Angry at God? If so, you're not alone, says psychologist

Jan 01, 2011

The notion of being angry with God goes back to ancient days. Such personal struggles are not new, but Case Western Reserve University psychologist Julie Exline began looking at "anger at God" in a new way.

"Many people experience toward ," Exline explains. "Even people who deeply love and respect God can become angry. Just as people become upset or angry with others, including loved ones, they can also become angry with God."

Exline, an associate professor in Case Western Reserve's College of Arts and Sciences, has researched anger toward God over the past decade, conducting studies with hundreds of people, including college students, and grief-stricken family members.

She and her colleagues report their results in the article, "Anger toward God: Social-Cognitive Predictors, Prevalence, and Links with Adjustment to Bereavement and Cancer" in the new issue of the .

Anger toward God often coincides with deaths, illnesses, accidents or . Yet anger is not limited to traumatic situations. It can also surface when people experience personal disappointments, failures, or interpersonal hurts. Some people see God as ultimately responsible for such events, and they become angry when they see God's intentions as cruel or uncaring. They might think that God abandoned, betrayed, or mistreated them, Exline says.

Exline notes that it can be difficult for people to acknowledge their anger toward God. Many people are ashamed and don't want to admit their feelings, she says. In particular, people who are highly religious may believe that they should focus only on the positive side of religious life.

"But religion and spirituality are like other domains of life, such as work and relationships," Exline says. "They bring important benefits, but they can bring difficulties as well. Anger with God is one of those struggles," she adds.

According to Exline's findings, Protestants, African Americans, and older people tend to report less anger at God; people who do not believe in God may still harbor anger; and anger toward God is most distressing when it is frequent, intense, or chronic.

Overcoming anger at God, she says, may require some of the same steps needed to resolve other anger issues.

"People may benefit from reflecting more closely on the situation and how they see God's role in it," Exline suggests. "For example, they may become less angry if they decide that God was not actually responsible for the upsetting event, or if they can see how God has brought some meaning or benefit from a painful situation."

People who feel angry toward God also need to be reassured that they are not alone. Many individuals experience such struggles, she adds. She suggests that people try to be open and honest with God about their anger, rather than pulling away or trying to cover up their negative feelings.

Explore further: Mental illness not usually linked to crime, research finds

More information: psychology.case.edu/research/god/index.html

Related Stories

Men More Prone to Maladies When Mad

Feb 03, 2006

If you're a male who has trouble controlling your temper, you might find yourself in the hospital the next time you get angry. After interviewing people who had been seriously injured, a University of Missouri-Columbia researcher ...

Poll: Most people reject evolution theory

Mar 08, 2006

A Gallup Poll released Wednesday suggests about 53 percent of Americans rejects the theory of evolution as the explanation for the origin of humans.

Recommended for you

Mental illness not usually linked to crime, research finds

46 minutes ago

In a study of crimes committed by people with serious mental disorders, only 7.5 percent were directly related to symptoms of mental illness, according to new research published by the American Psychological Association.

Religious music brings benefit to seniors' mental health

Apr 18, 2014

A new article published online in The Gerontologist reports that among older Christians, listening to religious music is associated with a decrease in anxiety about death and increases in life satisfaction, self-e ...

User comments : 346

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

Regularirr
4.9 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2011
Sometimes you have no one else to be angry at. A coping mechanism.
aaaaaaaaa
4.3 / 5 (44) Jan 01, 2011
As a practicing Deity myself I can assure the writers of this article that it is the man made gods (christians muslems hindus etc) that turn people angry then mental and make them go to war.

Any true self respecting god could not be bothered with you insignificant little humans on a minor planet in a small solar system on the outskirts of an average spiral galaxy, one of Billions.

You religious think you're special.
Your arrogance is beyond belief.

Spaghetti Monster.
DamienS
4.6 / 5 (22) Jan 01, 2011
Blaming god for your problems is just abdicating personal responsibility.
they may become less angry if they decide that God was not actually responsible for the upsetting event

And that's the problem - attributing outcomes to fantasy figures and acting out, potentially in destructive ways.
people who do not believe in God may still harbor anger

Huh? How can you be angry at god if you don't believe in it?
Bob_Kob
3.8 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2011
Dunno, angry at the principle?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (22) Jan 01, 2011
Overcoming anger at God, she says, may require some of the same steps needed to resolve other anger issues.

I can think of one easy way to stop being angry at "God". Admit to yourself that you have no idea if one exists, and address the situation that put you in that state in the first place.
antialias_physorg
4.7 / 5 (13) Jan 01, 2011
Hypothesis: Being angry with god is a form of psychological projection.

1) you believe(ed) in god. This means that you already are prone to projecting hopes and responsibilities elsewhere than yourself

2) Those projections didn't turn as you wanted them to (your fairytale didn't tilt the balances of the universe in your favor)

3) So now you start projecting your anger at your illusory entity of choice (which does about as much good).

Seems to me like a classical inability to cope with and take responsibility for your own life.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2011
Hypothesis: Being angry with god is a form of psychological projection.
I think this is highly likely. Now before the faithful jump all over this and mess up the thread, this is not a matter of faith. This is a matter of psychological reasoning. If a God exists, no matter what your faith is, it would be very difficult to be mad with a concept. Whether that concept is legitimate or not. For example, I couldn't get mad at someone's ignorance, I can only get mad at my inability to reach them.
dogbert
1.4 / 5 (27) Jan 01, 2011
According to Exline's findings, Protestants, African Americans, and older people tend to report less anger at God; people who do not believe in God may still harbor anger; and anger toward God is most distressing when it is frequent, intense, or chronic.


Strange how people who profess that there is no god harbor more anger toward god. The inconsistency of the atheist is also apparent in the chronic misuse of god in profane statements. The vocal atheist is often nearly incapable of a single statement which lacks some reference to god.
Birger
5 / 5 (2) Jan 01, 2011
I anticipate that in societies with two or several competing religions, this kind of anger/disappointment will play a big role in the movement of believers between religions.

In the turbulent times of the late Roman empire, there certainly where horrors enough to inspire a change of loyalities (apart from the usual things like high child mortality, plagues etc).
Buddhism -which traveled mainly with traders- certainly managed to get itself established in many places despite lacking armies dedicated to fight crusades/jihads. This would have been due to the fact of local religion disappointing its believers. Sand storms, tsunamis, a lack of rainfall killing half the population -there is no shortage of things that would shake the faith.
In the absence of a well-organised religious Gestapo along the lines of the Inquisition, even well-entrenched religions would be at risk of replacement.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.8 / 5 (63) Jan 01, 2011
@aaaaaaaaa
-aaaaaaaaaaaaaa

" It can also surface when people experience personal disappointments, failures, or interpersonal hurts. Some people see God as ultimately responsible for such events"

-And lo, a great famine and pestilence befell the people and they suffered greatly because of it. "It is the kings fault for not providing for us!" they cried. And so the king was brought down, and divided, and shared accordingly among the group.

The next king was a little wiser however; he had brought a priest with him, and caused for him to be built a great and shiny temple. And when hardship again befell the people, as it inevitably will do, and they sought to blame the king for their woes, the priests voice rang out from atop his glorious temple. "Your misery is your own fault because you have failed to love god enough!" -and the people were ashamed. They brought both king and priest burnt offerings of barbecue in supplication for their sins, and they grew fat while the people starved.
badgersdaughter
4.8 / 5 (22) Jan 01, 2011
I'm an atheist who used to be a Christian. Because I was taught very early that it was wrong to question or doubt God, I buried my anger or turned it toward myself as the cause of the bad things that happened to me. In becoming an atheist, I did not express anger toward God. I felt that it was inappropriate to be angry with something that doesn't exist. My deconversion was basically a climax of the nagging feeling that "this all doesn't hang together; it just doesn't make sense."

Now that I've been an atheist for about eight years, I find a lot to be angry about in religion. I'm angry about the way it takes over a person's life for its own purposes. I'm angry about the way it distorts a person's mind and emotions. I'm angry about its commandeering of morality as if it were the root cause instead of an effect. I'm angry about the abuses it encourages people to perpetrate.

When I say I'm "angry at God", I'm really using shorthand for being angry at the God-meme.
MDC
4.3 / 5 (11) Jan 01, 2011
Dogbert: "Strange how people who profess that there is no god harbor more anger toward god."

Dogbert probably also thinks that feminists, anti-racist activists, and GLBT activists are all "angry people," too. Funny how being defecated on by the privileged in society does that to you.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (54) Jan 01, 2011
@badgersdaughter
Excellent. Welcome to the world. I wouldn't get all resentful about it though, as resentment only hurts ourselves.

I wonder if the desire for god isn't in large part the need to shed resentment. Some animals have long memories but they do not equal those of the typical human, who can carry a resentment a lifetime.

In animals it's a defense mechanism, remembering to avoid a predator or place perhaps, but the human memory has turned this into an unending source of pain, and the reason many of us seek to escape in booze, drugs, or other damaging pastimes such as religion. We naturally resent things we can do nothing about- aging, sickness, loss. Companionship and commiseration help but we don't need false gods to find these.

I think resentment is another indication of critical design flaws in a species forced to evolve well beyond it's capacity to accommodate change comfortably. We've come too far, way too fast. Thank god we're an interim species-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.5 / 5 (54) Jan 01, 2011
The vocal atheist is often nearly incapable of a single statement which lacks some reference to god.
-Religionists as a rule do seem to be a resentful lot, always warning of gods wrath from behind a thin veneer of piety. 'Youll get yours, thankfully' they imply, with a smile. Let go and let god. 'Vengence is mine, saith the lord.'
letsthink
4.7 / 5 (15) Jan 01, 2011
So Exline is a research scientist looking at peoples' anger at God. That is all well and good. But she, as a scientist, has no business giving this advice:

"She suggests that people try to be open and honest with God about their anger, rather than pulling away or trying to cover up their negative feelings."

Open and honest with God? What a silly, pointless and unscientific concept. The better advice is to examine your belief in God and see whether it makes sense. Your feelings of anger may be because what you were sold about God simply is not true. There is no one to answer your prayers. Bad things do happen to good people. Once you ditch the God concept life makes a lot more sense and pointless anger can be ditched.

rgwalther
1.2 / 5 (12) Jan 01, 2011
Existence is infinite. If there is a god, then God is infinite. Infinity means that there is a 100% chance of any and everything. Any infinity is a definition of god. Existence cannot be less than infinite. If it were less, then existence would have to be inside something else, or standing on a giant turtle. Then of course, it is turtles all the way down.
Anger is the result of character, and your character is your fate. It is OK to be angry at infinity. Infinity is capricious and indifferent if your existence is finite.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (54) Jan 01, 2011
@letsthink
"But religion and spirituality are like other domains of life, such as work and relationships," Exline says. "They bring important benefits"

-Right you are sir. This is obviously religionist propaganda presented as science. Damn you phizzork! Damn your eyes!
Infinity means that there is a 100% chance of any and everything.
Only any and everything POSSIBLE. God is not possible and so will never exist no matter how long the universe does.
rgwalther
1.1 / 5 (7) Jan 01, 2011
Well Ghost...
You can't argue with infinity, so you are right. Possibilities mean limitations. Infinity has no such parameters. Of course I could go on with this forever.
nada
4.7 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2011
God spoke to me one day and told me He didn't exist.

Because I am such a faithful believer; I now don't believe in God - but only because He told me so.

ubavontuba
1.4 / 5 (19) Jan 01, 2011
As the atheists here are expressing such virulent anger against religion, I wonder whom it is that's really angry at "God?" Perhaps they might examine their own motivations?

That Protestants have less anger with God, makes me wonder if they have embraced the concept of Jesus as an example ...an example of how to live your life in tranquility, despite difficult circumstances?

Hmm...
mlange
5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2011
As the atheists here are expressing such virulent anger against religion, I wonder whom it is that's really angry at "God?" Perhaps they might examine their own motivations?.


I personally think Atheists are pissed off at religion because it does nothing to advance the discovery of the true nature of the universe(s). And the unfortunate children who are brainwashed by over religious parents may never have the opportunity or simply lose the will to learn the real science of things, which as a result slows the process of discovery. Religion has always been an excuse for the ignorant to concoct answers to hard questions with little thought or understanding. But this, like everything, will change as humans evolve. However, if someone doesn't shoot me because they think they are going to hell when they die, praise Jesus.
Shootist
1.8 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2011
I hereby lay forth two commandments for you benighted souls (and all of you are benighted, make no mistake).

One. Treat others as you expect to be treated.

Two. Live and let live.

There. A world of perfect harmony.

@Otto

Assuming that, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The God of Abraham and Issac (Yahweh, Sky Father) is certainly possible, if Sir Arthur's 3rd Law hold true, in an infinite Universe. Even to the point of creating a Solar System and planets and populating one with a myriad of species.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (49) Jan 01, 2011
Assuming that, any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic. The God of Abraham and Issac (Yahweh, Sky Father) is certainly possible
Naw, no technology can duplicate the god of the patriarchs, who was present before the universe was created (including any and all ancillary universes and dimensions) and who will sit and watch as it finally ends one day. He is by def the Prime Mover; any tech or any intelligence who could wield it which, for instance, could create a universe, would have had to have been created by him first. Alpha and omega.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 01, 2011
@rgwalther
-My last post refutes your 'anythings possible' universe. The biblegod would have been present before, during, and after your infinite universe... Actually the bible claims that the only thing infinite IS god. Since he's not there now, he never has been and never will be.

Other conditions which are impossible in your universe: the condition where your universe never existed. The condition where your universe decided to end itself. That's all I can think of.

-And there are plenty of ghosts on this site. I am otto.
nada
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 01, 2011

Its amazing to me that the words "I don't know" are so ridiculed by Christians and done so with the same pride and arrogance that God commanded His followers not to engage in.

And if, in another belief system, one claims that god is in all of us, the Christians jump all over that by assuming the knowledge, and judgement of God.

Christians move in and out of these waters of "knowing God" and hypocrisy effortlessly. Then with more arrogance, move into the world of science and claim all of it is wrong and evil.

Then the stupidity follows: that of thinking that people who don't follow your faith are all somehow jealous of your godliness and christians never miss the opportunity to assume that point and ridicule (how godly).

When the truth of the matter is that: if you use your religion to help yourself and others - that's great. If you use it like some childish sporting event - then you're just an annoyance like a fly.
Shootist
2.6 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2011
Naw, no technology can duplicate the god of the patriarchs, who was present before the universe was created (including any and all ancillary universes and dimensions)


Indistinguishable from magic. Raising the dead, water to wine, blowing down the walls of Jericho, Eve from the rib of Adam, Council of gods (Job), Great Flood, Sodom and Gemorrah, Creation itself. Nothing in the Jewish, or Christian traditions, rises beyond the level of "magic", many are doable today, some will be doable tomorrow, and it is no far stretch to visualize the balance being commonplace for a Type III civilization.

This multi-verse may well be a laboratory experiment; a supposition as provable, or not, as He Who Must Not Be Named.
GoodElf
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 01, 2011
Boy!!... Won't they get really really mad when they die and find out they don't have eternal life?
panorama
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 01, 2011
I'm angry at some, others I want to have them over for a glass of wine and some light jazz...depends on the ghod I suppose.
la7dfa
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 01, 2011
This discussion is for retards. Gods are imaginary, period.
Egleton
1.3 / 5 (14) Jan 01, 2011
@ all Atheists.

Been there, done that, got the bruises.

Keep looking. Most of you haven't even stumbled on the fact that every one of us has two brains.

My God is the God of the Yawning Chasms. Only the brave lean over the edge and gaze into our profound echoing ignorance.

Don't be a coward. Go to the edge and look in. The Chasm is dark and infinite.

You will be a lot less arrogant for the experience.
rgwalther
5 / 5 (1) Jan 01, 2011
Of course this multiverse is an experiment! I don't think we have the multiple, turtle layers in this reality, but we do have math, all the way down & all the way up. As each intelligence evolves, new realities are fabricated just because it is cool to make things up. If knowledge is simply a catalogue of data, there is no intelligence. Just one humongous computer on top of another. Life is entertainment because chance is a vital factor. Entertainment is just as often terminally negative as it is positive, but only living, conscious entitities have a sense of humor. If you don't get the joke, you're not conscious.
I have made & lost every 'thing' I owned, several times (careless of me). The last time a cosmic 8 ball killed me, twice. Science brought me back, twice.
I was trained by fanatical priests to believe ridiculous and impossible things. I don't. SS pays me, my children are well. Life is a joke, I laugh and cry too much, alone. I know life is infinite. Mine, probably not.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (49) Jan 01, 2011
Newsflash:
"Pope to hold world peace summit
"Pope Benedict XVI says he will organise a summit of religious leaders to discuss how they can promote world peace... The October meeting will include Christians, Jews, Muslims and Buddhists, plus leaders of many other faiths."

-And I'm sure they fully expect to get somewhere with it. What I would suggest, if they would invite me, would be to decide as a group to accept the unfortunate truth, that it is their belief system which divides the people and sets them against one another. It is their belief system which causes the people to live and reproduce beyond their means because the god of each religion promises them exclusively that this world was created for them alone. It is their belief system which convinces them of the necessity of fighting to protect their supposedly omnipotent Benefactor even though he should be fully capable of doing it himself.

This is why the people fight and suffer, is what otto would say, if he were invited.
Sean_W
3.4 / 5 (10) Jan 01, 2011
There are places on this planet where rape and disfiguration with acid and blade are used as political tools. And in places very close to us all (like next door or in our capitals) there are people who condone, conceal and support this behavior because it suits some local political aim. God takes no effort to end this and even "teachings" against such behavior are presented in such a way that they can't even be linked to any reality beyond "faith". Any God that could exist in such a reality without some small amount of undeniable intervention is too vile to even bother hating. God has chosen humanity's side which means he is evil. Omniscient, omnipotent... sure, maybe, why not. But evil without question.

Is it I who hates God or God who hates us?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
Strange how people who profess that there is no god harbor more anger toward god.
Quite incorrect.
The inconsistency of the atheist is also apparent in the chronic misuse of god in profane statements. The vocal atheist is often nearly incapable of a single statement which lacks some reference to god.
Well that would be because we speak a language that came from people who believed in a God. To have 2000 years of influence on culture through domination creates profanity citing the state, name, or nature of the continual tyrant.
My God is the God of the Yawning Chasms. Only the brave lean over the edge and gaze into our profound echoing ignorance.

Don't be a coward. Go to the edge and look in. The Chasm is dark and infinite.
The chasm of things we don't know only appears infinte. It takes greater courage to say "I don't know", than to fall to delusion and assume knowledge of the unknown. There is true arrogance in your false claim of knowledge.
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
"Anger toward God often coincides with deaths, illnesses, accidents or natural disasters."

No shit. Really? Really? Maybe if the preachers didn't always prattle on and on about how loving and compassionate God is, we wouldn't have this problem.

Guess that's what happens when humans try to make up a perfect and all knowing being, considering that the people who create these idols really weren't educated enough to actually design a perfect and all knowing God. If they had been they wouldn't have been sheep farmers and bronze age medicine men, they'd have been.. well, Gods.
MorituriMax
1.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
rgwalther,
Existence is infinite. If there is a god, then God is infinite. Infinity means that there is a 100% chance of any and everything. Any infinity is a definition of god. Existence cannot be less than infinite. If it were less, then existence would have to be inside something else, or standing on a giant turtle. Then of course, it is turtles all the way down.
Anger is the result of character, and your character is your fate. It is OK to be angry at infinity. Infinity is capricious and indifferent if your existence is finite.

Recursive Logic Ahoy!
MorituriMax
3.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2011
ubavontuba opined, As the atheists here are expressing such virulent anger against religion, I wonder whom it is that's really angry at "God?" Perhaps they might examine their own motivations?

Hmm...

Hmmm, why on Earth would atheists express anger toward an imaginary figure that is drawing in most of the worlds population in his various permutations, God, Allah, etc?

I guess mainly it's because God gets all the praise and none of the blame for his/her actions from his vast armies of drones. Kids born with deadly diseases, people tortured and murdered in his different names with no accountability to whoever they are doing these deeds for, the planet falling apart even though we have God as the landlord with the power to correct these problems. And then we are berated and ridiculed for not falling down and worshiping him/her. Gosh, I don't know why there is any anger out there.
ubavontuba
1.3 / 5 (13) Jan 02, 2011
MorituriMax:

Wouldn't it be wiser to prosecute your anger against the perpetrators of crime, rather than discriminate against whole segments of societies because some people in those segments happen to commit crime?

