Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

ChrisWWII wrote:

DeathReaper wrote:Interesting Discussion, but I have one question:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/

My personal opinion is that although a supreme being(s) exists, said supreme being(s) simply have much more important things to care about than the prayers of some puny little human. Of course, I have no evidence for this position, only my personal beliefs.

God does heal amputees, but believing in something like that is intensely difficult, believing in even curing a cancer or to raising the read is a lot easier frankly.

From what I know there is only one recorded incidence of a limb replacement and that was via a famous 19th century evangelist called Smith Wigglesworth.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
Religion deals with the supernatural world. Church is the place to be taught your own religion.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world. Science classes are the place to be taught science.

I would heartily agree, but can you keep atheism from the science classrooms? even commentaries as slender as 'evolution is not a religious subject, it makes no statement on religious beliefs for or against the existence of divine beings or passes comment whether divine beings have control over the universe.'

This is fair non-faith specific and not focused on any one faith or faith groupings. I can bet atheists would holler blue murder in the states over it because lawyers can argue even that comment is inherently 'religious'.

It seems to me that you are wildly speculating in order to build a case for the inclusion of religion in schools.

The only reason that people make statements like 'evolution is not a religious subject, it makes no statement on religious beliefs for or against the existence of divine beings or passes comment whether divine beings have control over the universe', is because religious people keep trying to force religion into the science classroom in the guide of Intelligent Design, on the basis that it should be taught alongside evolution as a scientific theory.

The quotation is not an atheist statement anyway. Comment is not inherently religious.

I don't remember any of my science teachers at school or university bringing religion or atheism into the discussion.

I can't see how either subject has any relation to Newton's Laws, the Doppler Effect, polymerisation of nylon, statistical studies of cohorts, Bayesian Probability, or the anatomy of elasmobranch fishes.

At any rate, there are lots of faith schools in the UK, supported by the government.

The USA is notoriously religious, despite the exclusion of religion from its public schools.

I don't think religious people should be worried that their cause is being trodden down by indoctrination of children.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Still, it's really fun to stand in the middle of a group of people yelling "you're going to hell" in a megaphone with a sign that says "nah, he's just kidding" while giving people hugs and candy Counter-protests ftw!

You'd need a sign to acvoid police charges of molestation I'd proffer a nice counter sign
"He's full of it. God Love's you. Here have a cookie."

Kilkrazy wrote:It seems to me that you are wildly speculating in order to build a case for the inclusion of religion in schools.

Its not wild at all mate, just because you dont like what I say doesnt mean it it. I gave good reasons and those reasons hold water.

Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA is notoriously religious, despite the exclusion of religion from its public schools.

and you fail to see the connection right in front of your face.


Why do people become Westboro Baptists? Its teachings are diametrically opposed to a lot of what Christianity stands for, the only way you can become one is if you had a sinister agenda - which can account for some - or you had no religious education and fell for vile lies. In all likelihood these lies are compounded by threats of damnation if you did not agree wholeheartedly with everything Phelps says. Phelps congregation had no knowledge ammo to resist, and once someone is in a cult human nature means its very hard for them to leave.

What are scientilogy critics doing when they speak of Xenu? Scientology critics are not in general out to kill the religion, though this may not account for Anonymous now with the 'never forgive, never forget' message, they are out to expose its teaching so that those in the inside understand. Plenty of ex-scientologists practice in the free zone and continue the moral teachings of their faith, but are now empowered against abuse.

We get cults here, but its nothing like the problem you get in the US, and a lack of knowledge is the principle weakness a cult latches onto, that plus personal vulnerability - which is a universal factor, you will always find societal victims to recruit into cults.

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Still, it's really fun to stand in the middle of a group of people yelling "you're going to hell" in a megaphone with a sign that says "nah, he's just kidding" while giving people hugs and candy Counter-protests ftw!

You'd need a sign to acvoid police charges of molestation I'd proffer a nice counter sign
"He's full of it. God Love's you. Here have a cookie."

I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I'd go with "If God exists, he probably loves you." Actually did the former with some friends in full Gaga garb

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't know about these days, but when I was at school we had Divinity or Religious Education classes. That is the correct place to be taught comparative religion. I remember it being all Christianity actually.

Religion deals with the supernatural world. Church is the place to be taught your own religion.

Science deals with the natural world, not the supernatural world. Science classes are the place to be taught science.

Here's the problem. Evolution/creation is like engine repair/design. Enginer repauir is how it works. Thats evolution and science. Who designed it in the first place? thats the bailiwick of religion. Teach the rules (RAW: evolution) as a process and forget the RAI aspect (why?, what set this up, etc. etc.) as its not needed nor appropriate for a high school class.

