buy shoes that day. So he went along to the next shop, in the window were clocks, lots of clocks; wall clocks, tower clocks, mantlepiece clocks, cuckoo clocks, all hand made by skilled craftsmen. He always wanted a clock so in he went.
"How much for one of your cuckoo clocks?", he said to the man behind a desk in the shop front.
"I am sorry, but the clocks are not for sale", was the reply.
'Hold on, why are there all these clocks in the window if they are not for sale?", he asked with a confused expression.
The man behind the desk sighed and said, "I am the local circumcist, what else should I put in my office window."
In a Jewish area they wouldn't be called a circumcist, but a moile, and you forgot the set up, which is that the man had a broken clock, or watch depending on version of the joke, that he wanted repaired.
SilverMK2 wrote:Someone I spoke with a while ago said that in hospitals around where they lived in the US you had to specify you did not want parts of your new son lopped off as the assumption was that you did - doesn't sound right to me, but that is what they said
I think KK has cut to the meat of the issue though with "Circumcision is essentially a cosmetic procedure carried out for psychological and social reasons."
Hey it was cutting to the meat that started this whole fething conversation!
mattyrm wrote:
There must be foreskins floating all over the fething place Stateside!
A man walked down a street in a Jewish part of town, window shopping, he came to the first shop, through the window he saw racks of lamb, it was of course a kosher butcher, but he didnt need to buy any meat that day. So he went to the next shop, in the window he saw hand crafted shoes, a shoemaker, but he didnt want to buy shoes that day. So he went along to the next shop, in the window were clocks, lots of clocks; wall clocks, tower clocks, mantlepiece clocks, cuckoo clocks, all hand made by skilled craftsmen. He always wanted a clock so in he went.
"How much for one of your cuckoo clocks?", he said to the man behind a desk in the shop front.
"I am sorry, but the clocks are not for sale", was the reply.
'Hold on, why are there all these clocks in the window if they are not for sale?", he asked with a confused expression.
The man behind the desk sighed and said, "I am the local circumcist, what else should I put in my office window."
In a Jewish area they wouldn't be called a circumcist, but a moile, and you forgot the set up, which is that the man had a broken clock, or watch depending on version of the joke, that he wanted repaired.
Kilkrazy wrote:Check the charts. If 90% of non-Jewish, non-Muslim men in some US states are circumcised, it is pretty much the default choice in those states.
Sorry, I meant to say that the doctors would circumcise babies "automatically" unless the parents said otherwise - that was what I was told and what I didn't think was accurate.
Yeah, in most of the US that was the default until relatively recently. It was believed to be healthier/more hygienic, and more attractive. It's really in the last decade or so that I've seen more public debate and discussion about it and more parents opting out.
Kilkrazy wrote:Check the charts. If 90% of non-Jewish, non-Muslim men in some US states are circumcised, it is pretty much the default choice in those states.
Sorry, I meant to say that the doctors would circumcise babies "automatically" unless the parents said otherwise - that was what I was told and what I didn't think was accurate.
well as of 4 years ago, my doctor was against it, but in the end it is the parents decision in the states. Parents have to sign and give permission for any medical procedure. I applaud Germany for taking the stance that they did. There is no benefit to it, and grave consequences should it go bad.
Kilkrazy wrote:Check the charts. If 90% of non-Jewish, non-Muslim men in some US states are circumcised, it is pretty much the default choice in those states.
Sorry, I meant to say that the doctors would circumcise babies "automatically" unless the parents said otherwise - that was what I was told and what I didn't think was accurate.
well as of 4 years ago, my doctor was against it, but in the end it is the parents decision in the states. Parents have to sign and give permission for any medical procedure. I applaud Germany for taking the stance that they did. There is no benefit to it, and grave consequences should it go bad.
Quite of my three brothers 2 had botched circumcisions. One wasn't so bad (relatively) the other required a specialist.
I am generally against it for this reason and should I have sons I will not have them circumcised.
On a serious note, she also said that most Americans are circumcised for no reason at all?
Its very common among Christians in the US as a result of the Great Awakening. EDIT: Add in the Fundamentalist Era and the Culture wars. There's a lot of factors into why its so prominent here.
stupid. We get anti-religion threads because idiots like them won't keep their mouths shut.