You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?
tcaustin
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2011
Most people value their right of free will whether they are religious, agnostic or atheistic. This exercise of free will is what leads to much of the violence and sorrow surrounding us today and throughout history. The problem is not with God, it is with man. I am a believer in God. I believe He gave all creation free will as a gift. Without free will we would be automatons incapable of love or any other emotion. Creation would be purposeless. Would you want God to force you into obedience?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2011
Wouldn't it be wiser to prosecute your anger against the perpetrators of crime, rather than discriminate against whole segments of societies because some people in those segments happen to commit crime?
Because silence is acceptance. If members of the religion do not cast aspesions upon the body of governance that gives rise to such attrocity, then those members are as guilty.

You attempt to make comparison to atheists, but you'll find we're some of the largest detractors of Nazism for instance. If you come across an atheist who cares not to cast such aspesion against other equally evil non-believers as the Holy Roman Church, then you've found yourself someone to brow beat with your above commentary.
Would you want God to force you into obedience?
If he exists, he very much does do so. What is the penalty for any act against God's will? Eternal punishment. That is compulsion of the most drastic kind. Your will cannot be free if you can be tried of thought crime.
rgwalther
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2011

Recursive Logic Ahoy!

Absolutely! Thanks for noticing.
tcaustin
1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
You are free to not believe in Him, You are free to mock Him, even curse Him. You really are free. People simply reap what they sow.To put it in secular terms, what goes around comes around. Those who do not want God get there wish, an eternity without Him. Those who do want Him get an eternity with Him. Downside for group one is that since He created everything, to not be with Him is to be outside creation.[The outer darkness] But why does it matter to those of you who do not believe? In the 20th century far more religious people were murdered or starved to death by communists than were killed by religionists, but the common factor is, all the killers were people.
tcaustin
1.4 / 5 (10) Jan 02, 2011
People are not good. God is. Just because someone says they believe in God does not make them good. I just think it is unfair to judge God by our actions as people. We don't know near enough to judge a deity.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2011
Because silence is acceptance. If members of the religion do not cast aspersions upon the body of governance that gives rise to such atrocity, then those members are as guilty.
That's just ridiculous. It's like saying, because I don't go around casting aspersions on everyone who ever thought to commit a crime, then I condone crime! Grow up. It doesn't work that way. Although we are our brother's keeper, we certainly aren't responsible for every thought and every action of everyone else.

There certainly are some religious and social factions that condone violence. And, they certainly should be prosecuted for the criminal element they are. However, to assert all religious and social factions are therefore equally as guilty, is stupid.

Or, maybe you think the Girl Scouts should be held to account for the Klu Klux Klan?

VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
People are not good. God is. Just because someone says they believe in God does not make them good. I just think it is unfair to judge God by our actions as people. We don't know near enough to judge a deity.

That's a gross generalization, I consider my self a good person. I don't need a god to tell me I'm not.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
You attempt to make comparison to atheists, but you'll find we're some of the largest detractors of Nazism for instance. If you come across an atheist who cares not to cast such aspersion against other equally evil non-believers as the Holy Roman Church, then you've found yourself someone to brow beat with your above commentary.
So therefore; as atheists do commit crime, and atheists generally don't specifically speak out against atheists who commit crime, all atheists are bad?

Do you not see how stupid it is to discriminate thusly, against whole segments of society?

If crime is your concern, then concern yourself with crime. Expanding your concern to include non-criminals with the criminals, only because you don't like their personal interests and activities, is blatant discrimination.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
5 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
You attempt to make comparison to atheists, but you'll find we're some of the largest detractors of Nazism for instance. If you come across an atheist who cares not to cast such aspersion against other equally evil non-believers as the Holy Roman Church, then you've found yourself someone to brow beat with your above commentary.
So therefore; as atheists do commit crime, and atheists generally don't specifically speak out against atheists who commit crime, all atheists are bad?

Do you not see how stupid it is to discriminate thusly, against whole segments of society?

If crime is your concern, then concern yourself with crime. Expanding your concern to include non-criminals with the criminals, only because you don't like their personal interests and activities, is blatant discrimination.

Actually, Atheist can be just as vocal speaking out against acts as violence as Christians. Their is NO DATA to suggest other wise. Heck, my friend an Atheist works for the police.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
not rated yet Jan 02, 2011
Ever heard the saying you won't find an atheist in a fox hole? Well, you probably won't find an atheist in prison. People should give the God delusion a read. Great piece of work.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
So therefore; as atheists do commit crime, and atheists generally don't specifically speak out against atheists who commit crime, all atheists are bad?
No, and that wasn't what I was speaking of. In regards to crime, that's very much dominated by the religious if you go by the stats, but that's another conversation. Remember when otto went off the deepend and all the atheists went after his commentary and ignored all else? That's the sort of meme control that is absent from religion.
Do you not see how stupid it is to discriminate thusly, against whole segments of society?
Again, you're over-generalizing the statement.
If crime is your concern, then concern yourself with crime. Expanding your concern to include non-criminals with the criminals, only because you don't like their personal interests and activities, is blatant discrimination.
Their interests and activities aren't personal when they attempt to infiltrate secular society.
perchecreek
4 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
Julie Exline is listed as being a part of the "Flame of Love Project" (uakron edu/sociology/flameweb/) "Institute Core Research Group". The Flame of Love Project web site page titled "Project Overview" states:

"[...] this project seeks to transform social science by taking God seriously as a perceived actor in human events, while advancing the agenda of an empirical theology."

The "Flame of Love Project" page quoted above is on a University of Akron, Ohio server.
aaaaaaaaa
3.3 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
I've just read on the news that yesterdays bombings in Egypt may cause Civil War between the christians and muslems.

It really is time that these Fucking Religious Assholes are stopped (by what ever means necessary) before they Destroy Us All.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 02, 2011
Hey religionaries;

"(CNN) -- Arkansas game officials hope testing scheduled to begin Monday will solve the mystery of why more than 1,000 blackbirds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.
The birds -- most of which were dead -- were found within a one-mile area of Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said."

-And this is right near that swarm of 500 earthquakes in the last month or so, where there shouldn't be any. What do you think? (I know what you think) Is it Armageddon or ragnarok or merely a reminder to repent or else? Which?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
Actually, Atheist can be just as vocal speaking out against acts as violence as Christians.
So what's stopping them?
Their is NO DATA to suggest other wise.
Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either. Whereas religious organizations which do these things abound!
Heck, my friend an Atheist works for the police.
That's nice, but how is it relevant? I have a job too.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
No, and that wasn't what I was speaking of.
But essentially, that's what you say.
In regards to crime, that's very much dominated by the religious if you go by the stats, but that's another conversation.
Reference?
Remember when otto went off the deepend and all the atheists went after his commentary and ignored all else?
That was nice, but you were late and it was obvious your heart wasn't in it.
That's the sort of meme control that is absent from religion.
Really?

"You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor."

Ever heard of that one? Preventing cruel speech is a tenet of most religions.
Again, you're over-generalizing the statement.
No, I'm not.
Their interests and activities aren't personal when they attempt to infiltrate secular society.
So fight against theocracy then. I'll gladly help.
MorituriMax
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
MorituriMax:

Wouldn't it be wiser to prosecute your anger against the perpetrators of crime, rather than discriminate against whole segments of societies because some people in those segments happen to commit crime?

You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

The subject was anger towards God. Where do you see me being angry toward anyone who doesn't deserve it?

Or is it politically incorrect in your mind NOT to be angry at people who kill and torture others people because Gawd says it's okay in their minds? Or is it okay in your mind that children suffer incredible pain and death even though Gawd is supposedly loving and kind?

Trying to shift the subject is not going to work, ubavontuba.
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
ubavontuba, You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

Ummm, yeah but being an atheist isn't like being a christian. Being a murderer is a choice. Being a muslim is a choice. Being a politician is a choice. Atheism is not believing in ANY gods. Are you trying to say that there are no murderers who are also stamp collectors? That there are no atheists who are also not chess players? Hmmm, I wonder if aswimmers or ajoggers can be lumped in with serial killers like Ted Bundy or murderers like Hitler? Was Hitler an aballroom dancer? If you yourself only believe in ONE God aren't you then much more likely to murder than someone who believe in ALL Gods, by your logic?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
The subject was anger towards God. Where do you see me being angry toward anyone who doesn't deserve it?
Logical fallacy. Why are you discussing being angry at people at all, then?
Or is it politically incorrect in your mind NOT to be angry at people who kill and torture others people because Gawd says it's okay in their minds?
How is this discussing being angry with God?
Or is it okay in your mind that children suffer incredible pain and death even though Gawd is supposedly loving and kind?
Of course not. Religious people actively organize and seek to mitigate these problems. Do atheists?
Trying to shift the subject is not going to work, ubavontuba.
It seems you've shifted the subject. Do atheists normally blame others for the wrongs they've committed? Or is it just you?

Can you say, "Hypocrite."
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
In summation, to everyone who keeps pointing fingers at "atheists" and saying, "Well they're just as likely to murder someone/everyone for no good reason, UNLIKE religious people...."

To those people, yeah, atheists are PEOPLE. Given a choice, I would rather hang out with an atheist who isn't trying to convert me or change me or judge me and who just wants to hang out with me for no good reason than hang out with someone who wants me to do good or bad things because his invisible buddy says its good or bad. If he can't do something without having to fall back on "God wanted me to do it." then we don't have common ground. I also don't make contracts with people under duress. Telling me I HAVE to believe or I'll go to hell with no recourse to the decision is the ultimate duress.

When I die and God asks me why I never believed in him/her, I'll say to him/her, "Not enough evidence God, not enough evidence. And you're a terrible deadbeat landlord."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
ubavontuba, You do know that atheists also murder, torture, and whatnot, don't you? Why then don't you equally hate and debase all atheists?

Ummm, yeah but being an atheist isn't like being a christian. Being a murderer is a choice. Being a muslim is a choice. Being a politician is a choice. Atheism is not believing in ANY gods. Are you trying to say that there are no murderers who are also stamp collectors? That there are no atheists who are also not chess players? Hmmm, I wonder if aswimmers or ajoggers can be lumped in with serial killers like Ted Bundy or murderers like Hitler? Was Hitler an aballroom dancer? If you yourself only believe in ONE God aren't you then much more likely to murder than someone who believe in ALL Gods, by your logic?
You failed to see the point. Why would you "lump" ANYONE in?
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (6) Jan 02, 2011
@badgersdaughter,
I'm sorry to hear that you also had to go thru that experience of people telling you to stop asking questions, especially if they end up saying "you must just believe" or "you must have faith".
As you so rightly point out - your anger is properyly aimed at religion. Religion is that mindless activity which forces people to go through various rituals to appease God. This is possibly the reason that it doesn't all hang together, especially when your elder say one thing and then does something opposite.
The solution to understanding Christianity [ and I'm not speaking for religion] is that religion says DO,DO, DO, whereas Christianity says "It is done." This means that God has accepted the sacrifice [in Jesus' death] that turns away His wrath. It's only up to us to humble ourselves and accept that gift of life. In that humbling lies the whole point of Christianity - to accept that the love of God is found in the death of Jesus, not in relief of our physical stress.
kevinrtrs
1 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2011
The amazing thing that then follows is that when our souls find rest in Christ a lot of the physical stress also disappears. It doesn't have to be that people get cured of their diseases or that their poverty get removed and they suddenly have lots of money. It does mean that for those who were burdened by sin[sinful lifestyles etc.] and it's terrible consequences, the incredible rest found in Jesus brings a joy that exceeds the physical boundaries. You can only being to understand this once you have accepted Christ as your Lord and Saviour - believing is seeing, not the other way around, which most atheists want - namely to see is to belief. This is where the humility comes in: abandon the demand for proof and instead acknowledge to God that you'd like to know Him even if you do not understand or trust Him right now. Surrender is what is needed.
Jesus said that He came to give us life, and that we would have it more abundantly. I find that that is true.
MorituriMax
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
kevinrtrs, This means that God has accepted the sacrifice [in Jesus' death] that turns away His wrath. It's only up to us to humble ourselves and accept that gift of life. In that humbling lies the whole point of Christianity - to accept that the love of God is found in the death of Jesus, not in relief of our physical stress."


Why? Why do I have to humble myself for someone who hasn't done anything to deserve it. I only have your word for it that this God did anything at all, or that he even exists. Humans who have proven throughout the ages that they will say anything if there is a payback for them.

And, if I recall correctly, Jesus only "stayed" dead for 3 days. After that he was up and around, none the worse for wear. Not much of a "sacrifice" for a God who can, according to his followers, do anything. It's only really a sacrifice if he hadn't been able to give Jesus a "get out of jail free card."
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2011
Why wasn't this article published in the Journal of Psychopathology?

or even 'PsychoBabble Quarterly' ?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (50) Jan 02, 2011
@ubathetuba
So what's stopping them?
-You did notice that aaaaaaa did just that I suppose, right before you downrated him?
Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.
You're being especially duplicitous today aren't you? Of course they do, moreso than religionists who uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert. Its called proselytism.

Anti-religionism is a form of human rights, peace, and freedom activism, don't you know. Religions are the main source of violence and oppression in the world. Down with them I say.
Whereas religious organizations which do these things abound!
-You all abound in bragging and feeling all self-righteous about it is the only difference.
tkjtkj
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
And, if I recall correctly, Jesus only "stayed" dead for 3 days. After that he was up and around, none the worse for wear.


i do wonder just where he went and what did he do during those 'fake death'days.
Was he struggling at the River Styx?? Battling demons? visiting the souls of children he let die in floods and war? Musta been on a tight schedule indeed!
MorituriMax
3.4 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011
Heh, I probably should have called it a "get out of dead free card" when I referred to the supposed "sacrifice by God for letting his son die for us" event.

If God COULDN'T bring back people from the dead with no effects like decomposition, brain damage, etc, THEN I would consider it valid to brag about if BEING a sacrifice.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (47) Jan 02, 2011
The solution to understanding Christianity [ and I'm not speaking for religion] is that religion says DO,DO, DO, whereas Christianity says "It is done."
Kevin what the hell are you talking about? You're the worst godder on this site. Without religions you wouldn't know the first thing about god because religionists invented him, wrote the books about him, then fought and died over the centuries (for no good reason) just to preserve those books so people like you could read a little bit, here and there, and in their egomania think they have the right and ability to reinterpret them to suit their own self-aggrandizement. If god existed (he does not) I guarantee you he would not appreciate this.

Next time you see a religionist I suggest you thank him for giving you the opportunity to create your own one-man religion.
tkjtkj
1 / 5 (1) Jan 02, 2011
THIS IS A SCIENCE site! NOT a fucking religious one!!
Moderator: please enforce this!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 02, 2011
Kevin,
As far as service goes, you did read 'purpose driven life' didn't you? Rick Warren had a whole lot to say about 'doing' and service to the community. Does your little sect stress these things too?
The amazing thing that then follows is that when our souls find rest in Christ a lot of the physical stress also disappears.
-As with any other opiate. Neither are very good for you or for society as a whole. Both cost too much and deprive you of intimate contact with Reality. There are clinics for drug addiction; most of those who are addicted to god must go cold turkey. Although being born again into the real world, and shrugging off the burden of godly guilt can be rapturous.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 02, 2011
THIS IS A SCIENCE site! NOT a fucking religious one!!
Moderator: please enforce this!
You read the article?? These topics generate more traffic than anything else.

God will provide.

AND, since religion presents the biggest threat to scientific pursuit and to the world, it's good to discuss it here.
MorituriMax
1 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2011
Tkjtkj wrote, THIS IS A SCIENCE site! NOT a fucking religious one!!
Moderator: please enforce this!

1. Why are you reading or posting here, then?
2. Do you want the moderator to remove the entire article then, since this is a science site?
3. See 1.
GaryB
3 / 5 (2) Jan 02, 2011
The "God of the Bible" was described as "the creator". And we see, via evolution, self organization that this Universe is continuously creative. One could consider these the same except that we ourselves are the emerging mind of God.

I'd rate us as rather immature at this point. Child-like lack of emotive control, strange "stern father" religious demands, jealous and low impulse control. We need to get better, but nothing to get angry over.
nada
5 / 5 (5) Jan 02, 2011

God will provide.

AND, since religion presents the biggest threat to scientific pursuit and to the world, it's good to discuss it here.


OH PLEASE!

Science ALWAYS corrects Religion, throughout history.

Religion HAS NEVER corrected Science - NEVER.

...and adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday.
mlange
5 / 5 (4) Jan 02, 2011
Look, we all know in our heart of hearts that there is no God as explained by religions on Earth. And if there is a conscious entity which is the "creator" of all things, being more complex then the universe is already I might add, it's NOTHING that any religion on this planet has claim it to be. A more realistic 'god' explanation would be, the universe is a virtual reality creation from a super advanced civilization in a parallel universe. Seriously, that's way more plausible than all religious interpretation of creation in my opinion.

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. " -Richard P Feynman (I cut the full quote short due to space, but it's a good one.)
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 02, 2011
Actually, Atheist can be just as vocal speaking out against acts as violence as Christians.
So what's stopping them?
Their is NO DATA to suggest other wise.
Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either. Whereas religious organizations which do these things abound!
Heck, my friend an Atheist works for the police.
That's nice, but how is it relevant? I have a job too.

You already assume, none of your arguments hold scientific value. Sorry, you can't argue on the premise you just set.
steve40004
1 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2011
Why must science be more arrogant than religion? You look even more ridiculous. Open your minds. Grow up.
VeryEvilDudeofDarkness
5 / 5 (9) Jan 02, 2011
Why must science be more arrogant than religion? You look even more ridiculous. Open your minds. Grow up.

Is this a joke? We aren't the one's who claim that an all powerful deity sends non believers to hell when they don't accept what we say as truth(secondly, we don't really claim truth at all). We aren't the one's that claim an all powerful deity created the universe and grants immortality to his faithful . I'm sorry, but you sir are a hypocrite, we don't need to grow up(we learn new things every day). You need to wake up.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 02, 2011
Why must science be more arrogant than religion? You look even more ridiculous. Open your minds. Grow up.

Science works, religion doesn't. That isn't arrogance, it is reality.

So fight against theocracy then. I'll gladly help.
We are, and you're criticizing us for it now.
MorituriMax
3.9 / 5 (7) Jan 02, 2011
steve40004, Open your minds."

Let brains fall out. Oh, if it were only so easy, we wouldn't be inundated by people whose only goal in life is to die and go to a better place where they can start living. Sadly this worldview tends to screw with mankind's ability to form long term plans to make lives for the people who want to actually do productive things in THIS life more difficult.
RobertKarlStonjek
not rated yet Jan 02, 2011
Christians, not satisfied with the prevailing delusion can also pray to saints, other religious figures, relics, holy places or dead relatives.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 03, 2011
Christians, not satisfied with the prevailing delusion can also pray to saints, other religious figures, relics, holy places or dead relatives.

Which kinda removes the whole monotheistic parts of the religion.
Egleton
1.7 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2011
One God?
How can a sentient mind be singular?
I am not singular.
I have a left, logical Emissary hemisphere and a right wholistic gestalt Master hemisphere.They communicate through the corpus callusum which the left can turn off, so that I can write these words.
The idea of one intellect is a Non sequitur.
By communicating over the internet we become "one" mind.
Mind is infinitely divisible and additive.
I do wish that the debate rose above the standard of Bob Dylan's 100 Inevitables.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2011
The idea of one intellect is a Non sequitur.
By communicating over the internet we become "one" mind.
Mind is infinitely divisible and additive.
You're ignoring the standard definition for mind and applying hive mind constructs to individuals, which is a big no-no in physiology and biology. If you want to talk psychiatry or philosophy, then go ahead and have a go, but don't mix the two unless you really want to confuse what you're trying to say.
DamienS
5 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2011
By communicating over the internet we become "one" mind.

Eeek! That would mean my mind and ryggesogn2/kevinrtrs would be as one. Oh, the horror, the humanity!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2011
perchecreek pegged it all right. This article is really about the author's belief. The author, Julie Exline, thinks she is studying her god's effect on us.

It seems unlikely that she comprehends people being angry at the frequent idiotic beliefs of the religious and sees it as Atheists actually being mad at something they don't think exists.

I have noticed before that the concept is just plain over the head of some religious people. They can ONLY think in religious terms so WE ALL must think in those terms. This can be seen by those here that are claiming that unbelievers are mocking god. And the article of course.

ttp://www3.uakron.edu/sociology/flameweb/coregroup.html
Which shows her as one of their researchers.

From the home page
The answer to this question requires an investigation of Godly Love, which is defined as the dynamic interaction between divine and human love that enlivens and expands benevolence.


This is some pretty sappy stuff.