I think we've all learned something today, but frankly I don't know what.

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Still, it's really fun to stand in the middle of a group of people yelling "you're going to hell" in a megaphone with a sign that says "nah, he's just kidding" while giving people hugs and candy Counter-protests ftw!

You'd need a sign to acvoid police charges of molestation I'd proffer a nice counter sign
"He's full of it. God Love's you. Here have a cookie."

I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I'd go with "If God exists, he probably loves you." Actually did the former with some friends in full Gaga garb

The trouble with the former it doesn't sound like a counter protest.

If someone came with a megaphone and stood in the middle of a religious group and yelled "you're going to hell" other people won't see a counter demonstration, they will see 'religious fanatics', which would be rather nasty if the religious group was not acting in that fashion. As some people expect churches do exactly that and are disappointed when they don't its not too unlikely a scenario.
I have seen something broadly similar in effect.

I remember discussing God quietly with a friend in a corner table of a cafe, two women came to the next table sat down overheard what we were saying and started yelling, yes yelling, about not wanting to hear our religious crud and made complaint that I was causing a disturbance!

You should have acted like an atheist, shouted "there is no god!" and beat them. After all if its just you and me there is no justice. Just us.

Orlanth wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:
The USA is notoriously religious, despite the exclusion of religion from its public schools.

and you fail to see the connection right in front of your face.


Why do people become Westboro Baptists? Its teachings are diametrically opposed to a lot of what Christianity stands for, the only way you can become one is if you had a sinister agenda - which can account for some - or you had no religious education and fell for vile lies. In all likelihood these lies are compounded by threats of damnation if you did not agree wholeheartedly with everything Phelps says. Phelps congregation had no knowledge ammo to resist, and once someone is in a cult human nature means its very hard for them to leave.

What are scientilogy critics doing when they speak of Xenu? Scientology critics are not in general out to kill the religion, though this may not account for Anonymous now with the 'never forgive, never forget' message, they are out to expose its teaching so that those in the inside understand. Plenty of ex-scientologists practice in the free zone and continue the moral teachings of their faith, but are now empowered against abuse.

We get cults here, but its nothing like the problem you get in the US, and a lack of knowledge is the principle weakness a cult latches onto, that plus personal vulnerability - which is a universal factor, you will always find societal victims to recruit into cults.

The only problem i have with that is Science being replaced with Religion in schools (as in teaching creationism, world is only 6000 years old etc) and while many Christians etc may not believe that it still may be taught in an area where the belief is popular.

The only Religion discussion i would be willing to see in school would be say a "Religious history" or "Religious Study" class with more than just Christianity, the class wouldn't be "say Jesus is your Saviour for an A" it would be a historical discussion of many religions and their origins with a breakdown of their beliefs (main sects of the religion, etc). That class could actually be beneficial to peoples understanding of religion, and wouldn't prefer one over the other or present dogma as fact.

Gibbsey wrote:

The only problem i have with that is Science being replaced with Religion in schools (as in teaching creationism, world is only 6000 years old etc) and while many Christians etc may not believe that it still may be taught in an area where the belief is popular.

The only Religion discussion i would be willing to see in school would be say a "Religious history" or "Religious Study" class with more than just Christianity, the class wouldn't be "say Jesus is your Saviour for an A" it would be a historical discussion of many religions and their origins with a breakdown of their beliefs (main sects of the religion, etc). That class could actually be beneficial to peoples understanding of religion, and wouldn't prefer one over the other or present dogma as fact.

I agree, and already did. I think you must have misread my earlier comments. This is the multi-point perspective mentioned earlier. You take a curricuum of several faiths and explore what they mean, this gives a grounding on the doctrines behind most of the relgions on earth and therefore insight into their societies. Much of the later curriculum would be involved with the history of religion and its social effects.

However at one point the class should be "Jesus is Saviour for an A", as a sub-syllabus on understanding Christianity. "Mohammed is the True prophet" also gets an A in another sub-syllabus in understanding Islam. You see you arent indoctrinating anyone into a relgion because you are teaching a multi point perspective, but teasching each persepctive as real. This is very important as people then get to realise on their own, that they cannot believe everything and thus begin to think for themselves. It also dispels fear of another faith and makes it difficult to dodgy preachers to hoodwink these people into joining an extra sect or sub-group.

The only downside is when joke religions come about and demand equal % time on the syllabus. This can be avoided by explaining that you teach a multi-point religious syllabus based on theri major world religions and all school syllabuses have to select where time is to be allocated. There is still room for flying spaghetti monsters etc later when the syllabus turns from knowledge absorbtion to knowledge assimilation in later years and instead of teaching core religious doctrines you teach understanding of the ramifications of religion in the world at large. Pastafarianism is an example of US law based legal strategy interacting with religion.

rubiksnoob wrote:What I think most people fail to recognize about this whole creationism/ID v. atheism/science arguement is that the most vocal participants are a small minority on BOTH sides.

It isn't all atheists v. a small minority of religious wackoes, and it's not all religious people v. a small minority of rabid atheists.

It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

This I just disagree with. Atheists do not affect laws about gay marriage, liquor on sundays, women's reproductive rights, hair length or beard length, durka, women's literacy, and publicly spout ignorance as fact, affecting all of society's next generation with their delusions. Religious delusionals do not suffer existing in a system based on Atheist restrictions, Atheists suffer existing in a system based on religious delusions though. All a religious person has to say is "I have faith" and he can believe and act on all sorts of nonsense, protected by his right to freedom of religion. And unfortunately, delusional people can vote, hence the bible belt actually being an important political demographic, even when the candidates are sensible people, they still have to give a nod to the megachurches. My Cosmic Killer Whale counter-theory would just end up with being harassed, committed, and called a nutjob by judges who are also part of the religious system.

Oh yeah....
f*ck.

hmm... must be a glitch in my computer, not a puritanical group of uptight people who decide that certain words are naughty, but others, like "KILL" are just fine and acceptable.

Orlanth wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:Still, it's really fun to stand in the middle of a group of people yelling "you're going to hell" in a megaphone with a sign that says "nah, he's just kidding" while giving people hugs and candy Counter-protests ftw!

You'd need a sign to acvoid police charges of molestation I'd proffer a nice counter sign
"He's full of it. God Love's you. Here have a cookie."

I don't want to ruffle any feathers. I'd go with "If God exists, he probably loves you." Actually did the former with some friends in full Gaga garb

The trouble with the former it doesn't sound like a counter protest.

If someone came with a megaphone and stood in the middle of a religious group and yelled "you're going to hell" other people won't see a counter demonstration, they will see 'religious fanatics', which would be rather nasty if the religious group was not acting in that fashion. As some people expect churches do exactly that and are disappointed when they don't its not too unlikely a scenario.
I have seen something broadly similar in effect.

I remember discussing God quietly with a friend in a corner table of a cafe, two women came to the next table sat down overheard what we were saying and started yelling, yes yelling, about not wanting to hear our religious crud and made complaint that I was causing a disturbance!

Confuzzled. I meant that I actually did what I said in my first post, not that I told anyone they were going to hell. There's some nasty "witnesses" in downtown Fort Worth. I've also had several people approach me with religious crap in Starbucks and I usually tell them to kindly feth off (not saying you were doing that, just giving you context).

Guitardian wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:What I think most people fail to recognize about this whole creationism/ID v. atheism/science arguement is that the most vocal participants are a small minority on BOTH sides.

It isn't all atheists v. a small minority of religious wackoes, and it's not all religious people v. a small minority of rabid atheists.

It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

This I just disagree with. Atheists do not affect laws about gay marriage, liquor on sundays, women's reproductive rights, hair length or beard length, durka, women's literacy, and publicly spout ignorance as fact, affecting all of society's next generation with their delusions. Religious delusionals do not suffer existing in a system based on Atheist restrictions, Atheists suffer existing in a system based on religious delusions though. All a religious person has to say is "I have faith" and he can believe and act on all sorts of nonsense, protected by his right to freedom of religion. And unfortunately, delusional people can vote, hence the bible belt actually being an important political demographic, even when the candidates are sensible people, they still have to give a nod to the megachurches. My Cosmic Killer Whale counter-theory would just end up with being harassed, committed, and called a nutjob by judges who are also part of the religious system.

Oh yeah....
f*ck.

hmm... must be a glitch in my computer, not a puritanical group of uptight people who decide that certain words are naughty, but others, like "KILL" are just fine and acceptable.

Guitardian wrote:
This I just disagree with. Atheists do not affect laws about gay marriage, liquor on sundays, women's reproductive rights, hair length or beard length, durka, women's literacy,....

Atheists are not Moslems, we got that bit without your help.

Guitardian wrote:.... and publicly spout ignorance as fact, affecting all of society's next generation with their delusions.