Ethelred
wealthychef
5 / 5 (10) Jan 03, 2011
What is going on here? Scientist studying anger at mythological beings? As a thought experiment, try substituting "Zeus" for "God" in this article and then ask yourself if it would get published. This is scary. America is dangerously religious. Please, religious people, come back to Earth, we need you here! Stop believing in your apocalypse and interfaith bickering and join in the real battle against death, disease and war.
Dug
5 / 5 (9) Jan 03, 2011
You can only be angry at a god if you believe in a god. Since your belief was based on what you were taught about your god, perhaps your anger should be at those who taught you, deceived you and were either irresponsible, incompetent or manipulative in teaching about a non-existent god. At least then your anger has a real target and if you manage it positively, you can affect the source of your anger by correcting it or eliminating it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 03, 2011
Hey religionaries;

"(CNN) -- Arkansas game officials hope testing scheduled to begin Monday will solve the mystery of why more than 1,000 blackbirds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.
The birds -- most of which were dead -- were found within a one-mile area of Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said."

-And this is right near that swarm of 500 earthquakes in the last month or so, where there shouldn't be any. What do you think? (I know what you think) Is it Armageddon or ragnarok or merely a reminder to repent or else? Which?
UPDATE: 100,000 dead drum fish have just surfaced in the arkansas river.... I think it appropriate at this moment to post a little dirge Im rather fond of. Say it with music, the universal language and all that-
http:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=KQW7dHASkr4

black metal... for any occasion
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 03, 2011
Disclaimer for all noobs- otto is no devillover because just like god, the devil doesnt exist. So for black metalists it is only a fashion statement.

'No hell below us, above us only sky'
http:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Q0Eyw3l3XM
John_balls
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 03, 2011
That would be as silly as being angry at santa claus.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 03, 2011
So fight against theocracy then. I'll gladly help.
We are, and you're criticizing us for it now.
So you think your bigoted, anonymous postings here, are fighting against theocracy? Really?

What laws and regulations are you expecting to change this way? What government processes and procedures will be affected?

None? Then you have failed.

Perhaps you might take a Civics course. Learn a little about your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. Perhaps visit your city council...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.
Of course they do, moreso than religionists...
Oh, I doubt that. References?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 03, 2011
You already assume, none of your arguments hold scientific value. Sorry, you can't argue on the premise you just set.
So you admit you're unable to provide any evidence of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Wow. This is too easy ...like shooting fish in a barrel. No, even easier. More like catching fish in the supermarket. Nope, I'd still have to drive...

Ah, it's like having a complete meal prepared by a gourmet chef in my home, for free (mmm... brazed halibut!). There! That's how easy it is!
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Jan 03, 2011
So you think your bigoted, anonymous postings here, are fighting against theocracy? Really?
I should just like to point out that he is enlightening others as to the critical flaws in posts by bigoted, anonymous religionists such as yourself.
Wow. This is too easy ...like shooting fish in a barrel.
-So it was your godman who killed all those fish in arkansas? And he could have fed hundreds-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (51) Jan 03, 2011
So you think your bigoted, anonymous postings here, are fighting against theocracy? Really?
I should just like to point out that he is enlightening others as to the critical flaws in posts by bigoted, anonymous religionists such as yourself.
Wow. This is too easy ...like shooting fish in a barrel.
-So it was your godman who killed all those fish in arkansas? And he could have fed hundreds-
So you admit you're unable to provide any evidence of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy

http
://www.atheists.org/

-Defending the rights and freedoms of all those oppressed by organized irrationality.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 03, 2011

or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

http
://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default

-This is too easy ...like feeding xians to lions-
Ah, it's like having a complete meal prepared by a gourmet chef in my home, for free (mmm... brazed halibut!). There! That's how easy it is!
Reminds me of communion... 'Take, this is my body, eat me...'
Skultch
4.1 / 5 (13) Jan 03, 2011
Here's a personal story, mostly so this thread shows up in my activity. ;)

I have drastic, negative, reactions to all tree fruit that is brown and hard. My mother bought me a T-shirt for Xmas (the irony!) with a picture of a church and text that said:

"I'd join, but I'm allergic to nuts."

Best...gift...ever.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (46) Jan 03, 2011
http
://www.unitedway.org/worldwide/

'Take, this is my bloood, drink it and live forever, muahahaaaaaa'
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 03, 2011
What is going on here? Scientist studying anger at mythological beings? As a thought experiment, try substituting "Zeus" for "God" in this article and then ask yourself if it would get published. This is scary. America is dangerously religious. Please, religious people, come back to Earth, we need you here! Stop believing in your apocalypse and interfaith bickering and join in the real battle against death, disease and war.

Come on, I've seen all the versions of Clash of the Titans, how on Earth could you ever be mad at Zeus? He has such a wholesome family ethic.... heh.
Kingsix
3.2 / 5 (5) Jan 03, 2011
Not believing in God, doesn't mean you are evil and that you are bad towards everyone.

@VeryEvilDudeofDarkness is correct, Atheists do a lot to help others. I would even say more than most religious people do.
Yes there are a lot of nutty church goers out there. Such as that dude in Florida who was going to burn Qurans, not to mention many others. Most of us are not that strange.

Seems like same sort of problem when talking to Americans about anything but America. I am from Canada and some Americans serious think I would live in an igloo! The city I live in is not large by US standards, +1M people, but I have met people who and told them where I am from, and they ask if I know Sally, as if there is only a few people and probably only 1 Sally.
Lack of education about others is a very serious problem.
General rule that most religious and Atheists agree with.
Treat others as you would like to be treated.
That doesn't happen much on the internet.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2011
http
://www.atheists.org/

-Defending the rights and freedoms of all those oppressed by organized irrationality.
So you couldn't come up with any references to support your contention that more atheist organizations than religious organizations defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Mmm... this brazed halibut is most excellent!
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2011
http
://www.redcross.org/portal/site/en/menuitem.d8aaecf214c576bf971e4cfe43181aa0/?vgnextoid=477859f392ce8110VgnVCM10000030f3870aRCRD&vgnextfmt=default
Sorry, The Red Cross is not an atheist organization. It's religiously neutral.

From the website:

"It (The Red Cross) makes no discrimination as to nationality, race, religious beliefs, class or political opinions."

And its founder (Clara Barton) was a self-described Universalist (Christian).

So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Why is this so hard for you?

Mmm ...brazed halibut, again!
DamienS
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations

What the hell is an atheist organization anyway?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2011
http
://www.unitedway.org/worldwide/

You didn't know the United Way is rooted in religion and was initially conceived by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi?

http:/liveunited.org/pages/history

Epic fail!

Look! The brazed halibut multiplies!
ubavontuba
1.5 / 5 (8) Jan 04, 2011
So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations

What the hell is an atheist organization anyway?
An oxymoron.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 04, 2011
Sorry DamienS, I accidently rated you a one. I meant to give you a five.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?
Unicef, USAID, ACLU, NAACP, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, need I go on?
Perhaps you might take a Civics course. Learn a little about your rights and responsibilities as a citizen. Perhaps visit your city council...
I'd strongly suggest you take a breath before you post this sort of nonsense. It sounds like you're getting mad. You shouldn't post angry.
radiohalos
not rated yet Jan 04, 2011
The never ending story...
Ethelred
5 / 5 (4) Jan 04, 2011
Is that radiohalos as in the Fundamentalist that is trying to make uranium dating go away by ignoring radon?

Ethelred
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (6) Jan 04, 2011
So I'm still waiting for references for ATHEIST organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?
You mean like every government on earth?

But basically having an expressly atheist organization is a bit of an oxymoron. That would be like me asking you: "Why are you not in an anti-unicorn organization"
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (48) Jan 04, 2011
Sorry, The Red Cross is not an atheist organization. It's religiously neutral.
Correct. That means it favors no particular denomination, unlike most any religionist 'charity' you might name.

Isnt the condition of not acknowledging god the equivalent of denying he exists for the purposes for which the organization exists? I think so. These organizations operate in the absense of god. They are in no sense an expression of gods will.

And yet they dispense charity much more effectively and EQUITABLY than any organization which claims to be acting for god, because those organizations are limited by the specific interpretation of god which they choose to profess.

The Red Cross, United Way, and the ones SH mentioned are all GODLESS and yet function far better than godly charities. GODLESS is ATHEIST is it not? I think it is, and I bet many many religionists, like the people over at the Red Crescent, would agree with me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 04, 2011
Come on, I've seen all the versions of Clash of the Titans, how on Earth could you ever be mad at Zeus? He has such a wholesome family ethic.... heh.
Well, he devoured his wife:
"She was the first love and wife of Zeus, from whom she had at first endeavoured to withdraw by metamorphosing herself in various ways. She prophesied to him that she would give birth first to a girl and afterwards to a boy, to whom the rule of the world was destined by fate. For this reason Zeus devoured her, when she was pregnant with Athena, and afterwards he himself gave birth to a daughter, who issued from his head..."

-Maybe this was the family ethic you were referring to -? Reminds me of I Claudius when caligula cut up his pregnant sister/wife because he thought he was zeus. Religionists.

-And of course he caused the greeks to attack troy, but that was for humanitarian purposes as there were too many people in the world. As usual.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Jan 04, 2011
You didn't know the United Way is rooted in religion and was initially conceived by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi?...And its founder (Clara Barton) was a self-described Universalist (Christian).
That doesnt make them religionist, which you know full well. They were established as GODLESS and they remain so.

You smell like fish.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Jan 04, 2011
You didn't know the United Way is rooted in religion
Meaning what? They are not a religionist organization, which apparently has some of you guys all fired up:
http
://www.creationists.org/boycotts-united-way.html

-And with the help of honorable, selfless freedom fighters such as these, the UW will remain GODLESS:
http
://www.ffrf.org/news/releases/united_way/
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (5) Jan 04, 2011
Isnt the condition of not acknowledging god the equivalent of denying he exists

No. Not acknowledging god is like you not acknowledging fromdelfoomdingelbats. To atheists god is a non-issue (like fromdelfoomdingelbats are to you, hopefully, because I have no idea what one is)

We are not godless. YOU are the one making something up and living by it. That does not require us to be against it. To us it's just like elves, unicorns and other stuff people dream up to make their seemingly unbearable and chaotic lives less so.

If it helps: sure, whatever...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 04, 2011
Unicef, USAID, ACLU, NAACP, The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, need I go on?
There seems to be a disconnect from your definition of atheist (religion hating and dogmatic, by example given here) and religious tolerance (as these organizations practice). If you believe they are such fine examples of "atheist" organizations, why then don't you emulate them?

http:/www.unicef.org/media/media_4537.html

"Faith-based organizations and religious groups have become important partners in UNICEF's work..."

http:/www.usaid.gov/press/frontlines/fl_mar10/p01_religion100303.html

"Religion... is increasingly seen... as an effective way to... promote... peaceful coexistence..."

http:/www.aclu.org/aclu-defense-religious-practice-and-expression

"The ACLU vigorously defends the rights of all Americans to practice their religion."

continued...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2011
http:/www.naacp.org/pages/king

"(Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.) became convinced that religion could be both 'intellectually and emotionally satisfying.'"

http:/www.gatesfoundation.org/speeches-commentary/Pages/patty-stonesifer-2006-brown-university.aspx

"But Gandhi never tried to convert anyone to his religion; he just tried to make people better followers of their own religion. And on the core of our ethical duty, all religions say the same thing.

...Jesus says: 'In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.'"

Of course Bill Gates is purported to be an agnostic/atheist, but he's credited with saying:

"There's a lot of merit in the moral aspects of religion. I think it can have a very very positive impact."

http:/www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Bill_Gates

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 05, 2011
I'd strongly suggest you take a breath before you post this sort of nonsense. It sounds like you're getting mad. You shouldn't post angry.
Any such tone you detect, comes from the reader (you), as I'm having fun (at yours and otto's expense)!

P.S. Now there's enough brazed halibut to feed a multitude!
MorituriMax
4 / 5 (8) Jan 05, 2011
If Jesus and God are so great, why are we today in 2011, still totally absorbed with what was supposedly said 2,000 years ago? Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

I just always wonder why religious types are left with nothing other than 2,000 year old verses to try and make us live our lives the way they want.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 05, 2011
You mean like every government on earth?
Uh, have you never heard of the term, "Theocracy." Did you know some governments are theocracies?

Most that aren't theocracies, are secular. "Secularism" is a separation of Church and State. It's not atheism, per se. Mostly only the failed communist states were truly atheist.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2011
If Jesus and God are so great, why are we today in 2011, still totally absorbed with what was supposedly said 2,000 years ago? Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

I just always wonder why religious types are left with nothing other than 2,000 year old verses to try and make us live our lives the way they want.
Those are excellent questions (I only downranked you, for you doing so to me).

Anyway, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, he was (or his writers' were) a genius. He understood the human condition, and offered practicable solutions.

Sometimes faith is simply about believing in the things worth believing in. I believe in the words of Jesus, and I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.

Very cool.
DamienS
5 / 5 (5) Jan 05, 2011
Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?

Actually, the Vatican/Church/Pope has been doing backflips for hundreds of years in order to try to stay relevant. The most recent example is when it made an announcement about the 'legitimate' use of condoms in some constrained situations. In fact, the pope made such a meal of the proclamation that it sparked even more questions seeking further clarification. Of course, none were forthcoming so the message is left ambiguous, just like the rest of the muddled narrative the church is trying to stop from unraveling.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 05, 2011
Anyway, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, he was (or his writers' were) a genius. He understood the human condition, and offered practicable solutions.


Geniuses have been known to exist throughout history. People who understand the human condition and offer solutions have been known to exist thoughout history.

Your alternatives to Jesus not being the Son of God are actually pretty reasonable.
Modernmystic
2.3 / 5 (6) Jan 05, 2011
I think this is highly likely. Now before the faithful jump all over this and mess up the thread, this is not a matter of faith. This is a matter of psychological reasoning. If a God exists, no matter what your faith is, it would be very difficult to be mad with a concept. Whether that concept is legitimate or not. For example, I couldn't get mad at someone's ignorance, I can only get mad at my inability to reach them.


Exceptional reasoning. I agree 100%
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 05, 2011
Shouldn't we see something from God that is a bit more recent? No newer books worth writing from the big guy? Nothing new coming out of the Vatican that's a bit more... relevant to todays events?
Well, he wrote those golden plates for joseph smith (but they got lost like moses' tablets); and if we wait 100 yrs or so maybe the Purpose Driven Life will get canonized. Who knows?
We are not godless. YOU are the one making something up and living by it. That does not require us to be against it. To us it's just like elves, unicorns and other stuff people dream up to make their seemingly unbearable and chaotic lives less so.
Your reference is unclear. Who is we? Who do you think you are speaking for? And what is it that I am making up and living with, that is part of my argument in this thread?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (46) Jan 05, 2011
Any such tone you detect, comes from the reader (you), as I'm having fun (at yours and otto's expense)!
But youre getting stomped... This makes you happy in the sense that jesus likes martyrs perhaps?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (48) Jan 05, 2011
...Jesus says: 'In everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets.'"
The thing about the bible versions which is rarely mentioned, is that the Golden Rule is always prefaced by accepting god. For instance:
"37 Jesus replied: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments."

-Meaning that you cannot follow the golden rule properly unless you accept god first. Therefore, heathens cannot be expected to treat you as they would treat themselves and thus cannot be trusted.

Just thought that was worth pointing out.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.6 / 5 (9) Jan 05, 2011
Meaning that you cannot follow the golden rule properly unless you accept god first. Therefore, heathens cannot be expected to treat you as they would treat themselves and thus cannot be trusted.

Just thought that was worth pointing out.
It was, as it shows that tribalism is not only encouraged but required by the faithful. Hence, why the "do no murder" is restricted to those within your "tribe" by rabbinical scholars.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
But youre getting stomped... This makes you happy in the sense that jesus likes martyrs perhaps?
Stomped? Hardly.

So, how's it coming with that GRAND list of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?

Anything yet? Anything, at all?

Now tell me honestly, otto and Skeptic Heretic, have either of you personally contributed to any such charitable organizations? Have you volunteered?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
Geniuses have been known to exist throughout history. People who understand the human condition and offer solutions have been known to exist thoughout history.
This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.

It's actually quite remarkable. When you compare the Gospels to the rest of the New Testament, you can see a distinct difference in quality.
Your alternatives to Jesus not being the Son of God are actually pretty reasonable.
Thanks.

Son of God, or insightful social commentator and philosopher, he's worth reading.

His insight is particularly remarkable when you consider the time, place, and conditions of his life.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 06, 2011
This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.
Aesops fables, the Code of Hammurabi, the Book of the Dead, etc. Holy books tend to persist unless the adherants are wiped out.
Now tell me honestly, otto and Skeptic Heretic, have either of you personally contributed to any such charitable organizations? Have you volunteered?
Yes, have you?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 06, 2011
So, how's it coming with that GRAND list of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?
You've read the examples offered and the arguments conclusively defending them and yet you act as if you didn't. This makes you a liar. As usual.
This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.
Most of what Jesus had to say was stolen from earlier philo and religious works. He promised eternal life which is a lie. The bible is full of lies. It's understandable how you religionists canlie to defend your gods and get away with it.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 06, 2011
-And THINK you can get away with it that is. Heretics can now expose you for what you are without fear. In the west that is. Elsewhere we still get stoned and shot.
http
://www.google.com/news/url?sa=t&ct3=MAA4AEgBUABgAWoCdXN6AXfYAQE&usg=AFQjCNEpaFjVYHJ4sKd-t-exVCkkHRgHVw&rt=HOMEPAGE&url=http://www.newsweek.com/2011/01/06/pakistan-more-attacks-may-follow-killing-of-salmaan-taseer.html
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 06, 2011
Perhaps you think that secular governance and freedom from religion are things which should be fought against and not for. Perhaps you think that proper aid organizations should be bribing people to convert or encouraging families to grow beyond their ability to support themselves, rather than just to provide aid.

The aid organizations listed provide aid without proselytism. They are composed of the usual mix of religionists, agnostics, and atheists. You think atheist aid organizations would be the ones preaching atheism while giving aid? Religionist aid organizations ALWAYS preach while doing this.

This makes them proselytic agencies, which is something far different. It is a form of religious imperialism. The fact that they don't advertise this duplicity makes them fundamentally deceptive in nature.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 06, 2011
More deception, more lies, more trickery, more bribes, more coersion, more persecution, more violence, suffering, and death. Only the truth about religions can set people free from their grasp.

Religions depict antireligionism as satanic. Satan doesn't exist but perhaps evil does. In order to trick the people, evil would sell itself as the kindest, most loving, most benevolent and peaceful entity conceivable. It would be preaching these these things while causing people at the same time to do the most horrendous things in it's holy name, or preparing them for the purpose. This is religionism. This is what you stand for. Evil.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
He promised eternal life which is a lie.


Oh my. Otto has just made history. This is a great day in the annals of rational debate. He's just strongly implied he can falsify and non-falsifiable statement!

OK Otto, here's your chance to make history....

We're all waiting....
TheGhostofOtto1923
2 / 5 (42) Jan 06, 2011
Sorry deceptive godder religionist. You'll have to be more specific than that.
Modernmystic
2 / 5 (8) Jan 06, 2011
Sorry deceptive godder religionist. You'll have to be more specific than that.


Thought so :-)

I'll make it simple for you...YOU lied, Christ MAY have lied.

Clear it up for you sunshine?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
He's just strongly implied he can falsify and non-falsifiable statement!
It isn't unfalsifiable. Point out someone who's older than 150. They don't exist, therefore the whole eternal life ordeal is false. Another one would be "Jesus will return within our lifetimes". Which also never happened.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
He's just strongly implied he can falsify and non-falsifiable statement!
It isn't unfalsifiable. Point out someone who's older than 150. They don't exist, therefore the whole eternal life ordeal is false.


*Sigh* SH, I think we both know what he meant by eternal life. I'm pretty sure Otto does too. I give you points when you make an obviously valid assertion...quit being silly.

Otto ****ed up, I pointed it out. Simple as that...

Unless of course you have definitive proof there is no existence after death. If so provide it and I'll gladly recant.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 06, 2011
YOU lied, Christ MAY have lied.
If the godman MAY have lied then why believe unconditionally that he is the spawn of god? Why arent you an agnostic?

I didnt lie when I said I didnt know what you were talking about. And I didnt lie when I said that promising immortality was a lie. I can say this with as much conviction and certainty as any godlover who says heaven is real. Moreso in fact, because since the bogus concept was invented we have learned far more about the nature of the universe and the natural laws which govern it; and there appears to be scant room in either for places like heaven or things like souls.