Is there any point in trying to educate you, when you spout such total nonsense and blame the 'religious' as the deluded ones? For a start you blame Islams worst faults on religion in general appealing to having a solution by not being religious, that is inane at best. However before you highlight atheism as a societal solution to religion look up where where it has been tried before. Look up Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot, to some extent revolutionary France - all tried to practice the dogma that religion is evil, and atheism is progress. More sinisterly a convert or die methodology was not beyond them, especially the Chinese. As far as religious despotism in living memory goes the atheist state as expressed under communism frankly makes radical Islam look rather pleasant in comparison.

Guitardian wrote:
Religious delusionals do not suffer existing in a system based on Atheist restrictions,

Look up Stalins purges of the churches and Jews and the atheism used to justify them. Look up Tibet, cross reference with Chinese annexation of. Get educated before commenting further, after all you are claiming to be the non deluded one yes?. If you are man enough come back and change your words once you have read what history has to tell you. The Chinese invasion of Tibet and its atheistic dogmas used to flatten a theocratic state at peace with itself (go on you try and tell us the Dalai Lama is a religious despot). They are still destroying temples and killing monks even now over fifty years on.

Please please get educated before you come back with more religion-is-delusion atheism-is-not. You keep coming up with it even though it was pointed out time and again to be categorically false with long bloody history to go with it.
Christianity had its problem era centuries ago, The worst cases of human misery we have seen in a hundred years exceeding even Hitler's crimes were caused under atheist based totalitarianism. Yes atheism is not necessarily the true core of communism, its more an excuse, but that is always the case with any politicvised dogma. Religio-political issues are political first and formost, this is why one Islamic country may want lasting peace with Israel while another might want to annihilate it.

Guitardian wrote:
Atheists suffer existing in a system based on religious delusions though.

That can be true if one lives in Iran and are an atheist. However atheists in fundamentalist states can usually hide themselves as there are no tenets to follow to give you away.

Guitardian wrote:
All a religious person has to say is "I have faith" and he can believe and act on all sorts of nonsense, protected by his right to freedom of religion.

They may have freedoms, but apparently no immunity from abuse from atheist fundamentalists. They should not suffer for their beliefs.
We expect this sort of gak from write-offs like militant Islamics, should we expect it from you?

Guitardian wrote:
And unfortunately, delusional people can vote,

Refraining from making a cheap shot here.

Guitardian wrote:
even when the candidates are sensible people, they still have to give a nod to the megachurches. My Cosmic Killer Whale counter-theory would just end up with being harassed, committed, and called a nutjob by judges who are also part of the religious system.

I wonder if this is the case everywhere. In hear of many politicians who did not reveal their faith choices until after they left office because it might count against them. I dont consider Blair a particularly good example though it is true of him, because that snake would claim anything even above and beyond the duty for dishonest politicians.


Edit: This was open a a long while in my reply box. Perhaps Frazzie put it better. Guitardian if you come back at this, without having some comment indicating you heave read up on atheist fundamentalism in history, I will take the advice offered and not feed troll any further.

Orlanth wrote:

Guitardian wrote:
This I just disagree with. Atheists do not affect laws about gay marriage, liquor on sundays, women's reproductive rights, hair length or beard length, durka, women's literacy,....

Atheists are not Moslems, we got that bit without your help.

Guitardian wrote:.... and publicly spout ignorance as fact, affecting all of society's next generation with their delusions.

Is there any point in trying to educate you, when you spout such total nonsense and blame the 'religious' as the deluded ones? For a start you blame Islams worst faults on religion in general appealing to having a solution by not being religious, that is inane at best. However before you highlight atheism as a societal solution to religion look up where where it has been tried before. Look up Soviet Union, China, Pol Pot, to some extent revolutionary France - all tried to practice the dogma that religion is evil, and atheism is progress. More sinisterly a convert or die methodology was not beyond them, especially the Chinese. As far as religious despotism in living memory goes the atheist state as expressed under communism frankly makes radical Islam look rather pleasant in comparison.

Guitardian wrote:
Religious delusionals do not suffer existing in a system based on Atheist restrictions,

Look up Stalins purges of the churches and Jews and the atheism used to justify them. Look up Tibet, cross reference with Chinese annexation of. Get educated before commenting further, after all you are claiming to be the non deluded one yes?. If you are man enough come back and change your words once you have read what history has to tell you. The Chinese invasion of Tibet and its atheistic dogmas used to flatten a theocratic state at peace with itself (go on you try and tell us the Dalai Lama is a religious despot). They are still destroying temples and killing monks even now over fifty years on.

Please please get educated before you come back with more religion-is-delusion atheism-is-not. You keep coming up with it even though it was pointed out time and again to be categorically false with long bloody history to go with it.
Christianity had its problem era centuries ago, The worst cases of human misery we have seen in a hundred years exceeding even Hitler's crimes were caused under atheist based totalitarianism. Yes atheism is not necessarily the true core of communism, its more an excuse, but that is always the case with any politicvised dogma. Religio-political issues are political first and formost, this is why one Islamic country may want lasting peace with Israel while another might want to annihilate it.

Guitardian wrote:
Atheists suffer existing in a system based on religious delusions though.

That can be true if one lives in Iran and are an atheist. However atheists in fundamentalist states can usually hide themselves as there are no tenets to follow to give you away.

Guitardian wrote:
All a religious person has to say is "I have faith" and he can believe and act on all sorts of nonsense, protected by his right to freedom of religion.

They may have freedoms, but apparently no immunity from abuse from atheist fundamentalists. They should not suffer for their beliefs.
We expect this sort of gak from write-offs like militant Islamics, should we expect it from you?

Guitardian wrote:
And unfortunately, delusional people can vote,

Refraining from making a cheap shot here.

Guitardian wrote:
even when the candidates are sensible people, they still have to give a nod to the megachurches. My Cosmic Killer Whale counter-theory would just end up with being harassed, committed, and called a nutjob by judges who are also part of the religious system.

I wonder if this is the case everywhere. In hear of many politicians who did not reveal their faith choices until after they left office because it might count against them. I dont consider Blair a particularly good example though it is true of him, because that snake would claim anything even above and beyond the duty for dishonest politicians.


Edit: This was open a a long while in my reply box. Perhaps Frazzie put it better. Guitardian if you come back at this, without having some comment indicating you heave read up on atheist fundamentalism in history, I will take the advice offered and not feed troll any further.

wow where to begin?

Is there any point in educating me?
--well isn't that what the museum is for?

I can't see how historical Atheist fundamentalism (or biblical/quranical/bookical whatever) interpretation historically has anything to do with spouting untruth as truth. Maybe a lot of regimes have been bloody barbarous and atheistic, but so have the jihads, crusades, cave men beating each other with sticks over who stole the sun. China and the U.S.S.R. did not seek to carve a communist state specifically to attack religion. They attacked anything that was not all for the state. Atheism didn't make them bad people, Lack of common sense made them bad people. Assuming that people would be happy to follow the horde made them bad people. The same can be said of piety-based societies too. Some are good, some are bad. Thinking that people's drilled in devoutly believed unprovable notions should have no business in reality based teachings is not the same as becoming a communist saying kill kill kill. Common sense versus idealism? Oh wait it happened again! Thanks Frazz, the judge hath spoken that all people that believe something are protected in their nonsense while people that say it's nonsense should shut up or read the bible. Am I getting close?

AS far as pointing out the worst bits of any particular belief system. Isn't god kind of an all-or-nothing thing? If it is flawed then it is not god's doing, right? One lie in a list of truths makes an untrue list. You don't claim 'faith' as a rationale for only the stuff you like, and just kind of ignore the stuff you don't. It's the word of GOD. And that means I am in line for a damn good stoning, aren't I?

Thanks Frazz, the judge hath spoken that all people that believe something are protected in their nonsense while people that say it's nonsense should shut up or read the bible. Am I getting close?

Close to what? The truth not by a long shot.
A strange uncontrollable desire to streak through your nearest Jiffy Lube mayhaps?

Howard A Treesong wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

Asking that evolution is taught in schools and not creationism isn't about pushing beliefs upon others. To describe it as a minority of 'atheist nutjobs' is quite ignorant. Many people concerned about creationism in schools are academics and professionals working in science and education, regardless of their religious belief or lack of it, they aren't promoting atheism or religion, they are promoting the teaching of *fact*.

Evolution isn't a belief, it's factually correct as demonstrated by actual evidence. It's not a commentary on religion. Creationists attempt to paint evolution as being an 'atheistic belief' mainly so they can claim their 'religious belief' is and equally valid alternative and deserves equal attention.

That evolution is taught in science class is not a matter of a popularity contest between theists and atheists but because it is actual verifiable science. Promoting evolution is not pushing beliefs or lack of beliefs on anyone, it's about concentrating on teaching things that are scientifically and factually accurate in schools, instead of devoting valuable class time to nonsense theories just to appease certain religious groups and filling kids heads with conflicting and ignorant nonsense.

Okay, you definitely misunderstood my post.