The preponderance of evidence is on my side, and it grows daily; and so I feel safe in concluding that god and souls do not exist. And I can wonder why so many people choose to declare that they do exist despite the complete lack of evidence for it.
cont-
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
And I can wonder why so many people choose to declare that they do exist despite the complete lack of evidence for it.
cont-


I marvel even moreso at people who chose to declare that they don't exist despite the complete lack of evidence either way. Especially since they claim their sole methodology is reason, logic, and science.

As to my saying Christ may have lied, well I'm simply being INTELLECTUALLY honest Otto...a concept you might try to employ as well.

I have faith he didn't...I claim no proof either way.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 06, 2011
Unless of course you have definitive proof there is no existence after death. If so provide it and I'll gladly recant.
This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused. Without observation of an afterlife we're going to have to pull out Occham's razor and cut this bit off the cloth of established fact. The burden of proof would lie with those who believe there is an afterlife, for which there are no observations as so far. The whole eternal life piece isn't exactly explained as being an afterlife within the foundational texts. The entire idea of heaven is an add on from the NT, and is dependent on the return of Jesus, which is previously proved false, that is unless he stealthed his way back down and didn't tell anyone about 2000 years ago.

Christianity was an apocalyptic religion that was more about overthrowing the Roman and Jewish rule in the region.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.


I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 06, 2011
I can also weigh the sociopolitical utility of the judeo-xian religions. I can see what effects they have had on the regions they have helped to conquer and consolidate, and realize that they couldnt have done so in ANY other form than the ones they had been given. And so I can conclude that they were Manmade and tailored for the Purpose of governing people in THIS life, the ONLY life.

I can observe how these religions have evolved in concert with changing times and places in order to continue to govern people effectively. This too indicates they are Agencies of man and NOT god.

I can see in all cases that they are extremely effective in compelling the people to act against their own interests and predispositions; to live closer together and cooperate against expectations; or to fight, suffer, and die on cue and against expectations.

This too tells me that they are brilliant FABRICATIONS of Expediency, clearly and without doubt.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 06, 2011
This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.


I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...
Which I just did. Thankyou for the opportunity, deceptive godder religionist.
Especially since they claim their sole methodology is reason, logic, and science.
What other methodology IS there? Faith? Prayer?? A story book??? Ha.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.


I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...
Which I just did. Thankyou for the opportunity, deceptive godder religionist.


Sorry, where was it? I missed it...
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (43) Jan 06, 2011
This is another case of the burden of proof being on the accuser rather than the accused.


I beg to differ. Otto specifically said there IS no life after death. I'm asking him to prove it...
Which I just did. Thankyou for the opportunity, deceptive godder religionist.


Sorry, where was it? I missed it...
Of course you did, self-deceiving godder religionist. Preponderence of evidence against... complete lack of evidence for... form and function specifically suited for an alternate and extremely vital Purpose, which they successfully performed to a T...

And let me just add the extreme and utter silliness of what they claim and what they promise. The incredible nonsense of the trinity and flying prophets to jerusalem and headless imams and virgin smoke impregnations and reincarnations as flies... and the eucharist ET AL. And people dying by the millions for these things. Its all just SO horribly tragically silly.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
I missed it because it was completely absent Otto. All I saw was your usual anti-religious screed and specious "conclusions" about religion.

Nothing about definitive about there not being an existence after death.

Go fish...
Cin5456
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
After reading days worth of postings on this subject by both Otto and Mystic I am heartedly tired of Mystic ignoring perfectly valid answers. I come down on the side of atheists because of the logic behind the lack of belief in a falsely perpetuated fantasy. Now, I like fantasy novels, but I can't subscribe to the religionist's fantasies. Logic and science are solid, touchable, verifiable. Atheism doesn't suppose anything outside of normal space-time. Atheism insists on real world answers to real world problems, and most importantly, atheism subscribes to the belief that we are solely responsible for our actions and intentions. I struggled with my mother's faith for many years, ever skeptical, yet fearful of denying something she so fully embraces, but I know for a fact that she is delusional. Religion is for the weak and supercilious, not for strong, skilled searchers after truth, in short, aethists.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.1 / 5 (43) Jan 06, 2011
I missed it because it was completely absent Otto. All I saw was your usual anti-religious screed and specious "conclusions" about religion.

Nothing about definitive about there not being an existence after death.

Go fish...
'Your imaginary friend is not real.' 'He is too!' 'No hes not.' 'Yes he IS mom.' 'He is not. There is no such thing as imaginary people.' 'But hes not a people. Hes a GOD.' 'Listen here young man If you keep this nonsense up youll get your mouth washed out with soap. And I WILL tell parson Browne what you said and your dead hamster WILL burn in hell. You want that? And you wont get any xmas presents, hear?Now go get washed up for dinner.' '(He is too real...)' 'WHAT was that???' 'Aw nothin mom-' [swift exit]
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 06, 2011
I missed it because it was completely absent Otto.
You do understand the difference between you saying that it is completely absent, and it actually being absent dont you? One is not true (your saying it) and one IS true (it actually being there for everybody to acknowledge but you.)

Do you see the difference? You could have said, in your OPINION it was absent, in which case you would still have been wrong but at least not oblivious to the reality of it being there, and it pretty obviously being sufficient.

Hope this helps.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 06, 2011
Religion is for the weak and supercilious, not for strong, skilled searchers after truth, in short, aethists.
No, that's not correct either. There are certainly some credulous and ignorant atheists in the world. Atheism also does not imply a lack of spiritual belief, it simply means a lack of belief in theist depictions of reality and god/gods. MM is correct in saying that without evidence against, you cannot rule the possibility out. Where many people get confused is in percent probability and possibility.

If it is 0.0000000000000001% possible, it cannot be ruled out. Then again, the chances of it actually being are so slight that it is virtually impossible. You have to be concise when you talk about these sort of things.

MM appears to be arguing for a 50% chance, which is well beyond highly unlikely in regards to potential.
Otto is arguing for a flat 0% possibility, which he can't support with evidence.

Eventually this argument will be cleared up, but not today.
Cin5456
2.5 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2011
Okay, so there are variations among atheists and religionists, as there are among all of humanity. My view up close and personal is that religion is a crutch for someone who can't rely on themselves for purpose and belief. They seem to be spoon fed the doctrines of whatever faith they subscribe to, and stick to those doctrines beyond all rational evidence to the contrary. Perhaps this is due to my personal exposure.

Mom beleives in the Archangle Michael and his band of ministering angels who attend to the daily needs of the faithful. She communicates with others of her belief daily by computer. She is really delusional, describing personal encounters with healing angels. Dad gave up religion with the death of his second wife, so I think he was the more self-reliant of the two, more able to bounce back from grief and the anger I heard him express against his church. But he probably didn't give up his basic beliefs.

I didn't get that MM was arguing for 50%, more like 100%.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
I guess if you want to parse it in terms of probability I'm actually making two arguments.

I'm arguing from a PERSONAL perspective of faith for 100%

I'm arguing from a logical reasoned perspective for X%. Meaning one literally can't put an honest percentage on the question. Of course, being people we all do. The reason I make this argument is that I want consistency from this side of the argument. I get irritated when an atheist says "There is no God". It's just a personal pet peeve that I have...it's my little issue I need to "work" on :P

I have no problem when an atheist says "I really don't know for sure", and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."

Hope that clears my position a little.
Skultch
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2011
and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."


Why?
dtxx
4 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2011

Anyway, if Jesus wasn't the Son of God, he was (or his writers' were) a genius. He understood the human condition, and offered practicable solutions.

Sometimes faith is simply about believing in the things worth believing in. I believe in the words of Jesus, and I believe in Martin Luther King Jr.'s "I Have a Dream" speech.


So let's clarify this statement... It doesn't matter to you if everything in the bible is a bald faced lie, because you already decided its worth believing in? It wouldn't bother you one bit if you knew heaven, hell, the soul, were all made up by someone who wanted to impart his philosophical views? Not surprising at all from a cultist.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."


Why?


For the same reason I'd be peeved at a weather man who said there was a 80% chance of rain on October 10th 2015...
dtxx
2.5 / 5 (4) Jan 06, 2011
and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."


Why?


That person is then not an atheist, but an agnostic.

I like the term anti-theist, because I am against all churches and religions.

There is always going to be an inescapable amount of uncertainty around certain questions. It's not very useful to say we can never be totally certain, so therefore it's open season to accept any answer. We can certainly talk about what's likely and what we have reason to believe. If you didn't have a bronze-age book of fables, would you have otherwise ever have concluded that the judeo-xtian god exists? Of course not, because other than your text there is absolutely no evidence pointing in that direction.

And speaking of books from that time, where are all the historical accounts of jesus? Only in the bible. But someone travelling around performing miracles and causing all kinds of upheaval probably just wasn't worth writing about, right?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 06, 2011
Otto is arguing for a flat 0% possibility
My argument is not so much whether the creature exists or not, but in the damage its institutions inflict upon the world.
which he can't support with evidence.
I dont believe I have to. I believe a theoretical case could be made in a court of law that religions cause far more harm than theyre worth. I think that one of the points in evidence would be the (no) chance that such a creature exists and certainly not in the many thousands of forms claimed by all the various cults and covens which exist today.
http
://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scopes_Trial

-Just like the scopes trial, win or lose it would still go far in turning public opinion against religion. That and the many horrible things they are planning to inflict upon us in the near future. All the dormant religions would scream 'We would never do such a thing!' -But of course they have, and they will again, as well as all the lesser things they do to poison societies every day.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
That person is then not an atheist, but an agnostic.
Incorrect. They are an agnostic atheist. a-gnostic:not knowing a-theist:doubtful of theism.
I like the term anti-theist, because I am against all churches and religions.
Anti-theists don't necessarily target churches, dogma and religion. Anti-theists are so monikered because we think that if it were true, it would be horrendous to live in a metaphysical North Korea.
dtxx
1 / 5 (1) Jan 06, 2011
SH,

I respectfully disagree with your definitions. Oxford says an anti-theist is one opposed to the belief in the existence of a god. Religion is the practice of fostering such belief. Anti-theism makes no claim about whether or not the world would be awful if god really existed. I strongly oppose those who allow themselves belief in god. I don't even let myself get to the point of worrying about how bad things would be if god were real, because that's giving a bit too much credit to the cultists of the world in my mind.
Skultch
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 06, 2011
and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."


Why?


For the same reason I'd be peeved at a weather man who said there was a 80% chance of rain on October 10th 2015...


Weather Man = "I see evidence, therefore it's likely that...."
Atheist = "I see no evidence, therefore it's unlikely that...."

That's a poor analogy and I think you know better.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 06, 2011
I respectfully disagree with your definitions. Oxford says an anti-theist is one opposed to the belief in the existence of a god. Religion is the practice of fostering such belief. Anti-theism makes no claim about whether or not the world would be awful if god really existed. I strongly oppose those who allow themselves belief in god. I don't even let myself get to the point of worrying about how bad things would be if god were real, because that's giving a bit too much credit to the cultists of the world in my mind.
Oxford also validated Palin's use of "refudiated"....

What you are by classification is a gnostic atheist. Not only do you not believe but you "know" there's nothing to believe in.
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 07, 2011
@MM

Now that I have shown you the difference between a positive and a negative assertion, does that change anything for you? Take your time. Let is soak in. Does atheism make more sense yet? No? Keep thinking. Try, try, try to create a hypothetical thought experiment without religion. Does materialism (that has evidence) or spirituality (by definition, a lack of evidence) make more sense? I'll wait.....
dtxx
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 07, 2011
"Flame of Love Project" ...


"[...] this project seeks to transform social science by taking Poseidon seriously as a perceived actor in maritime events, while advancing the agenda of empirical superstition."

I like my re-write of their mission statement. Makes it sound much less ridiculous.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2011
I'm angry at God like I'm angry at Santa and Spiderman.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2011


Weather Man = "I see evidence, therefore it's likely that...."
Atheist = "I see no evidence, therefore it's unlikely that...."

That's a poor analogy and I think you know better.


Not at all. We ALL know that the weather can't be reliably predicted by more than 10 days out. Did you look at the date I gave? IOW the weather man can't possibly have evidence that it's PROBABLY going to rain on any given day in 2015. Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.
TheWalrus
5 / 5 (2) Jan 07, 2011
I'm angry at unicorns.
antialias
5 / 5 (6) Jan 07, 2011
. Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.


The two statements are nevertheless different. The burden of proof is always on the one making an assertion (in this case on someone saying "there is a god"). Without THAT assertion coming FIRST the assertion of an atheist would make no sense.

You can't go and say "there is a god" then claim that this statement alone substantiates itself and further claim that any statement to the contrary is unsubstantiated. That's just completely fallacious/hypocritical.

FIRST you must show some merit in the statement "there is a god" THEN you can attack atheist. Not one second earlier.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (7) Jan 07, 2011

Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.


I have no evidence that telepathic elves don't switch around my socks when I sleep. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to assume they do by your logic. The null hypothesis is to not believe it. I would suggest you prove that Dr. Russell's teapot isn't in orbit between Earth and Mars. Do you know 100% there is no Lochness monster? Then there is. Can you prove that Unicorns don't exist? Have you looked EVERYWHERE? Then they exist. An atheist isn't saying it's impossible for a god to exist, an atheist says there is no good evidence for such an entity and thus I don't believe in it. Notice I didn't say I know there is no god, I said I believe there is no god based on lack of evidence.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
This is true, but few words have been as durable as Jesus', or as broadly insightful.
Aesops fables, the Code of Hammurabi, the Book of the Dead, etc. Holy books tend to persist unless the adherants are wiped out.
I'd argue these works are not as broadly insightful, although Aesop's Fables are quite good.
Now tell me honestly, otto and Skeptic Heretic, have either of you personally contributed to any such charitable organizations? Have you volunteered?
Yes, have you?
Of course.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
You've read the examples offered and the arguments conclusively defending them and yet you act as if you didn't. This makes you a liar. As usual.
What arguments "conclusively defending them" are you talking about? the only arguments concerning them are the ones I provided, demonstrating that each one exemplifies religious tolerance and even works with and/or through religious organizations. Did you fail to read them?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
So let's clarify this statement... It doesn't matter to you if everything in the bible is a bald faced lie, because you already decided its worth believing in?
This is a logical fallacy, as demonstrably, a lot of it is verified in the archaeological record.
It wouldn't bother you one bit if you knew heaven, hell, the soul, were all made up by someone who wanted to impart his philosophical views?
Not particularly. If they don't exist, I won't exist to care. But if they do exist, I'll be better prepared (so to speak).
Not surprising at all from a cultist.
Whatever do you mean by this?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
This is a logical fallacy, as demonstrably, a lot of it is verified in the archaeological record.
No, it isn't.
Not particularly. If they don't exist, I won't exist to care. But if they do exist, I'll be better prepared (so to speak).
So that answer doesn't make sense. Just to paraphrase your statement as I read it:
If you discovered the entire concept of religion was merely a scam used to manipulate you, you'd no longer exist. I think you made an assumption there.
I'd argue these works are not as broadly insightful, although Aesop's Fables are quite good.
You never read the Book of the Dead.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (47) Jan 08, 2011


Weather Man = "I see evidence, therefore it's likely that...."
Atheist = "I see no evidence, therefore it's unlikely that...."

That's a poor analogy and I think you know better.


Not at all. We ALL know that the weather can't be reliably predicted by more than 10 days out. Did you look at the date I gave? IOW the weather man can't possibly have evidence that it's PROBABLY going to rain on any given day in 2015. Just as an atheist has no evidence that there PROBABLY isn't an intelligent force behind creation.
Yah but you people think you can pray to the weatherman, and if he likes the way you do it, he'll make it rain on any day you want. Nice analogy thanks. Got any more?
AngrySparrow
5 / 5 (1) Jan 08, 2011
How can you be angry at something you don't believe in?

This so-called "research" just sounds so bogus.

Whenever an atheist says they don't believe in any gods, there's always at lease one religious person who says something about "you're just angry with god".
Nyloc
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2011
I am becoming increasingly convinced, by a mountain of evidence, that my belief that humans are rational is a delusion. I’d like to think that logic and reason govern people’s lives, but I just don’t see it.

Rather, we are animals driven by emotion, who have invented a tool called “reason” which has provided us with many benefits.

Powerful people know this well. They ‘push our emotional buttons’ to do their bidding. “Religion” is but one of the delusions they manipulate us with. So is “politics”, “patriotism”, “consumerism”, “war-mongering”, “racism” - the list goes on.

I watch in horror the suffering perpetrated by humans who have allowed themselves to be manipulated to do harm to themselves and the planet!

Still, I harbour a glimmer of hope in our innate empathy for others. I hope that as we evolve, our sphere of empathy will widen to encompass more than our kin, our country, and our species. It’s in our self-interest.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2011
No, it isn't.
Yes, it is.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_archaeology#Table_I:_Excavations_and_surveys

So that answer doesn't make sense. Just to paraphrase your statement as I read it:
If you discovered the entire concept of religion was merely a scam used to manipulate you, you'd no longer exist. I think you made an assumption there.
Sure, I stretched the context a little. But I think it's clear why. Otherwise it's a logical fallacy as there's no way to prove, in life, every religious writer is 100% wrong.
You never read the Book of the Dead.
Generally, it's a funerary book of spells, not social commentary and wisdom.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
Uba, that isn't proof of the events, that's proof of the setting existing.
New York exists, does that mean spiderman is real?
Sure, I stretched the context a little. But I think it's clear why.
Because you're being intellectually dishonest and that spot where you admit it is you trying to not be intellectually dishonest.
Generally, it's a funerary book of spells, not social commentary and wisdom.
It was to the adherants of that religion, just as your Bible is to you, Aesop's fables were to the greek slaves, etc.
dtxx
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2011
My question isn't a logical fallacy because it's a hypothetical question. I asked if you would care, given X.

Not particularly. If they don't exist, I won't exist to care. But if they do exist, I'll be better prepared (so to speak).


I wasn't particularly talking about your bid for an afterlife. I'm talking about the actions you choose to take here on earth, how you make those decisions, and how they affect others.

Religions tend to tell people that they have an unquestionable moral superiority and a direct line to the highest authority in the universe. That type of thinking, unsurprisingly, frequently results in the marginalization of minority groups.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
That type of thinking, unsurprisingly, frequently results in the marginalization of minority groups.
And morality.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
@ Otto and SH:

So, where's this supposed magnificent list of ATHEIST charity organizations?

Otto, did you lie?

The truth is there are no significant, strictly atheist charity organizations. And as for the secular charitable organizations, they are largely staffed by religious people who use them as a vehicle of religious service.

So, with that and what you've been writing here, why then shouldn't we conclude that atheists are generally unkind, mean, cruel, insensitive, unfriendly, merciless, unforgiving, unsympathetic, stingy, unfeeling, ungenerous, hardhearted, thoughtless, inconsiderate, dishonest, and bigoted?

The world has tried your brand of strictly atheist governmental policy and social engineering - with disastrous results! (Can you say: "Khmer Rouge")

That you would advocate for these policies again, borders on criminal conspiracy.
AngrySparrow
5 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
@ Otto and SH:

So, where's this supposed magnificent list of ATHEIST charity organizations?



I know I'm not the person you're talking to, but here you go - atheist and secular charities:

Atheists Helping the Homeless
American Humanist Association
International Humanist and Ethical Union
Fellowship of Freethought
Foundation Beyond Belief
Kiva Lending Team
Atheist Centre of India
Atheist Relief Fund

There are also plenty of secular (not specifically atheist) charities, not least of which are:

The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort
Doctors without borders
CARE
UNICEF

to name just a few.

and naturally, many, many more ...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2011
Uba, that isn't proof of the events, that's proof of the setting existing.
New York exists, does that mean spiderman is real?
A logical fallacy. He wrote, "everything in the bible..." not "every event..." Besides, archaeology (by definition) is the study of artifacts. History may be inferred by archaeology, but not necessarily confirmed.
Because you're being intellectually dishonest and that spot where you admit it is you trying to not be intellectually dishonest.
Nope.
It was to the adherants of that religion, just as your Bible is to you, Aesop's fables were to the greek slaves, etc.
Which is not in context with what I wrote about social commentary on the human condition and durability. Or, would you suggest ancient Egyptian funerary rituals are still broadly practiced?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2011
My question isn't a logical fallacy because it's a hypothetical question. I asked if you would care, given X.
You didn't pose it as a hypothetical question. And, it's a logical fallacy because it implies the subjective subject to which I referred is also a known lie, which would make commonly recognized social values false, which would make accepted laws and societal rules ...and even society itself false ...and they obviously aren't.
I wasn't particularly talking about your bid for an afterlife. I'm talking about the actions you choose to take here on earth, how you make those decisions, and how they affect others.
Given that the values presented are reasonable and practicable, I believe them and use them.