First off, I'm as opposed to the idea of teaching creationism in the classroom as you are. What I was saying was that the individuals on both sides who insist that the other side conform to their beliefs are generally in the minority. From my experience at least, most atheists don't give a flip about religious peoples' beliefs, and vice versa. There are some atheists, however, that will flip their gak if they find out someone is religious and proceed to chew them out over their beliefs, insisting that they are wrong at every turn. Again, there are religious people like this as well.

What I was trying to say is, most people don't give a flying feth about other people's beliefs as long as they are decent people.

And just for the record, I am neither an atheist nor a creationist/ID believer, and just so you're clear, I'm not even Christian.
I am a firm supporter of the teaching of evolution in schools, so don't think I'm advocating the teaching of creationism or intelligent design. I am fully opposed to that.

Frazzled wrote:

Thanks Frazz, the judge hath spoken that all people that believe something are protected in their nonsense while people that say it's nonsense should shut up or read the bible. Am I getting close?

Close to what? The truth not by a long shot.
A strange uncontrollable desire to streak through your nearest Jiffy Lube mayhaps?

No, but if it weren't for these meddling ki... christians, I would be able to stand in line neckid.

Guitardian wrote:

rubiksnoob wrote:What I think most people fail to recognize about this whole creationism/ID v. atheism/science arguement is that the most vocal participants are a small minority on BOTH sides.

It isn't all atheists v. a small minority of religious wackoes, and it's not all religious people v. a small minority of rabid atheists.

It's a small minority of atheist nutjobs v. a small minority of religious nutjobs. The rest of us really aren't all that concerned about pushing our beliefs, or lack thereof, on others.

This I just disagree with. Atheists do not affect laws about gay marriage, liquor on sundays, women's reproductive rights, hair length or beard length, durka, women's literacy, and publicly spout ignorance as fact, affecting all of society's next generation with their delusions. Religious delusionals do not suffer existing in a system based on Atheist restrictions, Atheists suffer existing in a system based on religious delusions though. All a religious person has to say is "I have faith" and he can believe and act on all sorts of nonsense, protected by his right to freedom of religion. And unfortunately, delusional people can vote, hence the bible belt actually being an important political demographic, even when the candidates are sensible people, they still have to give a nod to the megachurches. My Cosmic Killer Whale counter-theory would just end up with being harassed, committed, and called a nutjob by judges who are also part of the religious system.

Oh yeah....
f*ck.

hmm... must be a glitch in my computer, not a puritanical group of uptight people who decide that certain words are naughty, but others, like "KILL" are just fine and acceptable.

Suffering? You mean the delusions you have of being some kind of victim or martyr? Get over yourself.

You ever get beat up by 'christian' kids on a playground because you dont go to church? You ever get harassed by a cop in a small southern town? This aint about me I am no more a martyr than anyone else who says "WTF?" when they read about scientology, which clearly makes less sense than Christianity or Islam, right? it's about the assumption of holy book 'truth' imposing itself upon others but crying foul when the illogical unprovable stuff that they believe as their justification gets questioned.

Guitardian wrote:You ever get beat up by 'christian' kids on a playground because you dont go to church? You ever get harassed by a cop in a small southern town? This aint about me I am no more a martyr than anyone else who says "WTF?" when they read about scientology, which clearly makes less sense than Christianity or Islam, right? it's about the assumption of holy book 'truth' imposing itself upon others but crying foul when the illogical unprovable stuff that they believe as their justification gets questioned.

Everyone gets screwed at some point, on that front we're all equal

Guitardian wrote:You ever get beat up by 'christian' kids on a playground because you dont go to church? You ever get harassed by a cop in a small southern town? This aint about me I am no more a martyr than anyone else who says "WTF?" when they read about scientology, which clearly makes less sense than Christianity or Islam, right? it's about the assumption of holy book 'truth' imposing itself upon others but crying foul when the illogical unprovable stuff that they believe as their justification gets questioned.

Thats cause you're a wussy. If you can't take on the Christian kids how the heck are you going to handle the Holy Speghetti Monster crowd?

You really do have a chip on your solder. Do you need a shoulder to cry on? there there, its ok, Grandpa Frazzled says everythings gonna be just fine.

Guitardian wrote:You ever get beat up by 'christian' kids on a playground because you dont go to church? You ever get harassed by a cop in a small southern town? This aint about me I am no more a martyr than anyone else who says "WTF?" when they read about scientology, which clearly makes less sense than Christianity or Islam, right? it's about the assumption of holy book 'truth' imposing itself upon others but crying foul when the illogical unprovable stuff that they believe as their justification gets questioned.

Yeah, someone who apparently blames every bad thing in their life on a group of people is going to be hard to reason with.

again! So the religious can complain about unfair treatment by all of the ruthless rational people, but the rational person gets mocked for being a whiner complaining back? Yeah this is pretty much on par with the whole 'i cannot be disproved therefore i am' explaination of god. Nothing I haven't seen before.

The sky is purple and you just haven't read all of my reasons why yet, that's why you think it's blue.

I don't get what an Atheist Fundamentalist actually is, if it is someone that devoutly believes in nothing, isn't that just Nihilism? That there is no greater purpose, or greater power that even matters or interferes with us? I mean all atheists are fundamentalists because they all literally believe there is no God. They don't loosely believe in atheism they fully believe and a fundamentalist is someone who subscribes to a certain scope of ideas and nothing outside of it. If you are not a fundamentalist atheists you are not an atheist, you are agnostic or ignostic.

The problem with fundamentalist in religion is that their idea of a literal bible contradicts with the progression of science and understand of how things work. Take example, Galileo, and his problems with the Church. Which later, the Church was like, OK our bad he was right. The Vatican has a science department, and they study sciences there. The problem is, people, not the religion really. People cannot let go of their ideas. The rest of it is usually used to be turned into a political issue.

Take a look at Sharia Law. On paper, it isn't all that bad to be honest. Talks about respecting the elderly, not destroying the land, or exploiting people. As a religious set of laws it isn't any worse than say the 10 commandments. However, the problem is that people use that to bend and construe everything around until they get their desired results. Hence, the Jihad clause, which then allows the Muslim to break all Sharia Laws. Which sort of defeats the whole purpose of the law to begin with.

Next, take a look at Old Testament Vs New Testament. To me, you cannot really cherry pick and pick and choose which aspects of either book you like. Obviously, if you take it from a literal stand point it is pretty easy to conclude that at one time God was pissed off, vengeful and didn't take crap from no one. However, God changed, and has now become more lenient, forgiving, loving and sacrificed his only son to give mankind salvation, instead of him having a human sacrifice their only son, which is what happened in the old book. To be honest, the more modernized version of God (new testament) is what is accepted and the old testament should be treated as back story. Though fundamentalist like to cherry pick both books. For example, they like use references in the old testament to gay bash, however, if anyone ever read Deuteronomy they would clearly see how old Christian law treated women and marriage. If a woman lied about being a virgin, and you found out after you married her, it was totally legal to stone her to death. You could own slaves, and so forth. I really get irked with people that cherry pick all over the bible, because obviously if you read the thing and took it literally, God is now pretty much an all loving, liberal activist, who is all about personal rights and expression, as well as proponent of being meek and peaceful.

So, really the problem isn't religion it is people. Humans are flawed in many ways. All of us have our flaws (I include myself as well), and we love justification for our flaws. Some people fear change, fear or hate something and they want to use religion, or another tool to justify their actions. Some humans are even more dangerous in the fact they will use the same systems to influence other people to take up action for the causes they believe in. Religions don't say bomb abortion clinics, or shoot abortion doctors. Religions don't say fly planes into buildings. Those are all made up by man, and made up by twisting religion around to fit their needs and causes. After all, religion is man made anyway.

You can easily teach religion in school. All religions, but using a religion to push a political agenda, ie abortion, would be extremely unconstitutional in many countries that have a separation clause. That would be the dangers of teaching a religion in school. I have friends that have kids that are very young and in preschool. Their preschool has already pushed Jesus on them, with out even the parent's knowing. Which I think is wrong. What if the parents were Jewish, Buddhist, Taoist, Shintaoist, Harri Krishna, Hindu, atheist, agnostic, Muslim, and so forth? Jesus really has no place in preschool. Plus at such an impressionable age those things should not be taught to kids, unless the parents want it. I grew up religious and by the time I was 12 I was done with it. I have a few crazy fundies in my family, and then a bunch of non practitioners, and a few people like me that just think the whole concept of defining a God is just silly.

People just need to realize the concept of my freedom stops where your's begins, and a lot of this political agenda nonsense with religion could possibly go away.

Guitardian wrote:again! So the religious can complain about unfair treatment by all of the ruthless rational people, but the rational person gets mocked for being a whiner complaining back? Yeah this is pretty much on par with the whole 'i cannot be disproved therefore i am' explaination of god. Nothing I haven't seen before.

Who are you arguing against, exactly?