Continued...
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
A logical fallacy. He wrote, "everything in the bible..." not "every event..."
No, context matters. And it is quite trite to use semantics to invent a fallacy argument.
Which is not in context with what I wrote about social commentary on the human condition and durability. Or, would you suggest ancient Egyptian funerary rituals are still broadly practiced?
More than half the Old Testament Bible is a depiction of rules regarding rites. The two are not much different when read objectively. Do you stone children to death, or slaughter your livestock in a particular manner? No, but your holy book contains those instructions.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 08, 2011
Religions tend to tell people that they have an unquestionable moral superiority and a direct line to the highest authority in the universe. That type of thinking, unsurprisingly, frequently results in the marginalization of minority groups.
In as far as Christian values are concerned, I disagree.

Sadly though, it's too often the case where people not adhering to Christian ideologies, but claim a higher moral authority in the name of Christianity, who marginalize minorities. These people co-op Christianity and give it a bad (and undeserved) reputation.

Generally, Christianity is NOT about telling people how to live, but rather about showing by example.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 08, 2011
The truth is there are no significant, strictly atheist charity organizations.
Angrysparrow has graciously added some to the list.

Your def of charitable organizations obviously must include those who preach as well, as in Xian organizations who make it known that their good will is provided with god as sponsor. Atheists I suppose would tend to donate through secular organizations which don't proudly advertise their sponsorship- they just give.

In other words they don't preach doctrine AND give- they just give. In reality your groups are just out looking to bribe potential converts and fortify their own constituency. Does this make sense to you? Godder groups dilute their efforts and waste donation funds by hosting missionaries, printing and giving out literature, establishing churches etc.

I don't know SH if he denies it again I think we can declare Marjonism. Get out the meathooks and light the coals-
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (46) Jan 08, 2011
And as for the secular charitable organizations, they are largely staffed by religious people who use them as a vehicle of religious service.
They absolutely are not. And until you provide some figures to backup that mindless bullshit statement, my assertion stands. In fact, I bet you they are prohibited from doing so by law.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
Atheists Helping the Homeless
Not exactly "grand," but their hearts are in the right place.
American Humanist Association
Isn't a charity, but an atheist educational ("proselytising") organization. But, they do support some (relatively small) charities.
International Humanist and Ethical Union
Same as above, but in adjunct to the above.
Fellowship of Freethought
No charitable programs are listed on their site.
Foundation Beyond Belief
Again, relatively small support for a few charities.
Kiva Lending Team
Lending isn't the same thing as giving.
Atheist Centre of India
No charitable programs are listed on their site.
Atheist Relief Fund
Doesn't appear to even have a web presence.
The Bill and Melinda Gates foundation.
Secular Humanist Aid and Relief Effort
Doctors without borders
CARE
UNICEF
Generally, already discussed, above.
and naturally, many, many more ...
Seems doubtful, considering your first list.
ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (7) Jan 08, 2011
No, context matters. And it is quite trite to use semantics to invent a fallacy argument.

What? I clearly demonstrated it was you who was narrowing the context. "Everything" isn't equivalent to "events only."
More than half the Old Testament Bible is a depiction of rules regarding rites. The two are not much different when read objectively. Do you stone children to death, or slaughter your livestock in a particular manner? No, but your holy book contains those instructions.
Anther fallacy. As we've discussed previously, save for the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament Law is irrelevant to Christians. It says so, in the New Testament.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
Anther fallacy. As we've discussed previously, save for the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament Law is irrelevant to Christians. It says so, in the New Testament.
That's the great thing about the New Testament. It also says that it would be easier for everything in existence to disappear, than to have "one stroke of the pen fall from the Law." Difference is, Jesus was the one who stated the Law persists, while it was Paul who said the convenant had been fulfilled.

Which one is supposedly God again?
Generally, already discussed, above.
You seem to think that secularism is a religion. It is not. If you are not a religious organization, you are a secular organization.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
Angrysparrow has graciously added some to the list.
Sorry, nothing on his atheist list would qualify as "magnificent" or "grand" or "significant." All but one of them aren't even charities, but rather atheist outreach ("proselytising") organizations.

So, how's that crow you're eating tasting? Probably not as good as my brazed halibut, eh?

So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
-Mark 8:8
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
They absolutely are not. And until you provide some figures to backup that mindless bullshit statement, my assertion stands. In fact, I bet you they are prohibited from doing so by law.
They are prohibited from proselytizing, not from participating.

"Believers give more to secular charities than non-believers do"

http:/www.hoover.org/publications/policy-review/article/6577
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
That's the great thing about the New Testament. It also says that it would be easier for everything in existence to disappear, than to have "one stroke of the pen fall from the Law." Difference is, Jesus was the one who stated the Law persists, while it was Paul who said the covenant had been fulfilled.
Nope. Jesus is the one who said to keep the Ten Commandments and to PRESERVE the Old Testament. Paul just backed him up.

This becomes obvious when you add Jesus' commandment (which obviously conflicts with the Hebrew Law you mentioned).
Which one is supposedly God again?
Both (supposing Paul was inspired by God).
You seem to think that secularism is a religion. It is not. If you are not a religious organization, you are a secular organization.
Right. But secularism is a separation from religion, not a denial of religion, or religious values. For example, much of our modern law is derived from religion (even though the legal systems may be secular).
AngrySparrow
5 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
Uba:

Angrysparrow has graciously added some to the list.


So they did eat, and were filled: and they took up of the broken meat that was left seven baskets.
-Mark 8:8


For a supposed Christian, Uba, you really are a bit of an arrogant one – no a single bone of humility in you.

Here’s 3 points:
1. They are ALL charities – sorry – get over it.
2. They’re not “grand”? So? You just said charities
3. You just said atheist charities – I spent 30 seconds getting some names of the internet.

So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?

I know Christians like you – you make a statement, someone shows you’re wrong, you say you meant something else, someone shows you’re wrong again, you change it all again – it goes on and on – and everyone else is wrong, ultimately they’re all persecuting you.

The real problem is, is that you Christians just can’t help yourself.

Instead of just saying “Yeah OK, I was wrong about that” – you keep on bull-shiting, eve
AngrySparrow
4 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
Uba:

For a supposed Christian, Uba, you really are a bit of an arrogant one – no a single bone of humility in you.

Here’s 3 points:
1. They are ALL charities – sorry – get over it.
2. They’re not “grand”? So?
3. You just said atheist charities – I spent 30 seconds getting some names of the internet.

So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?

I know Christians like you – you make a statement, someone shows you’re wrong, you say you meant something else, someone shows you’re wrong again, you change it all again – it goes on and on – and everyone else is wrong, ultimately they’re all persecuting you.

The real problem it seems, is that Christians just can’t help themselves from lying.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 08, 2011
I have no evidence that telepathic elves don't switch around my socks when I sleep. Therefore, it is completely reasonable to assume they do by your logic. The null hypothesis is to not believe it. I would suggest you prove that Dr. Russell's teapot isn't in orbit between Earth and Mars. Do you know 100% there is no Lochness monster? Then there is.


No I don't know for sure, therefore I can't say there isn't or is one.

FIRST you must show some merit in the statement "there is a god" THEN you can attack atheist. Not one second earlier.


First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier. Like I said I got no philosophical truck with someone who says they don't know. I got plenty of truck with ANYONE who says they KNOW something when they can't possibly...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
1. They are ALL charities - sorry - get over it.
Nope. Not in the context of this conversation.
2. They're not "grand"? So? You just said charities
Nope. Why do you think I put those words in quotes? Read above.
3. You just said atheist charities - I spent 30 seconds getting some names of the internet.
So it's my fault you didn't do any research?
So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?
The original claim (by otto) was that atheists do "moreso (sic) than religionists" to organize and defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying.
you make a statement, someone shows you're wrong, you say you meant something else, someone shows you're wrong again, you change it all again
Nope. As shown above, it is YOU who is trying to redefine the context.
AngrySparrow
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 08, 2011
Uba:

You're either a very disingenuous, arrogant person, or simply someone who doesn't realize how patently silly you sound.

You've been shown to be wrong on numerous occasions on this page and you either fail to understand you've been made a fool of, or genuinely think you're somehow right and everyone else is wrong.

And it’s all quite boring and predictable, really.

Either way, one thing I've learned about dealing with special christians like yourself is not to continue discussing if the first answer is not reasonable.

You'll keep saying you smell no smoke, even though your clothes are on fire, the house is blazing and the walls are caving in.

People like you like to call it "being tenacious", but the truth is it's just sheer, bloody minded, stubbornness.

Ultimately Uba, I don’t care what you believe – I don’t care - but I would suggest learning how to do a bit of scholarly investigation – this way, you may avoid making such a damned donkey of yourself in the future.
trekgeek1
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 08, 2011


First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier. Like I said I got no philosophical truck with someone who says they don't know. I got plenty of truck with ANYONE who says they KNOW something when they can't possibly...


You have no concept of a burden of proof. And I'm glad that you don't just write off telepathic elves. By the way, I know for sure there isn't a god because I'm the one that created the universe. I did it in 1985 (your calendar) and I made it look as if everything is much older. So now you know. And don't you dare question it until you can prove that I didn't. Of course, I am in no way responsible for proving my claim, it is your burden to disprove my claim. Have fun, you can't, ergo, I am God.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.4 / 5 (46) Jan 08, 2011
For a supposed Christian, Uba, you really are a bit of an arrogant one - no a single bone of humility in you.
Yeah this ones particularly egregious:
Anther fallacy. As we've discussed previously, save for the Ten Commandments, the Old Testament Law is irrelevant to Christians. It says so, in the New Testament.
-He not only disregards big chunks of the NT to suit, he discards all the OT AND he decides what's right and proper for the entire Xian universe. See this is how cults like his are born. Somebody thinks the creator of everything owes them favors just because they ask (sincerely!) and you end up with koresh and heavens gate. Or the pope.

@uba
You'll recall, arrogant deceptive godder religionist, the time we all discussed the Law, you lost badly. No need to repeat that. Jesus said the law is the law no matter what you think he OUGHT to have said.
hush1
3 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2011

God will provide.

AND, since religion presents the biggest threat to scientific pursuit and to the world, it's good to discuss it here.


OH PLEASE!

Science ALWAYS corrects Religion, throughout history.

Religion HAS NEVER corrected Science - NEVER.

...and adam and eve rode dinosaurs to church on Sunday.


:) Most impressive!

Now...
...take that last step:

Nature ALWAYS corrects science, thoughout history.

Science HAS NEVER corrected Nature - NEVER.

Congratulations and welcome to the club! :)

We harbor no anger. We harbor no god.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 08, 2011
And your Brooks reference has been discounted:

"Who Really Cares was widely reviewed and critiqued. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered."

-In other words just another French horn player looking to sell books by spicing things up a little bit. It does stand to reason that godders would much rather donate to their own faith-based agencies so they can feel confident their money isn't going to fund art like Jesus in a bottle of pee-

Oh and Brooks worked for the Rand Corp think tank- policy-makers and social engineers. They are supposed to tell us what we think- that's their job.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 08, 2011
So, no atheist charities? Charitable deeds not good enough for you?

The original claim (by otto) was that atheists do "moreso (sic) than religionists" to organize and defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying.


Isn't the red cross secular? Doctors without borders?

I tried to post a link, but the spam filter ate it.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
You have no concept of a burden of proof. And I'm glad that you don't just write off telepathic elves. By the way, I know for sure there isn't a god because I'm the one that created the universe. I did it in 1985 (your calendar) and I made it look as if everything is much older. So now you know. And don't you dare question it until you can prove that I didn't. Of course, I am in no way responsible for proving my claim, it is your burden to disprove my claim. Have fun, you can't, ergo, I am God.


Actually I do have proof you didn't. All I'd have to do is a public records search of your birth. Extraordinarily piss poor analogy you came up with there.

As to burdens of proof, ANY atheist who says there is no God is making a positive assertion. You are very good at pointing out the burdens of others and stupefyingly ignorant of your own.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 08, 2011
moreso (sic)
(sic)
"Although cheap dictionaries don't include "moreso" - as one word - its use is documented by the OED. Most authoritative sources fail to acknowledge the word as one word. Using 'moreso' or 'more so' is dependent on the meaning desired. For example, "You had some food but I'll give you more so you don't starve". Two words. "I hate cleaning the septic tank. My hoity-toity cousin hates it moreso than I." One word.

Two words is correct. One word may be correct. Nonetheless, "more so" is widely accepted - moreso than "moreso"."

-Moreso is progressive. It economizes. Still reading the KJV eh? Try to keep up.

MM
First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier.
That's not really going to stop me for one. Sorry.
Modernmystic
1.7 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011
First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist. Not one second earlier.
That's not really going to stop me for one. Sorry.


What gave you the impression that I was inviting you to hump my leg Otto? I wasn't even looking in your direction...
trekgeek1
4.3 / 5 (6) Jan 08, 2011


Actually I do have proof you didn't. All I'd have to do is a public records search of your birth.

As to burdens of proof, ANY atheist who says there is no God is making a positive assertion.


No, I said I forged the records. That is the nature of the Trekgeek1 god. I cannot be detected by your standard human methods. I am unable to be detected aka unknowable.

The "positive" assertion of an atheist that god doesn't exist does require a burden of proof. Though, the null hypothesis states that atheists don't have as much. Both parties have burdens, but they are not equal in magnitude. Theists have made testable claims about miracles, creation stories, and prayer. Research into this has come up empty. The atheist burden of proof has been met. So again, could there still be a god? Yes. But the belief in one is not justified by the evidence. It is ridiculous to believe because something is possible. It's best to believe when you have good reason to.
Mira_Musiclab
2.5 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Once upon a time, I was feeling pretty sound in what were my political and philosophical views. Thought I'd found suitable labels by which to express them too..

And then I found PhysOrg..

I am so completely lost now. What's up is down, cats are dogs, conservatives are fascists, liberals are fascists. God's an athiest. (or something like that)

But thanks for defining what I am for me. (or not) I'll just sit here dumbfounded for a while..

/snark off
Srsly PhysOrg, this was a pure flame-bait article and you knew it, didn't ya?
boojay
4.5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Wow, an article about God on a scienced-based website seems pretty out of place. The only discussion about that subject should either be related to the god particle, or to a REAL extra-dimensional being thought to be God or a god. There's no place for religion in science and there's certainly no reason to to be angry at a "God" that doesn't exist, at least not in the manner that society currently addresses this matter. That's like me getting angry at time for not stopping.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Uba:

You're either a very disingenuous, arrogant person, or simply someone who doesn't realize how patently silly you sound.
You couldn't prove otto's point for him, so now you degenerate into ad hominem attacks and strawman arguments. How disengenuos of you.

Why don't you man up and admit you couldn't find any atheist organizations which met otto's claim?

As is, you've only served to support a negative image of atheists.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
You'll recall, arrogant deceptive godder religionist, the time we all discussed the Law, you lost badly.
Nope. Even your fellow atheists jumped to my defense because you went off the reservation (so to speak).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
And your Brooks reference has been discounted:

"Who Really Cares was widely reviewed and critiqued. Many commentators thought that Brooks played up the role of religion too much, arguing that a charity gap is largely erased when religious giving is not considered."

-In other words just another French horn player looking to sell books by spicing things up a little bit. It does stand to reason that godders would much rather donate to their own faith-based agencies so they can feel confident their money isn't going to fund art like Jesus in a bottle of pee-

Oh and Brooks worked for the Rand Corp think tank- policy-makers and social engineers. They are supposed to tell us what we think- that's their job.
It was a valid reference from a prestigious organization, and I noticed you provided no counter reference - but only ad hominem attacks. Why is that?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (6) Jan 09, 2011
Isn't the red cross secular? Doctors without borders?

I tried to post a link, but the spam filter ate it.
Are you being disingenuous, or are you having a hard time following the discussion?
Mira_Musiclab
2.6 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
ouch, downvoted by Uba...

*sad-face*
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Isn't the red cross secular? Doctors without borders?

I tried to post a link, but the spam filter ate it.
Are you being disingenuous, or are you having a hard time following the discussion?


I haven't had enough interest to read all of your comments. I got the impression you were searching for secular charities. Is your disagreement with the organizations I've listed (ie are they not secular?), or have I misinterpreted your challenge to list secular organizations?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
Most authoritative sources fail to acknowledge the word as one word. Using 'moreso' or 'more so' is dependent on the meaning desired.
Sure. All sorts of colloquialisms (like "aint" and "wanna" and "dontcha") have their uses. But "moreso" appears to be just plain wrong.

Seee:

http:/www.wsu.edu/~brians/errors/moreso.html
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
I haven't had enough interest to read all of your comments. I got the impression you were searching for secular charities. Is your disagreement with the organizations I've listed (ie are they not secular?), or have I misinterpreted your challenge to list secular organizations?
You've apparently misinterpreted the challenge. "Secular," in this guise (as in, nondenominational religious tolerance), is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious).
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
ouch, downvoted by Uba...

*sad-face*
It seems I'm regulary downranked for my views, without regard to the facts or quality of my references. Therefore, the obvious conclusion is the ranking system here is used for punitive purposes rather than scholarly purposes. Would you care to help me change this?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (7) Jan 09, 2011
I haven't had enough interest to read all of your comments. I got the impression you were searching for secular charities. Is your disagreement with the organizations I've listed (ie are they not secular?), or have I misinterpreted your challenge to list secular organizations?
You've apparently misinterpreted the challenge. "Secular," in this guise (as in, nondenominational religious tolerance), is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious).

Athiesm is still not anti-religious. Athiest and secularist are stand in's for one another. You're assuming a definition that was never discussed.

There are also "anti-theist" charities, the RDF for one.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (46) Jan 09, 2011
It was a valid reference from a prestigious organization, and I noticed you provided no counter reference - but only ad hominem attacks. Why is that?
Was you born stoopid or did you has had a accident? Pressdidigeious organized peoples well refuted and trashed your vacuum cleaner company ref., was my counter-ref. God says don't lie. Is that another Law you don't think applies to xians, like the Jesuits do?

Your charity claims have been also refuted. Own up marjonite dog. Also, list only ONE Xian charity which doesn't preach along with it's giving.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
No, I said I forged the records. That is the nature of the Trekgeek1 god. I cannot be detected by your standard human methods. I am unable to be detected aka unknowable.


OK well then this should be easy. Forge me some birth records and send them to me. Otherwise I'll conclude you're lying. Since you're God you know my address...

Better yet send a rainbow over my house. Can you do that? Thanks, my kid will think it's cool.

The "positive" assertion of an atheist that god doesn't exist does require a burden of proof.


Since you don't have any proof then I assume you'll never make that statement again, or you can continue to be a bald faced liar if you wish I suppose.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
It was a valid reference from a prestigious organization, and I noticed you provided no counter reference - but only ad hominem attacks. Why is that?
Was you born stoopid or did you has had a accident?
So after being accused of being an ad hom machine, you generate some ad homs.

Otto, you're not helping the case.
God says don't lie. Is that another Law you don't think applies to xians, like the Jesuits do?
Actually he says do not bear false witrness, entirely different. False witness means do not cast false accusations of sin. Which the majority fo Christians do rather often due to brainwashing and fundamentalism, uba hasn't necessarily done this from what I can see.
Your charity claims have been also refuted. Own up marjonite dog. Also, list only ONE Xian charity which doesn't preach along with it's giving.

There are a few, but they are the minority.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (46) Jan 09, 2011
A verse for every occasion:
"8 But now you must also rid yourselves of all such things as these: anger, rage, malice, slander, and filthy language from your lips. 9 Do not lie to each other, since you have taken off your old self with its practices 10 and have put on the new self, which is being renewed in knowledge in the image of its Creator." Col3
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 09, 2011
There are a few, but they are the minority.
ok since you've taken the challenge name one. Any one without reference to religion in it's name that is, which tells recipients that they're receiving aid from people who are obviously generous only because they are godly. And that recipients ought to become godly too, because they should be good like the givers so god can give them things directly, and they too will have enough extra to donate to charity. Or something like that.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Any one without reference to religion in it's name that is, which tells recipients that they're receiving aid from people who are obviously generous only because they are godly.
I'm not going to mince words. I'm hard pressed to accomplish this task to any respectable degree. Many of the various "Christian" monikered hospital organizations do not prosetlyze.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 09, 2011
Any one without reference to religion in it's name that is, which tells recipients that they're receiving aid from people who are obviously generous only because they are godly.
I'm not going to mince words. I'm hard pressed to accomplish this task to any respectable degree. Many of the various "Christian" monikered hospital organizations do not prosetlyze.
No word mincing necessary. Corporate sponsorship of charitable or sporting events is a legitimate form of advertizing and is taxed as such. They spend a great deal of money on it.

Religious organizations do the exact same thing when they indicate their denomination in the name of the organization, and when they send practioners into the field to dispense their charity with logos on their nametags, vehicles, stationery, pamphlets, boxes, etc. The people who get this 'charity' know full well whos supplying it. And -my!- dont they all look so nice and well-fed in their poloshirts with the little crosses on them?
Mira_Musiclab
not rated yet Jan 09, 2011
@ Ubavontuba
Would you care to help me change this?

If I thought it would actually serve a 'scholarly purpose' indeed I would. But I don't see that being likely.

Two other points..

I really do have to question PhysOrg's motives in publishing articles like this on the site. It's a science-news site after all. I suppose if they had a separate 'Philosophy' category here I could see more sense in it. But as is, it makes perfect sense to me that the atheist-agnostic-secullarist totally riled up. Ergo, at the same time nobody should be surprised when somebody like yourself drops in vehemently defending their position...(more)
Mira_Musiclab
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Secondly Uba, look at your activity page. It's all just this article. Now I suppose that you could be browsing the science articles but feel no need to post comments, but Occams Razor would indicate you're on an agenda here. Whatever, it's not for me to tell you what to do, but nothing is really being furthered by these comments-discussions..
This is not a level playing field...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
Athiesm is still not anti-religious. Athiest and secularist are stand in's for one another. You're assuming a definition that was never discussed.
We're using the definition for atheist from the context of yours and (particularly) otto's posts ...which is simply a vehement hatred for all persons and things religious. If you decide to change your definitions and stances against religion for this exercise, then you are clearly being hypocritical.

Secular organizations are generally (and clearly) not in the same league as you two in regards to their stated stances (and missions) regarding religion.

And as I've shown, secular charities are clearly supported more by the religious, than not - and for religious reasons. Therefore, they can't possibly be defined by your interpretations of what it means to be atheist organizations.

continued...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
..continuance.

There are also "anti-theist" charities, the RDF for one.
The RDF is a charitable organization in that they RECEIVE donations, but not in the sense that its purpose is to defend human rights, freedom (they're actively working against the concept of "freedom of religion"), and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying.

The website states they're seeking donations for Haiti relief funds, but there's no information as to how much has been received and delivered. And, there's no indication ANY charitable organizations have received any support since shortly after the Haitian earthquake.

I've e-mailed the foundation for information regarding their charitable contributions, and I'll let you know if they respond.

Until then, it hardly seems this qualifies as "magnificent" or "significant" or "grand" giving. It certainly doesn't meet the atheists "do moreso than religionists" standard.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
Was you born stoopid or did you has had a accident? Pressdidigeious organized peoples well refuted and trashed your vacuum cleaner company ref., was my counter-ref. God says don't lie. Is that another Law you don't think applies to xians, like the Jesuits do?
More ad hominems? That's all you have?
Your charity claims have been also refuted.
No, they haven't. None meet your stated claim: "atheists do moreso than religionists."
Own up marjonite dog. Also, list only ONE Xian charity which doesn't preach along with it's giving.
Sure. Here's an article about 10 Christians who gave their lives serving the needy in Afghanistan:

http:/www.kktv.com/home/headlines/100280159.html

Are atheists so inclined?
Mira_Musiclab
not rated yet Jan 09, 2011
All in all it's an unfair comparison to begin with.
Atheists and agnostics don't (by and large) have churches, and to the scale of religious organisations, don't meet in mass like they do.

Brought down on a more personal level, I would say that they at least meet, if not exceed in their charity and giving compared to the religious. But it will generally come without some identifying tag or marker showing their philosophical affiliations.
Kind of a moot point, when you look at it structurally..
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
Secondly Uba, look at your activity page. It's all just this article. Now I suppose that you could be browsing the science articles but feel no need to post comments, but Occams Razor would indicate you're on an agenda here. Whatever, it's not for me to tell you what to do, but nothing is really being furthered by these comments-discussions..

Well, you obviously haven't been here long enough to know me then. I often comment on hard science.

It is true this article has taken most of my attention lately, but that's only because there hasn't been much in the way of controversial science articles of late. And admittedly, it's largely the controversy which I find interesting.

Before working this article (to death soon, I hope), I've posted many science posts that are often rated quite highly by some of the same miscreants here, whom seek to punish me for having different religious points of view.

It's all in fun, I supppose...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
All in all it's an unfair comparison to begin with.
Atheists and agnostics don't (by and large) have churches, and to the scale of religious organisations, don't meet in mass like they do.
According to otto's claim, this should be irrelevant.

And historically, atheists have had control of vast governments (with generally disastrous results), so saying they don't "meet in mass" is a cop-out.
Brought down on a more personal level, I would say that they at least meet, if not exceed in their charity and giving compared to the religious. But it will generally come without some identifying tag or marker showing their philosophical affiliations.
Kind of a moot point, when you look at it structurally..
Another cop-out. By and large, Christians give without showing their affiliation, or seeking recognition as well. In our faith, we're actually directed to give secretly. There's no similarly compelling reason for atheists to do so. So logically, why would they?

Mira_Musiclab
5 / 5 (2) Jan 09, 2011
Well, I'm not Otto. I'll let him present his own case on the matter.

And I don't think it's at all a cop-out. In public, I still have to contend that the non-religious don't carry a structured presence on the scale that christian (or any other religeon) groups will show.

Politically, I get a bit griped when the context get framed that because a certain leader of a nation was non-religious, that their actions represented the values or moral character of the rest who are not. Greed and power is non-denominational, and at no time in history can I say I've found a leader or government that was representative of my moral values. (or yours, for that matter)

And yeah, this thread has had it's day.. I'm off of it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
And I don't think it's at all a cop-out. In public, I still have to contend that the non-religious don't carry a structured presence on the scale that christian (or any other religeon) groups will show.
Again, the original claim (by otto) was that atheists do "moreso than religionists" to ORGANIZE...
Politically, I get a bit griped when the context get framed that because a certain leader of a nation was non-religious, that their actions represented the values or moral character of the rest who are not.
I was referring not to individual leaders, but the governments' stated positions and policies.
Greed and power is non-denominational,
Clearly, your position differs from otto's on this.
and at no time in history can I say I've found a leader or government that was representative of my moral values. (or yours, for that matter)
Some come closer than others.
I'm off of it.
I quite agree.
trekgeek1
4 / 5 (4) Jan 09, 2011
Forge me some birth records and send them to me. Otherwise I'll conclude you're lying. Since you're God you know my address...


Ha! I'm god, I'm not a trained seal. When I was pretending to be an atheist so people wouldn't know I was god, I'd challenge them to pray that they'd get lotto numbers or to pray that a coin flip would be HHTHTHTHHTTHHHTH ten times in a row, or bring peace on earth. Of course they thought this was a ridiculous test of their god. So would you expect the trekgeek1 god to perform such parlor tricks?
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (8) Jan 09, 2011
So we can see uba can't argue in a straightforward or cohesive manner when proved wrong and he doesn't want to relent on an incorrect notion.

I've satisfied your queries and I haven't been unduely abrasive about it. You've engaged in constant repositioning of goalposts and created a false construct of what atheist means due to a perception, on your part, that we're out to get you.
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (3) Jan 09, 2011
You've engaged in constant repositioning of goalposts and created a false construct of what atheist means due to a perception, on your part, that we're out to get you.


We're not?! I'm never skipping the heathen meeting again.
Ethelred
5 / 5 (5) Jan 09, 2011
is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious).
Bogus definition of Atheist there. SOME Atheists are anti-religious.

Otto is NOT the best example of Atheists.

Secular charities are not exclusive to Atheist but where do you think Atheists are going to give money to. Sure isn't going to be The Knights of Columbus.

Ethelred
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
So we can see uba can't argue in a straightforward or cohesive manner when proved wrong
How have I supposedly been proven wrong, and to what inconsistencies do you refer (be specific and use references)?
and he doesn't want to relent on an incorrect notion.
To which "incorrect notion" do you refer, specifically?
I've satisfied your queries
No, you haven't, and I've consistently explained why.
and I haven't been unduely abrasive about it. You've engaged in constant repositioning of goalposts and created a false construct of what atheist means due to a perception, on your part, that we're out to get you.
No, it's based on what we've been saying all along. I've steadfastly stood for religious tolerance and you've been just as steadfastly intolerant. And, the criteria the atheist charities must meet was set forth by otto, not me. I've only just repeated them.

So, I guess by this we can conclude atheists are liars too.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
SOME Atheists are anti-religious.
Right, and it's to two such of them that my posts have been directed.
Otto is NOT the best example of Atheists.
Frankly, I don't think he's much of an example of a human being.
Secular charities are not exclusive to Atheist but where do you think Atheists are going to give money to.
According to otto, they have their own charitable organizations - even "moreso than religionists."

I have merely challenged his claim. If you don't buy into his claim, then my argument isn't with you.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
Right, and it's to two such of them that my posts have been directed.
And you're incorrect. I'm not anti-religious. I'm anti-theist, big big difference.
I've steadfastly stood for religious tolerance and you've been just as steadfastly intolerant.
No, you've stead fastly stood on a platform of Christian priviledge. That is going to end. If you see that as trying to destroy or defame Christianity, then that's just too bad. It's a difference of opinion we will not ever agree on.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 10, 2011
Otto is NOT the best example of Atheists
Sure I am. The best one I can think of. You all seem reluctant at times to tackle the political ramifications of the religionism scourge which I think is it's most pressing threat. You all seem to want to argue about impossibility and biblical falsehoods with religionists which never gets very far, with them at least.

It's not so much what these delusionists believe, but what they think it allows them to do with it, that will be the end of us all. In this I'm not alone, maher, Dawkins, hitchens et al. Take a stand.
Frankly, I don't think he's much of an example of a human being.
:) Bite me.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 10, 2011
According to otto, they have their own charitable organizations - even "moreso than religionists."
No this was your original misleading implication. The organizations I and others mentioned are GODLESS as I said, as in god is irrelevant, unnecessary, and detrimental to the process of giving aid equitably.
Sure. Here's an article about 10 Christians who gave their lives serving the needy in Afghanistan
Yes and proselytizing is actually illegal in some countries that recognize it for what it is. Hapless, innocent martyrs have been compelled to sacrifice themselves like jesus for no good reason for centuries. This is something else the church must be held accountable for.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 10, 2011
Sure. Here's an article about 10 Christians who gave their lives serving the needy in Afghanistan

"During a press conference Monday, the director of International Assistance Mission, Dirk Frans, repeated that the organization does not attempt to convert Muslims to Christianity. He said that faith motivates and inspires the group but he says it doesn't proselytize."

Your martyrs were there because they were xians, the people knew the kind, generous, healthy foreigners were xians, and their martyrdom as reported in the media served to vilify the heathens and further polarize the conflict; and to compel the people back home to give more. All of these serve to advertise the church and portray it as the good guys. This is the purpose of martyrdom. They gave their lives to Spread the Word. Like Jesus. Am I right?
Skultch
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 10, 2011
MM,

I was wrong, you don't know better. Seriously, take a logical reasoning class, or just go to Wiki's fallacy page, study up, and practice somewhere else until you can admit you are wrong.

First, you put the burden on proving a neagitve. Then, you ignore your tale of Job and assume the one true God, trekgeek1, must prove himself to you. Do you do the same to your made-up god? Has it answered every one of your prayers?

Stop using straw men. We've defined our stances for you more than enough.
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
MM,

I was wrong, you don't know better. Seriously, take a logical reasoning class, or just go to Wiki's fallacy page, study up, and practice somewhere else until you can admit you are wrong.



LOL...you people sure as hell are full of yourselves aren't you? It's like all your self worth is tied up in your perceived intellectual capacity. Kinda like those guys who hit the gym every day for those rock hard abs...trying to make up for something.

The fact is that I simply don't agree with you. I know I have a perfectly reasonable position. I'm sure you think you do too. I'm OK with that. Why can't you be?
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (47) Jan 10, 2011
Kinda like those guys who hit the gym every day for those rock hard abs...trying to make up for something.
Kinda like those fat religionist slobs who let their bodies decrepitate and then pray to god for a nice new one in the next life. If you felt better in this life mm you wouldn't feel the urge to pray so much, you know, to compensate. You wouldn't feel quite so Guilty for ruining yourself.

Body's a temple man, you know what jc did in the temple don't you? He threw out all the pollution. All those who were misusing it. Only time he ever got mad (except when he murdered the poor fig tree)
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Humping my leg again eh Otto? What is it with you anyway? I think you have an unhealthy obsession. Try cold showers, running, exercise in general.

Sorry man, you're just not my type...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
And you're incorrect. I'm not anti-religious. I'm anti-theist, big big difference.
No, that's what you claim to be. Your words say otherwise.
No, you've stead fastly stood on a platform of Christian priviledge. That is going to end. If you see that as trying to destroy or defame Christianity, then that's just too bad. It's a difference of opinion we will not ever agree on.
See? By your words, you're anti-religious and intolerant.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
1/2
How have I supposedly been proven wrong, and to what inconsistencies do you refer (be specific and use references)?


You stated that you were originally looking for atheist organisations as below.

So you admit you're unable to provide any evidence of atheist organizations which defend human rights, freedom, and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying?


Secular examples were given and it was explained that secular and atheist are essentially the same thing with respect to charities (ie. they can have both atheist and religious members, but the organisation is not about the religion itself).

You then went on to say:

You've apparently misinterpreted the challenge. "Secular," in this guise (as in, nondenominational religious tolerance), is not a stand in for "atheist" (as in, anti-religious)


Cont...
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
2/2
The original challenge, however, was never to provide anti-religious charities. In this challenge to which you refer, as otto was to provide atheist organizations, you were also to provide charitable Christian organizations that do not proselytise. You never responded to this and accused the atheist organizations provided later of the same proselytism.

You then state (in the same post as the one where you ask what inconsistencies everyone’s referring to) that it was otto who stated the criteria for an atheist charity when I’ve shown above you are the one who defined atheist as anti-religionist.

And, the criteria the atheist charities must meet was set forth by otto, not me. I've only just repeated them.

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
No this was your original misleading implication.
Nope. This is how it went down:
Right, there's no data to suggest atheists organize to defend human rights and freedom and democracy, or work en masse to feed the poor, heal the sick, or comfort the dying either.
Of course they do, moreso than religionists...
Oh, I doubt that. References?
See? The implication was yours.
The organizations I and others mentioned are GODLESS as I said, as in god is irrelevant, unnecessary, and detrimental to the process of giving aid equitably.
Nope. I've already shown how they generally have strong ties with, and rely on, religions to do their work.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
You stated that you were originally looking for atheist organisations as below.
You didn't read back far enough, but I reiterated the case in my letter just prior to this one.
Secular examples were given and it was explained that secular and atheist are essentially the same thing with respect to charities (ie. they can have both atheist and religious members, but the organisation is not about the religion itself).[\q]Again, you haven't read enough of the argument to understand the history. Regardless, I doubt you'd find the Red Cross declaring itself to be an "atheist organization." Certainly not the United Way (founded by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi).
The original challenge, however, was never to provide anti-religious charities.
In context, it was.
In this challenge to which you refer, as otto was to provide atheist organizations, you were also to provide charitable Christian organizations that do not proselytise.
I never claimed I could, but I did
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
You stated that you were originally looking for atheist organisations as below.
You didn't read back far enough, but I reiterated the case in my letter just prior to this one.
Secular examples were given and it was explained that secular and atheist are essentially the same thing with respect to charities (ie. they can have both atheist and religious members, but the organisation is not about the religion itself).
Again, you haven't read enough of the argument to understand the history. Regardless, I doubt you'd find the Red Cross declaring itself to be an "atheist organization." Certainly not the United Way (founded by a priest, two ministers and a rabbi).
The original challenge, however, was never to provide anti-religious charities.
In context, it was.
In this challenge to which you refer, as otto was to provide atheist organizations, you were also to provide charitable Christian organizations that do not proselytise.
I never claimed I could, but I did
Skultch
4 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
I know I have a perfectly reasonable position.


and I only have a slight peeve with an atheist who says "I'm not sure but I doubt it."


why?

For the same reason I'd be peeved at a weather man who said there was a 80% chance of rain on October 10th 2015...


First YOU must show proof there is no God THEN you can attack a theist.


You keep asking us to prove a negative. Until you understand burden of proof, I'm done with you.

When does voting begin to put MM as an official member of the misologists?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
oops, sorry about the double post.

Continuing...

Didn't you see the reference to the 10 Christians who lost their lives in Afghanistan?
Christian organizations that do not proselytise. You never responded to this and accused the atheist organizations provided later of the same proselytism.
More so that the organizations were generally about proselytizing atheism.
You then state (in the same post as the one where you ask what inconsistencies everyone's referring to) that it was otto who stated the criteria for an atheist charity when I've shown above you are the one who defined atheist as anti-religionist.
Your failure to keep to the context is the problem. The definition isn't a broad definition. It's a narrow definition, relevant to this conversation only.

I do wonder though: Is your attempt to change the context intentional? Or, is it just too much to ask that you read more before making baseless accusations?

Skultch
5 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
irt charity: Who cares? People are themselves before they are their ideologies. The digression has gone on too long, IMHO. Bring it back to source of morality or please continue if you disagree.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Furthermore, otto declared:
...religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert.
Which is clearly false. Many of the secular organizations were started by religious people, seeking to aid anyone in need - regardless of the recipient's religious views.
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
Your failure to keep to the context is the problem. The definition isn't a broad definition. It's a narrow definition, relevant to this conversation only.


My failure to keep context? How about your failure to recognize the actual definition of a word. I (and others reading this conversation) took atheist organization as one without religion as being a primary motive or mission. As such, secular is the same as atheist.

Atheists who are charitable would flock to these secular organizations as they can feel free to be charitable without being forced to preach or be preached to. A-theism = without theism. Secular removes religion from the mission of the organization. Secular = without theism.
Javinator
5 / 5 (1) Jan 10, 2011
Which is clearly false. Many of the secular organizations were started by religious people, seeking to aid anyone in need - regardless of the recipient's religious views.


I wish otto would stop talking in absolutes all the time because he really hurts his case.

It IS false that "..religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert."

That being said, it is hardly uncommon for theist organizations to spread the good word (which is conversion).
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
You keep asking us to prove a negative.


No I keep asking you to prove the positive statement you make when you say "There is no God". GET IT?

Until you understand burden of proof, I'm done with you.


Tell you what, when YOU understand it then your lectures to me on it will carry weight.

When does voting begin to put MM as an official member of the misologists?


LMFAO! Oh nooooo pleeeeease don't vote me a misologist!!! Anything but that!

You make me laugh man, seriously thanks for that. We can all use a good belly laugh on a Monday.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
My failure to keep context? How about your failure to recognize the actual definition of a word. I (and others reading this conversation) took atheist organization as one without religion as being a primary motive or mission. As such, secular is the same as atheist.
Nope. "Atheist" has negative connotations whereas "secular" does not. You won't find the word "atheist" (or its derrivatives) on the Red Cross website, nor on the United Way website, and even the UNICEF website only uses it in PDF reports about atheist people.
Atheists who are charitable would flock to these secular organizations as they can feel free to be charitable without being forced to preach or be preached to.
Supposing they're so inclined. Religious people certainly use them.
A-theism = without theism. Secular removes religion from the mission of the organization. Secular = without theism.
Again, check the context for the definitions in regards to this conversation.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 10, 2011
Humping my leg again eh Otto? What is it with you anyway? I think you have an unhealthy obsession. Try cold showers, running, exercise in general.

Sorry man, you're just not my type...
you're one o dem bible humpers not me no no
-You guys tend to let your brains decrepitate too, letting god do all the thinking for ya. God teaches you that the faculties he gave you, in his own image, are nevertheless inadequate to comprehend what he has created. Thereby enabling you to suspend reason so you can then be convinced to do all sorts of unreasonable things in service to those who concocted your delusionisms. It shows in the way you guys participate here. Max posturing and politics, min reason and thought.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
I wish otto would stop talking in absolutes all the time because he really hurts his case.
But otto's claims are the basis for the discussion.
It IS false that "..religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert."
Thank you!
That being said, it is hardly uncommon for theist organizations to spread the good word (which is conversion).
I never said otherwise.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (43) Jan 10, 2011
It IS false that "..religionists ...uniformly aid only those within their flock, or those they wish to convert."
It's hard to choose the correct words all the time in this format. By uniformly I meant consistently but not absolutely. They do not want to see their money wasted on causes which run counter to their faith, and the stronger their faith is the more restricted their giving is going to be; I think it is safe to assume these things.