I don't think I'm treated unfairly by atheists so I'm not sure what you mean. They have their beliefs; I have mine. I'm happy to discuss it reasonably if people can be polite.

My overall concern isn't so much being "persicuted" by Christians.
It's centered around those in positions of lawmaking/deciding policy etc who may take their cue from a "Higher Power" or the tenants/belief system thereoff.
Let's be complete honest...If an elected official said he believed in " Harvey the invisible Rabbit" most people would seek to have him removed.
Yet the same is not true of a politician stating a belief in "god"...any god.
And when it comes to cold hard facts...god (any god) is just as imaginary as Harvey...god (any god) just has better PR men.

Crom wrote:I don't get what an Atheist Fundamentalist actually is, if it is someone that devoutly believes in nothing, isn't that just Nihilism?

A fair enough question that demands answer, this answer has evolved over time with result of past discussions with more level minded atheists and theists alike here on Dakka.

Some atheists believe 'in nothing', these atheists like to say that it is a 'lack of belief' not a 'belief in lack'. Some here certainly believe this is true of themselves. I do not fully agree because thinking about something on a conscious level includes a choice of believing in it or not, and that a true 'no opinion' option only applies if one never thinks about a subject. Both arguments hold some merit, but let us assume out of fairness and brevity that one can have a 'lack of belief' without a 'belief in lack', as many have stated their personal case for such here on Dakka; after all it would by hypocritical for a Christian not to accept 'religious testimony' as evidence, even if those who give such testimony do not consider it religious.
However in any case people who profess a 'lack of belief' are not relevant to the greater discussion on atheist fundementalism, because those are by definition not the atheists one needs to worry about. If someone who has a 'lack of belief', or a very loose fitting denial (depending ones point of view), is at most a half-hearted atheist. This does not necessarily mean they are half-headed, so the analogy of half-hearted works fine.

Then there is the other kind. You see an active 'belief in lack' is the other side of atheism, whether this is an intentionally permanent choice to reject the divine or a matter of 'I actively won't believe unless proven'. Some atheists prefer to think that a 'lack of belief' is the true status of an atheist, probably because they relate their own good nature and open mindedness as attributes of atheism in general, however with exposure to examples of known atheist fanaticism it is easy to see that there is this other side to atheism. Such people who have a 'belief in lack' have claim to a more hearty atheism, but have essentially made an active religious faith choice* in doing so. If I may put it crudely, those with an active 'belief in lack' join the 'faith of no-God'. Such people are often very evident, we see them here on Dakka and elsewhere in life. Sadly a large proportion become fanatics, not due to any inherent badness of the faith choice compared to other faith choices, but because as atheism is typically seen as not a religion so those who follow an active atheism can fall into the mental trapping of religious fanaticism more strongly than many theists because they may be unaware of their own growing religiosity as religiosity and make no attempts to backtrack from fundamentalism as most thinking theists learn they need to do. The catalyst of this change is normally due to a well deserved disdain for other forms of religious fundamentalism, the universe is not without irony. However it is also compounded by 'atheistic science' which due to its scientific basis has authority and is plausible at first look but due to the blindness of atheist fundamentalism fail to see that science is itself neutral, it speaks only for the mundane and not for the spiritual and passes no comment on the existence or absence of divine order as a result. This blindness comes about because unfortunately atheist fundamentalists are not the only fundamentalists out there, and those others often say the most outrageous things disprovable by science, or even without science, which gives the easy illusion that science itself is a defender of the atheist cause.



* From a Chrsitian perspective rather than a general theist perspective every atheist has made an active atheistic decision because the decision to accept Christ or not is active, any 'not-yes' is considered a de facto 'no'. However this and previous comment on this subject do not take that directly into account in a general theism vs atheism philosophical discussion as they would impose spectific personal sub-beleifs rather than the general issue, which I cannot fairly do, no matter how important they appear to me..

I'm sure you have heard this question before, but, what happens to those who lived without knowing about Jesus Christ their Personal Lord and Savior? Those for whom the blessing of never knowing about hell to whom it never occured to make this 'active desion'? Hellfire and damnation?

I am bummed I didn't get to live 2000 years ago so I could be a saint too for hanging out with god first hand. Not my fault I wasn't there.

Guitardian wrote:I'm sure you have heard this question before, but, what happens to those who lived without knowing about Jesus Christ their Personal Lord and Savior? Those for whom the blessing of never knowing about hell to whom it never occured to make this 'active desion'? Hellfire and damnation?

I am bummed I didn't get to live 2000 years ago so I could be a saint too for hanging out with god first hand. Not my fault I wasn't there.

Purgatory.