Similarly I would not want to see my money wasted on preaching and martyrdom.
You didn't read back far enough, but I reiterated the case in my letter just prior to this one.
Ubas a man of letters now... just like Paul. Jeez.
ubavontuba
1.6 / 5 (7) Jan 10, 2011
Upon further reflection:

Perhaps it's better to say "atheist" adheres more to a specific anti-theist demographic, whereas "secular" generally refers to non-religious organizations, in a broadminded (all inclusive) sense.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (45) Jan 10, 2011
Upon further reflection:

Perhaps it's better to say "atheist" adheres more to a specific anti-theist demographic, whereas "secular" generally refers to non-religious organizations, in a broadminded (all inclusive) sense.
You really think you're qualified to be defining those things?
But otto's claims are the basis for the discussion.
Naw be honest now, you were the one who started the topic by dropping the bomb that godders are more generous than anybody else. Which everybody proved false. Which you ignore.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
It's hard to choose the correct words all the time in this format. By uniformly I meant consistently but not absolutely.
The modifier "only" is another absolute.
They do not want to see their money wasted on causes which run counter to their faith,
Sure. Just as atheists refrain from contributing to religious organizations.
and the stronger their faith is the more restricted their giving is going to be; I think it is safe to assume these things.
That depends on the religion and interpretations thereof. In Christianity, we're taught to give to anyone in need (ever hear the story of the Good Samaritan?).

Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
You keep asking us to prove a negative.


No I keep asking you to prove the positive statement you make when you say "There is no God". GET IT?


Never said it. I asked you why it peeves you when people say "I doubt it." To which, you STILL claimed those who doubt (think it's unlikely) must prove something. I think you have confused me with someone else. Easy to do.

OK? I doubt it. I doubt an interventionist god exists because I see no evidence. I guess I'm like Ethelred; constraining it to the Abrahamic god ilk. Could I be a deist? Maybe, but I don't see the point in that belief. I have no idea what your beliefs, doubts, faiths, ideas are on the subject. I just want to know why people like me peeve you.
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Upon further reflection:

Perhaps it's better to say "atheist" adheres more to a specific anti-theist demographic, whereas "secular" generally refers to non-religious organizations, in a broadminded (all inclusive) sense.


I agree we are/were obviously arguing about different things.

That being said, the word atheist should not be used to refer to an anti-theist demographic specifically as its one causes of the confusion/arguments exampled by this thread.

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism. Generalizations of the beliefs of a whole group based on the beliefs of a subset of that group is irresponsible.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
You really think you're qualified to be defining those things?
Well, there's a clear demarcation in general usage, as non-religious institutions seem to prefer "secular" and anti-religious individuals and institutions apparently prefer "atheist."

Here's some official definitions (from thefreedictionary.com:

Secular:
1. Worldly rather than spiritual.
2. Not specifically relating to religion or to a religious body:

Atheist:
Noun 1. atheist - someone who denies the existence of god
disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever - someone who refuses to believe (as in a divinity)

Adj. 1. atheist - related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings"
atheistical, atheistic

So, I think my definitions are on the money.
Which everybody proved false.
If I didn't think you actually believe this, I'd give you an "LOL." As is, it's just sad.

Dream on otto ...dream on...
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
I remember when defining the word atheist used to interest me.

Theists like uba here WANT to lump us all together. They SEEM to want a homogeneous target for easier argumentation.

Deal with it, dude. You're going to have to argue the logic, not the person.

Statistics on generosity don't matter to me. Morality does. "There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
I agree we are/were obviously arguing about different things.

That being said, the word atheist should not be used to refer to an anti-theist demographic specifically as its one causes of the confusion/arguments exampled by this thread.

Anti-theism is a subset of atheism. Generalizations of the beliefs of a whole group based on the beliefs of a subset of that group is irresponsible.
Well, according to the freedictionary.com, they look interchangeable.

Antitheist
n. 1. A disbeliever in the existence of God.

Are you're referring to the notion that an ant-theist is against organized religion and blames it for all the woes of the world?

Antitheist can also mean one who believes God exists but hates him/her.

Additional source: urbandictionary.com
Modernmystic
1 / 5 (2) Jan 10, 2011
I just want to know why people like me peeve you.


Fair question, and I'll give an honest answer.

Mainly it has to do with "your" attitude with respect to the subject. "You" admit you can't prove there is no God, that there is no proof and yet "you" act like there is. You act like it's a settled matter. It isn't.

How can I respect someone who doesn't respect me? Who treats the most dearly held belief in my life like a joke? Can you answer that question for me? How SHOULD I feel Sklutch?

Basically I feel like you're saying it's probably not going to rain on the third Wednesday of 2015 and then laughing at me for being doubtful.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
I remember when defining the word atheist used to interest me.

Theists like uba here WANT to lump us all together. They SEEM to want a homogeneous target for easier argumentation.
It appears you've misinterpreted my arguments as applying to all atheists, even though I've clearly identified my arguments as specifically pertaining to two individuals. I'm sorry to have caused such confusion.

But didn't you also just lump all theists together?
Deal with it, dude. You're going to have to argue the logic, not the person.
Been, and done.
Statistics on generosity don't matter to me. Morality does. "There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."
I am disinclined to agree.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 10, 2011
That depends on the religion and interpretations thereof. In Christianity, we're taught to give to anyone in need (ever hear the story of the Good Samaritan?).
Oh- thats one of the parts youve decided to keep? Your religion encompasses a very wide range of beliefs and behaviors, just like any other. What xians are 'taught' differs little from any other religion, and neither do your range of actual and potential behaviors.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (44) Jan 10, 2011
Anti-theism is a subset of atheism. Generalizations of the beliefs of a whole group based on the beliefs of a subset of that group is irresponsible.
And yet we as a civilization decided to condemn the beliefs of all fascists, of all slave owners, of all racists, etc.

MANY people believe that religion should be in that category. If you havent seen Religulous I suggest you watch it. It may change your opinion somewhat.
http
://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHAk44b2nhs&feature=related

-There are different versions. This one has subtitles. I assume theyre backwards due to copyright issues.

Religion INVARIABLY (absolute) divides people up into us and them, good and bad, saved and condemned, worthy and worthless. We have condemned other belief systems, benign or not, for encouraging this mindset.

And we know religions potential for violence and destruction. As Maher says, for the world to live, religion must END. We cannot wait for it to destroy itself, and us along with it.
Skultch
4.8 / 5 (4) Jan 10, 2011
Fair question, and I'll give an honest answer.


Txs.

First, I have to apologize. I sometimes forget I'm in a public forum instead of an atheist circle-jerk. I mean that. I try not to be insulting, but sometimes it's just nice to joke around with the like minded. Remember, in real life, all of us atheists are minorities and most certainly oppressed, but unlike other minorities, we're not "together."

That out of the way; you shouldn't feel anything. Logically, your weather analogy is not apt. I don't know how else to put it. I don't posit an alternative to theism, I merely point to an absence of something.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
"There are no good guys and bad guys. It's just a bunch of guys."
I am disinclined to agree.


Elaborate, please. Do you believe in original sin? Yes, we are imperfect creatures in a complex world, but IMHO, 95-99% of us are trying to do the right thing and sometimes interests collide.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 10, 2011
Elaborate, please. Do you believe in original sin? Yes, we are imperfect creatures in a complex world, but IMHO, 95-99% of us are trying to do the right thing and sometimes interests collide.
Generally speaking, I believe what's good for humanity as a species, humanity as valued individuals, and humane, is generally good. Opposite to that, is generally bad.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 11, 2011
No, that's what you claim to be. Your words say otherwise.
Bullshit, and you know better.

No, you've stead fastly stood on a platform of Christian priviledge. That is going to end. If you see that as trying to destroy or defame Christianity, then that's just too bad. It's a difference of opinion we will not ever agree on.
See? By your words, you're anti-religious and intolerant.
So making Christians toe the same line as everyone else in the world is "anti-christian and intolerant"? Grow up.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
So making Christians toe the same line as everyone else in the world is "anti-christian and intolerant"? Grow up.
So what now? Perhaps you think the law is applied more liberally to Christians than anyone else? Why is it then, that "Christian" nations tend to have secular governments which give the right of religious freedom to all, whereas "non-Christian" countries (like Muslim and Communist countries) tend to deny this right?

Obviously, it's the Christians who suffer inequality at the hands of everyone else.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
So what now? Perhaps you think the law is applied more liberally to Christians than anyone else?
Well when you have laws on the books that prevent non-christians from taking office in various states, yes I do. I think the law is often twisted to the favor of Christians. Which religions have federal holidays in the US again?
Why is it then, that "Christian" nations tend to have secular governments which give the right of religious freedom to all, whereas "non-Christian" countries (like Muslim and Communist countries) tend to deny this right?
Well what usually happens is a group of Protestants ran from theocractic catholic country X in order to have their own religious freedom. Then a bunch of atheists and deists showed up and joined them and got religious freedom laws passed, like in the US, France, the Netherlands, etc.

Many Christian countries also deny the right to have religious freedom. Take the blinders off.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Well when you have laws on the books that prevent non-christians from taking office in various states, yes I do.
Perhaps you might explain to which states you refer?

In the USA, this would clearly be unconstitutional.
I think the law is often twisted to the favor of Christians. Which religions have federal holidays in the US again?
None, from a legal perspective. Even Christmas is considered a secular holiday.

However Christmas, as a tradition, was passed down to us through our European roots. That we celebrate it as we do is simply based on societal traditions and consensus. Even non-Christians observe Christmas traditions.
Well what usually happens is a group of Protestants ran from theocractic catholic country X in order to have their own religious freedom. Then a bunch of atheists and deists showed up and joined them and got religious freedom laws passed, like in the US, France, the Netherlands, etc.
Not much of a student of history, are you?

cont...

ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
...continuance:

Just who do you think wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, and passed them into law? Maybe you think your atheists forcibly took over Congress, passed these laws (against the will of the majority Christians!) and then abdicated their positions?

Get real and learn a little about history and the law, before you spout off.

"The modern legal concept of religious freedom ...originated in the United States of America."

Cite: http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#The_First_Amendment

"The no religious test clause of the U.S. constitution states that 'no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.'"

Cite: http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion_in_the_United_States#Requirements_for_holding_a_public_office

So obviously, you're just plain wrong in your assertions.

cont...
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Perhaps you might explain to which states you refer? In the USA, this would clearly be unconstitutional.
Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

This link might get mangled.
http:/everything2.com/title/American+states+with+anti-atheist+laws

Not much of a student of history, are you?
So you want to tell me that the Puritans didn't come to the US from Theocratic Britain to avoid religious persecution and their atheist and deist decendants didn't found the US with other protestants?

Perhaps you want to tell me what I said that is historically inaccurate.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Christmas, as a tradition, was passed down to us through our European roots. That we celebrate it as we do is simply based on societal traditions and consensus.
Christmas wasn't a holiday in the US until after 1820. It was banned by most Protestants for a long time. Bringing up the second Christian holiday in the mix. Thanksgiving, which is a protestant holiday.
Get real and learn a little about history and the law, before you spout off.

"The modern legal concept of religious freedom ...originated in the United States of America."
Now who needs to study their history. When did the various governmental reforms take place in France and the other European countries that have adopted rleigious freedom? Yep, after the US did it.

I'm waiting for you to show me where I'm wrong in my assertions. I really am.
Skultch
5 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

This link might get mangled.
http:/everything2.com/title/American+states+with+anti-atheist+laws


Wow. I was not aware of this. Total horse shit. This makes me wish I was retired, so I could move to these places and make stink.

FYI - Reread the PA one. It actually protects theists from denial, not preventing atheists from service.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Many Christian countries also deny the right to have religious freedom. Take the blinders off.
Some have officially recognized religions, but the personal freedom to profess freely is generally universal in Christian countries.

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

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_state#List_of_secular_countries_by_continent

Seriously, take a Political Science class, or something.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Some have officially recognized religions, but the personal freedom to profess freely is generally universal in Christian countries.

Except for some of the most Christian countries in the world. Rwanda for one is a convert or die situation, and don't neglect to mention the sectarian violence of North Ireland.

I was pulled out of a car at gun point and asked if I was Catholic or Protestant. Told him I was an atheist and that must've confused him as his next question was, well are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist. Not exactly a fun day in my life.
Seriously, take a Political Science class, or something.
I've taken several. I'd really like you to point out where you think I'm wrong. Especially when 2 of our last 4 presidents have said Atheists shouldn't be citizens.
ubavontuba
1.2 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
Arkansas, Maryland, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Tennessee and Texas. They all have different clauses in their respective constitutions which say that people who don't believe in God (or, alternatively, A Supreme Being) can't hold public offices.

This link might get mangled.
http:/everything2.com/title/American+states+with+anti-atheist+laws
Federal law supersedes state law and these stupid laws are regularly struck down in court, as per your own example:

According to your source, only one of the listed states recently tried to enforce the law, and it was struck down by the same state's own Supreme Court.

"...the state Supreme Court ruled that the law was unconstitutional as it violated both the first and the sixth amendment."

These are called "Blue laws." They're obsolete laws which remain on the books, but generally aren't (and can't be) enforced. Some of them predate the founding of the United States.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
So you want to tell me that the Puritans didn't come to the US from Theocratic Britain to avoid religious persecution and their atheist and deist decendants didn't found the US with other protestants?
When did I claim otherwise?
Perhaps you want to tell me what I said that is historically inaccurate.
A lot of what you're saying is historically inacurate, such as your assertion that atheists came in and passed the religious freedom laws.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
A lot of what you're saying is historically inacurate, such as your assertion that atheists came in and passed the religious freedom laws.
The first law that established religious freedom as seen in the Constitution came from the Constitution of Virginia and that was penned by Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and shaped for intent with Benjamin Franklin, an atheist, and passed by a collection of theists, deists, and athiests twice. Once in Virginia, and then again in the General Assembly.

Tell me where I'm wrong in that statement.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Now who needs to study their history. When did the various governmental reforms take place in France and the other European countries that have adopted rleigious freedom? Yep, after the US did it.
How's that different from the reference I quoted?
I'm waiting for you to show me where I'm wrong in my assertions. I really am.
Please name all these supposed atheists whom you assert passed the religious freedom laws (inspite of the majority Christian wishes).
Skeptic_Heretic
4.2 / 5 (5) Jan 12, 2011
How's that different from the reference I quoted?
See, this is what I was talking about when I said inventing fallacies. You first suggest I learn my history when I claim that atheists and deists got together with Christians and passed rleigious freedom. Then you cite a reference that states nothing on the matter but instead dates where the concept of religious freedom comes from. I show you that I'm correct and now you question what my aim was in the first place. Seriously, you really need to get a grip on this.

Please name all these supposed atheists whom you assert passed the religious freedom laws (inspite of the majority Christian wishes).
And now you're either creating a straw man and suggesting that I said Christians opposed religious freedom in total, or you're moving the goalposts over into an inprovable area and attempting to claim victory on a point that was never to be argued in the first place.

Seriously, stop with the fallacies.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Except for some of the most Christian countries in the world. Rwanda for one is a convert or die situation,
More about ethnic associations than religion.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rwandan_Genocide
and don't neglect to mention the sectarian violence of North Ireland.

I was pulled out of a car at gun point and asked if I was Catholic or Protestant. Told him I was an atheist and that must've confused him as his next question was, well are you a catholic atheist or a protestant atheist. Not exactly a fun day in my life.
This is an example of religious association being used to define tribal boundaries, not of Christianity itself.

William Edward Hartpole Lecky, an Irish historian, wrote "If the characteristic mark of a healthy Christianity be to unite its members by a bond of fraternity and love, then there is no country where Christianity has more completely failed than Ireland".

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectarian_violence#Northern_Ireland
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Well the Lecky quote is merely the same thing that has been said of Christianity since the iconoclast. "Christian X thinks Christian Y is a heretic. Burn him." Happened throughout all of history. It is a violent religion towards it's own most often throughout history. When you say it is more about politics, you're right. It always has been. Ever since the first split in the church it has been political. One of the crusades was due to a dispute between the eastern orthodox and the roman catholics. The War of the roses, the English French wars, all due to religious politics.

Christianity has been a political weapon for a long time, perhaps, since inception.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
I've taken several. I'd really like you to point out where you think I'm wrong. Especially when 2 of our last 4 presidents have said Atheists shouldn't be citizens.
Their personal opinions are theirs alone - and even if they're wrong, they have a right to them. They haven't the weight of law.
The first law that established religious freedom as seen in the Constitution came from the Constitution of Virginia and that was penned by Thomas Jefferson, a deist, and shaped for intent with Benjamin Franklin, an atheist, and passed by a collection of theists, deists, and athiests twice. Once in Virginia, and then again in the General Assembly.

Tell me where I'm wrong in that statement.
You just admitted it was passed mostly by a collection of deists and theists! Seriously, just what percentage of the votes are you proposing came from atheists now? It looks like you're only claiming one!

And, you're WRONG about him!

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Benjammin Franklin was a self-professed deist and he's the one who attempted to introduce the practice of daily common prayer at the Constitutional Convention! ...and HE'S your "atheist" hero?

"...I therefore beg leave to move -- that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven..."

Heck, his whole personal belief system can best be described as adhering closely to the Puritan values!

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin#Virtue.2C_religion.2C_and_personal_beliefs

Try reading a little more about history before you spout off, why don't you?
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Their personal opinions are theirs alone - and even if they're wrong, they have a right to them. They haven't the weight of law.
Because of the Freedom FROM Religion clause of the Constitution.
You just admitted it was passed mostly by a collection of deists and theists!
I didn't admit it, I claimed it initially and proved it subsequently, and you've disagreed with it the whole time. Another fallacy from you.
Seriously, just what percentage of the votes are you proposing came from atheists now? It looks like you're only claiming one!
I'm not claiming any particular statistics. My one and only relevant claim here is Modern Religious Freedom, otherwise known as Secularism, born in the US, and as seen around the world, is the product of Atheists, Deists, and Theists during the enlightenment.

Now you've been disagreeing with this the whole time. Tell me how it is wrong. No more cowardice. No more fallacies. Money where your mouth is. What is wrong with it.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
See, this is what I was talking about when I said inventing fallacies. You first suggest I learn my history when I claim that atheists and deists got together with Christians and passed rleigious freedom. Then you cite a reference that states nothing on the matter but instead dates where the concept of religious freedom comes from. I show you that I'm correct and now you question what my aim was in the first place. Seriously, you really need to get a grip on this.
I quoted a passage that states reigious freedom originated in the US, and you state everyone else did it after the US. I fail to see the conflict in the two statements.

Religious freedom began as a concept in America by the Puritans and it was passed into Constitutional law by decendents of the same. Atheists and deists may have been there, but they didn't come "to save the day" (so to speak).

They certainly didn't have the power to overide the will of the majority.

ubavontuba
1.1 / 5 (8) Jan 12, 2011
And now you're either creating a straw man and suggesting that I said Christians opposed religious freedom in total,
You certainly implied it.
or you're moving the goalposts over into an inprovable area and attempting to claim victory on a point that was never to be argued in the first place.
The point of the conversation is: Religious freedom is brought to you by way of Christian values, not atheist (or any other religion's) values.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
You certainly implied it.
No, you imagined it.
The point of the conversation is: Religious freedom is brought to you by way of Christian values, not atheist (or any other religion's) values.
No, it was brought to you by an ideology that doesn't care about religion in any way shape or form. The Enlightenment had very little to do with religion and a lot to do with the rights of man. Don't try to take credit for something that would have happened with or without religious influence.

And I can tell you it would have happened with or without christianity because it had already happened once in Greece long before Christianity ever existed, and again in the Middle East afterwards. Then religion took over in both instances and the Enlightenment died. Don't let it die again.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Well the Lecky quote is merely the same thing that has been said of Christianity since the iconoclast. "Christian X thinks Christian Y is a heretic. Burn him." Happened throughout all of history. It is a violent religion towards it's own most often throughout history. When you say it is more about politics, you're right. It always has been. Ever since the first split in the church it has been political. One of the crusades was due to a dispute between the eastern orthodox and the roman catholics. The War of the roses, the English French wars, all due to religious politics.
That Christian association is used as a tribal definition is NOT a Christian value. And, not all wars are thusly defined.

Maybe you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese are Catholics?
Christianity has been a political weapon for a long time, perhaps, since inception.
Sadly, you are correct. That's because people will politicize anything and everything to get what they want.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
Maybe you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese are Catholics?
No but that was religious in nature as well. The emperor of Japan was considered to be a living God amongst the people. As such the zero pilots would do as they did for their religion. Technically they were the very first technological suicide bombers.
Sadly, you are correct. That's because people will politicize anything and everything to get what they want.
And that is my problem with the entire ordeal. I've made that very clear to you but you persist in setting up political strawmen in regards to Christianity. You and the researcher above are politicizing Christianity, and when I point that out you claim a fallacy and create one of your own.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Because of the Freedom FROM Religion clause of the Constitution.
Fragment. What's your point?
I didn't admit it, I claimed it initially and proved it subsequently, and you've disagreed with it the whole time. Another fallacy from you.
Nope. I claimed freedom of religion was the result of Christian values.
I'm not claiming any particular statistics. My one and only relevant claim here is Modern Religious Freedom, otherwise known as Secularism, born in the US, and as seen around the world, is the product of Atheists, Deists, and Theists during the enlightenment.[q/]Nope. Your claim was that it was "a bunch of atheists and deists showed up and joined them and got religious freedom laws passed."

More accurately, a bunch of theists passed the reigious freedom laws, but a couple of desists and maybe an (unnamed) atheist particiapted.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
So now you're going to resort to trolling. This is when I start ignoring you.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
No, you imagined it.
Did you not write:

- "So making Christians toe the same line as everyone else in the world is "anti-christian and intolerant"? Grow up."

- "I think the law is often twisted to the favor of Christians."

- "Many Christian countries also deny the right to have religious freedom."

It looks to me like you're implying Christians generally oppose religious freedom.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
It looks to me like you're implying Christians generally oppose religious freedom.
To address those statements in order.

1) It stands as said. Many christians think that there is a right to ban gay marriage, a right to make abortion illegal, a right to "teach the controversy" and there isn't. There is no right to install religion, particularly Christianity, anywhere. And when it's pointed out, you call it discrimination. It isn't discrimination.

2) See 1

3) That was in regard to your statement that no Christian countries practice discrimination against non-Christians.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
And I can tell you it would have happened with or without christianity because it had already happened once in Greece long before Christianity ever existed, and again in the Middle East afterwards. Then religion took over in both instances and the Enlightenment died. Don't let it die again.
The Romans conqured Greece, not religion.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Roman_Greece

And the Ottoman empire just stagnated and died.

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

Like I said, learn a little bit about history, will you?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
No but that was religious in nature as well. The emperor of Japan was considered to be a living God amongst the people. As such the zero pilots would do as they did for their religion. Technically they were the very first technological suicide bombers.
That was a component of it, but not the cause.
And that is my problem with the entire ordeal. I've made that very clear to you but you persist in setting up political strawmen in regards to Christianity. You and the researcher above are politicizing Christianity, and when I point that out you claim a fallacy and create one of your own.
And I would argue that Christianity plays a modulating influence and reduces the violence. This is shown in the refrain from war practiced by some devoutly Christian sects. And the respect Christian nations have for their own citizens.

And contrasted by the history of atheist countries where war, and wholesale slaughter of their own citizens, is prevalent.
AngrySparrow
4.2 / 5 (6) Jan 12, 2011
Skeptic_Heretic

You're wasting your breath.

Even a beginner student of history quickly learns that even in slaves, in all but a few extreme cases, had there rights to religious freedoms – both in ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

Ubo is a person who takes a segment of a fragment from something like Wikipedia (of all things) and claims it is categorically true and definitive.

@Ubavontuba: I think it is time for you to be quite now.

If you are a smart guy, I strongly suggest that you now STFU now, and keep out of the topic ancient Greece and ancient Rome.

Quoting sections from Wikipedia about these topics is going to get you torn apart.

I’ve seen this happen time and again with load-mouth christians like you – and modern day American Wikipedia interpretations of ancient history just ain’t gonna “cut it”.

You’ve already shown that you have a flair for being a loud-mouth, but stop now. I very strongly recommend it.

Ancient Greece and ancient Rome are HUGE topics.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
So now you're going to resort to trolling. This is when I start ignoring you.
What do you mean by this? Where have I "trolled?"
1) It stands as said. Many christians think that there is a right to ban gay marriage, a right to make abortion illegal a right to "teach the controversy" and there isn't. There is no right to install religion, particularly Christianity, anywhere. And when it's pointed out, you call it discrimination. It isn't discrimination.
No, they have a right to try. It's called "freedom." Would you deny their freedoms? Would you likewise wish your freedoms denied?

Of course, most of these things don't pass Constitutional tests, much less have majority support.
2) See 1
It seems you're confusing noise from a dedicated minority with law. I assure you, they aren't the same.
3) That was in regard to your statement that no Christian countries practice discrimination against non-Christians.
When did I supposedly make that statement?
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 12, 2011
Quoting sections from Wikipedia about these topics is going to get you torn apart.
Tear away - and good luck with that.
Ancient Greece and ancient Rome are HUGE topics.
That's certainly true. Therefore, for SH to strictly condemn their failures for religious reasons, is ridiculous - in the extreme.
Skeptic_Heretic
4 / 5 (4) Jan 12, 2011
The Romans conqured Greece, not religion.

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Greece#Roman_Greece

And the Ottoman empire just stagnated and died.

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

Like I said, learn a little bit about history, will you?

So would you like to talk about the Maccabees or are you quite happy to give us a superficial overview of a subject that you have no knowledge of? Much as the Christian goths destroyed Rome before it's enlightenment, the Maccabee Jews destroyed the Hellenic Empire. You must bring a historical understanding of greater depth than elementary school education if you want to critique my understanding of history.
No, they have a right to try. It's called "freedom."
It's called Constitutional subversion. You're attempting to instill religion into law. the Amendment provides freedom of thought, not infiltration of practice.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
So would you like to talk about the Maccabees
What of them? They were also conquered by the Roamans.
or are you quite happy to give us a superficial overview of a subject that you have no knowledge of?
Obviously, I have more knowledge than you.
Much as the Christian goths destroyed Rome before it's enlightenment, the Maccabee Jews destroyed the Hellenic Empire.
What now? Maybe you think the Jews captured Athens? It was a Jewish revolt against foreign oppression and/or a Jewish civil/cultural war.
You must bring a historical understanding of greater depth than elementary school education if you want to critique my understanding of history.
Don't be ridiculous. You didn't even know the Romans conquered Greece! And apparently, didn't know the Romans conquered Judea, either.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 13, 2011
It's called Constitutional subversion. You're attempting to instill religion into law.
I resent this remark. I even offered to help fight against theocracy and theocritization.
the Amendment provides freedom of thought, not infiltration of practice.
Like I said above, most of their concepts don't pass Constitutional tests, much less have majority support.

However, they have a right to voice them. They have a right to try. That they're wrong is beside the point.

Would you deny them their rights to free speech? ...freedom of assembly? ...freedom to petition?

It looks to me like you could use a Constitutional Law class, as well.
Skeptic_Heretic
2.3 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
or are you quite happy to give us a superficial overview of a subject that you have no knowledge of?
Obviously, I have more knowledge than you.
So far you've failed to use it.
Much as the Christian goths destroyed Rome before it's enlightenment, the Maccabee Jews destroyed the Hellenic Empire.
What now? Maybe you think the Jews captured Athens?
No, I'm very sure they subverted the Hellenic empire from Judea after their revolt.
You must bring a historical understanding of greater depth than elementary school education if you want to critique my understanding of history.
Don't be ridiculous. You didn't even know the Romans conquered Greece! And apparently, didn't know the Romans conquered Judea, either.
Actuall I knew both, but you seem to think that's all that happened, ie: your education in western history appears to be stunted at an 8th grade level.

As for your resentment of the Constitution remark, then stop doing it.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 13, 2011
Religious freedom began as a concept in America by the Puritans
Not really. Religious freedom came from seeing what all those religious colonies did to other people. Like hang alleged witches. The Puritans came to the America's to avoid people with other religions.
Religious freedom is brought to you by way of Christian values, not atheist (or any other religion's) values.
No, religious freedom came from people being appalled by what religion could do when it had control like the happened in some of the colonies. Not just Deists and Quakers either. A lot of the religious people were fed up with religious government.
Maybe you think Japan bombed Pearl Harbor because the Japanese are Catholics?
My mother always suspected that Truman Nuked Nagasaki because that was where the Catholics lived.

Ethelred
Skeptic_Heretic
3.7 / 5 (3) Jan 13, 2011
And again, you've engaged in multiple straw man fallacies, Uba. You need to cut this out, no one will want to play with you anymore if you continue to be antisocial like this.

Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and you wanted to continue accusing us of doing the very same act you're repeating over and over.

That's cowardice.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
So far you've failed to use it.
That's just funny, considering I've used references to support my claims, and you've used none.
No, I'm very sure they subverted the Hellenic empire from Judea after their revolt.
Actually, you have it backwards. It was the Hellenization of Judea which was the impetus for the war.

And, although additional fighting led to an expansion of Judea, they didn't, like, cross the Mediterranean, or anything.

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

Actuall I knew both, but you seem to think that's all that happened, ie: your education in western history appears to be stunted at an 8th grade level.
Resorting to ad hominems now?

If you have a real argument (and can back it up with references) make it.
As for your resentment of the Constitution remark, then stop doing it.
How might I stop doing what I'm not doing?

Really, SH, I thought you were better than this.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
Not really. Religious freedom came from seeing what all those religious colonies did to other people. Like hang alleged witches. The Puritans came to the America's to avoid people with other religions.
I said it BEGAN with the Puritans (by way of them seeking to escape religious persecution, themselves) I didn't say it came to fruition with them. But you are right on the facts of it.
No, religious freedom came from people being appalled by what religion could do when it had control like the happened in some of the colonies. Not just Deists and Quakers either. A lot of the religious people were fed up with religious government.
Actually: "Freedom of religion was first applied as a principle of government in the founding of the colony of Maryland, founded by the Catholic Lord Baltimore, in 1634."

http:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_religion#United_States

cont...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
My mother always suspected that Truman Nuked Nagasaki because that was where the Catholics lived.
Yeah, well, the conspiracy theories persist. Personally, I doubt he much considered it, as he was busy fighting a war. I mean, it's not like churches of all sorts weren't destroyed in the war.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
And again, you've engaged in multiple straw man fallacies, Uba.
Seriously? Again, who's the one providing corroborating references here? Is it you? No? Oh ...it's me!
You need to cut this out, no one will want to play with you anymore if you continue to be antisocial like this.
I'm sorry if the facts run contrary to your feelings. But as Ronald Reagan said: "Facts are stubborn things."
Fallacy after fallacy after fallacy, and you wanted to continue accusing us of doing the very same act you're repeating over and over.
Wow! And you accuse me of using strawman arguments (incredulity)! That one's a doozy!
That's cowardice.
No, this was.

It truly saddens me that you've degenerated into irrational emotionalism. Of course I expect this of dogmatists like otto and kevinrtrs. But not you.

Oh well. Until another time...
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2011
Just regarding people of particular religions being the founders of different things in history...

Atheism was basically non-existent or was hidden in the past. Countries mainly followed one or two different sects of the same religion. Saying that you did not believe in God would be heresy and you could be hanged (socially or literally) depending on where you lived (not necessarily by the Church, but by followers in the community).

Unlike in religion, there would have been no reason for the average atheist to stand up and state their beliefs because, well, an atheist believe that there was any god that would see their sacrifice and reward them in heaven. Some did anyways. Scientists were killed/exiled/shunned for attempting to explain nature with science rather than god.

It got less extreme in the last couple hundred years, sure, but there was still a social stigma to being an atheist (and in much of the US/world there still is).
Javinator
5 / 5 (3) Jan 14, 2011
Basically, my point is that saying that things were founded by religious people in the past... it just seems like a lot of it (obviously not all of it) is correlation, not causation.

I can tell you right now I'd pretend to follow a religion I didn't believe in to save my life and the lives of my family if it came to that.

Would that mean anything I discovered/did with my life was done by a
? Technically yes. Are they related? Not really.
Skeptic_Heretic
3 / 5 (2) Jan 14, 2011
Let the shunning begin.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2011
Basically, my point is that saying that things were founded by religious people in the past... it just seems like a lot of it (obviously not all of it) is correlation, not causation.
That's an excellent point, indeed.

Nonetheless, it's tough to argue against the notion that the reinterpretation of the Bible by the Protestants brought forth a new awareness. Specifically germane to this discussion, it brought to light an understanding of Jesus' teachings of personal responsibility, freedom of thought, and deed. Basically, giving people the impetus to begin thinking for themselves.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.2 / 5 (48) Jan 15, 2011
No it didn't. It only created another hypocrisy with a different set of superficial rituals and rules. It was just one more way of dividing the people and setting one group against the other.

The evidence- you typify Catholics as people with belief systems that leave them without the impetus to think for themselves. But Protestant belief systems are just as dogmatic and only generate the same sort of unthinking believers. If they do think, they may either build another church down the street or generate another sect; or if they're lucky, reach the conclusion that the whole concept is worthless.
TheGhostofOtto1923
2.3 / 5 (47) Jan 15, 2011
More evidence- this hypocrisy is obvious to believers outside your religion even though they are hindered by their own thought-suppressing beliefs. And it is certainly obvious to atheists. The fact that it is not obvious to you is because your own powers of reason have been hobbled by your beliefs. And you unwittingly choose to display this lack of reason in a public forum, and you try to convince others to adopt it. And you display your immunity to the reason of others and the evidence they present of your inability to reason, which you choose to disregard.

In summation I think it is obvious to anyone but you that your religion has made you stoopid. Or that you was da unfortunate recipient of a brain accident at sum point in your life. Sorry I lost composure at the end here.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (4) Jan 15, 2011
...you typify Catholics as people with belief systems that leave them without the impetus to think for themselves. But Protestant belief systems are just as dogmatic and only generate the same sort of unthinking believers.
Actually, it was the mass printing of the Bible that drove up literacy. Protestants were taught to read in order for them to read it for themselves.

However, large numbers of people have forsaken this practice and as a result, many modern "Protestant" churches are little more than personality cults - centered around dynamic pastors (hence, celebrity pastors).

Worse, these churches often push commercial materials written by (or controlled by) the leaders of the particular churches in question, therefore neglecting the Bible (in favor of making the leaders rich).

I've met some members who literally believe the Christian Bible says to give to the church, and God will make you rich. And, they're unaware there is both an Old Covenant and a New Covenant.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
Actually, it was the mass printing of the Bible that drove up literacy. Protestants were taught to read in order for them to read it for themselves.
That's not really true. Although literacy wasn't widespread. The main driving force of the mass publication of the Bible was that people wanted to read it in their own language rather than have it read to them by the church. This was effectively a cornerstone fo the Protestant revolution.
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
That's not really true. Although literacy wasn't widespread. The main driving force of the mass publication of the Bible was that people wanted to read it in their own language rather than have it read to them by the church. This was effectively a cornerstone fo the Protestant revolution.
Hi SH! It's good to have my reasoned friend back.

"An interesting side benefit of the Puritan obsession with the Bible was the rapid rise in the rate of literacy. Throughout human history literacy was a luxury out of most peoples reach and often deliberately withheld by the ruling class. But since the Puritans believed that people should use the Bible to connect directly to God, then that meant that those people had to be literate. So the need to have direct access to the Bible led to a significant rise in the literacy rates in England and other Protestant states."

http:/celrjr.multiply.com/journal/item/170

more...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
I think the following excerpt from "The printing press as an agent of change" (by Elizabeth L. Eisenstein), sums up the founding of The Enlightenment, quite succinctly:

"The variation in incentives toward literacy during the centuries of Bible-reading has important implications not only for the history of science or of ideas. Political consciousness and collective action were also entailed."

http:/books.google.com/books?id=WR1eajpBG9cC&printsec=frontcover#

From another source:

"...estimates early sixteenth-century literacy rates in England to have been less than 1 percent; yet by the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603) he suggests it was getting close to 50 percent. The Reformation, then, was a major spur to education and to literacy, but we must be aware that while the starting point for this education was religious knowledge and morality, it also aimed at other sorts of useful knowledge."

http:/www.faqs.org/childhood/Ke-Me/Literacy.html

more...
ubavontuba
1 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
So in summation: I think it's pretty clear the Protestant Reformation (and their use of the Bible) was a direct precursor to The Enlightenment, which lead to concepts like; Freedom of Religion.

Or, as I said above: "...it's tough to argue against the notion that the reinterpretation of the Bible by the Protestants brought forth a new awareness..."

This awareness, obviously, wasn't strictly limited to religious considerations. It had broad and far reaching repercussions across all of society.

Therefore, much of what we take for granted in our modern societies, we owe to the Protestant Reformation.
Skultch
4.7 / 5 (3) Jan 16, 2011
Of course the bible was the most common tool towards literacy! That's what everyone was taught to value at the time. Even in today's relatively liberal societies (no heathen murder), 90% of people, regardless of ideology, believe what their family and closest friends believe. People value community more than ideology, as it is in their best interest, financially and reproductively.

Also, the internet will change and benefit us more than the bible ever did or could.

All these "couldn't have happened unless..." are merely historical and are largely irrelevant to the study of human nature.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jan 16, 2011
Why the internet? To cross-comment from the other religious thread popular lately, it is a tool to better implement the golden rule. It assists in empathy; something religion actually hinders (cross culturally), despite it's founders' preachings. The golden rule cannot work without intelligent and correctly informed knowledge of self and others.... Intellectual AND emotional empathy.
Justathought
1 / 5 (1) Jan 17, 2011
I spent two years, trying to become an atheist.I kept running into the design argument, and logic dictated creator, time and time again.I personally feel, it takes more faith to believe there is no God, than to believe there is one, because of this.It is impossible to prove a negative, of this scale, to show there is no God.But my maxim when pursuing atheism; the greatest proof there is no God, is there is no proof, that he exists.Proving a positive, is really the only thing we can prove.I will always respect, and honor the belief of the atheist, he, or she, unwittingly, strengthens my own faith, because of the balance created in dialogue.We are all brothers and sisters, first, of planet earth, and would not want anyone to attack my beliefs, or mock my faith, because it does not concur with their own.We all must choose to believe in something, or believe in nothing, when it comes to a God.I believe the truth is in our hearts, and not in our minds,simply because of love.
Skultch
5 / 5 (1) Jan 18, 2011
I spent two years, trying to become an atheist....


No offense, but keep learning and thinking. Maybe someone else can help you convert. I've been an agnostic/deist/atheist my entire life.

I believe the truth is in our hearts, and not in our minds,simply because of love.


Again, no offense, but this makes no sense to me. The heart pumps blood, it does not contain truth. Perhaps you mean emotions? Those are in the brain and are very well understood natural phenomena completely explained by evolution.
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
I spent two years, trying to become an atheist
Try? It is something you notice that you already are. At least for most people here. For us Agnostics as well.
kept running into the design argument, and logic dictated creator
The design argument is based on wanting to force fit a god into science. It is NOT science. Logic does not require a creator. It does ALLOW there to be one.
it takes more faith to believe there is no God
I am not going on faith. I am going on there not being any evidence for a god that is more than an unsupported claim by men.
It is impossible to prove a negative
Difficult not impossible. See Godel's Proof for an extremely case. Only vaguely defined gods are safe from disproof and few gods are the vaguely defined. Jehovah of the Old Testament is testable. Fails the test.

More
Ethelred
3 / 5 (2) Jan 19, 2011
But my maxim when pursuing atheism; the greatest proof there is no God, is there is no proof, that he exists
Try Agnosticism. If proof for a god shows up I will accept it. However there is no such proof so why believe? Just assume there might be a god but there really is no reason to assume there is a god.
.Proving a positive, is really the only thing we can prove
Clearly you have not taken many math or logic classes.
We all must choose to believe in something, or believe in nothing, when it comes to a God
Utterly false. I do NOT have to choose any such a thing. I prefer to go on evidence. You don't seem to have any and I never seen any either way on this.
I believe the truth is in our hearts, and not in our minds,simply because of love
I believe that you believe without evidence. Hearts pump blood, I should have trademarked that, and blood carries a number of hormones, such as oxytocin, that are involved in love. Love is something we seem to have evolved

Ethelred

More news stories

Teachers' scare tactics may lead to lower exam scores

As the school year winds down and final exams loom, teachers may want to avoid reminding students of the bad consequences of failing a test because doing so could lead to lower scores, according to new research published ...