DVD Talk
Question about religion and politics... [Archive] - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Question about religion and politics...


Pages : [1] 2

Ronnie Dobbs
05-11-09, 10:57 AM
Our founding Fathers built this country on seperation of church and state amongst other things why is religion such a central point among political parties? But why is it so important to pander to religious groups? Why do convervativism and religion have to be mutually exclusive? I think how I grew up my views could swing more conservative than most but what really turns me off is when God is brought into a conversation. There's a lot of gray areas in life and it seems that religion is used as a crutch so that rather than gray its more black and white. Thoughts?

classicman2
05-11-09, 11:02 AM
Where in The Constitution does it separate church & state?

Your first sentence is simply not factual.

Red Dog
05-11-09, 11:14 AM
-popcorn-

kvrdave
05-11-09, 11:28 AM
:lol:

wendersfan
05-11-09, 11:28 AM
why is religion such a central point among political parties? Who says it is?
But why is it so important to pander to religious groups?Political parties pander to groups. Religious groups are one type of many.
Why do convervativism and religion have to be mutually exclusive?What is "convervativism [sic]"
I think how I grew up my views could swing more conservative than most but what really turns me off is when God is brought into a conversation.I think this might be a personal issue and not a political attitude.
There's a lot of gray areas in life and it seems that religion is used as a crutch so that rather than gray its more black and white. Thoughts?Religious and non-religious people use lots of things as crutches and many people want to see issues as "black and white" irrespective of their religious beliefs.

Many western European countries have political parties that are explicitly religious. They even have the word "Christian" in the name of the party. One of the great things (IMO) about American politics is that there has never historically been a religious cleavage that divided the way people voted. True, Catholics and Jews have supported the Democrats more while Republicans got more support from Protestants, but it's always been a matter of degree. Now, of course, church attendance is a big predictor of the vote and I hope that trend doesn't continue, but I think the effect of religion on American politics is a little overstated in your post.

Groucho
05-11-09, 11:31 AM
This thread turned up in a routine search for "Republican cleavage". It does not deliver. :sad:

wendersfan
05-11-09, 11:32 AM
This thread turned up in a routine search for "Republican cleavage". It does not deliver. :sad:Don't worry - I too hate serious wendersfan.

kvrdave
05-11-09, 11:36 AM
Okay, I'll get serious too.

Our founding Fathers built this country on seperation of church and state amongst other things why is religion such a central point among political parties?
I don't think you can back this up. I think this is an incorrect assumption, but I'll move on.

But why is it so important to pander to religious groups?
You could ask the same of Environmentalists, Pro-Choice activists, etc., could you? The obvious answer is "because they vote."

Why do convervativism and religion have to be mutually exclusive?
I don't think they are. My religious beliefs actually make me more liberal. And there are certainly a lot of religious people that are Democrats. They may not have a PAC, but they are there.

I think how I grew up my views could swing more conservative than most but what really turns me off is when God is brought into a conversation.
If you are a single issue guy, I can understand that. Some people are turned off when God is mentioned, and some people are turned off when abortion is mentioned.

There's a lot of gray areas in life and it seems that religion is used as a crutch so that rather than gray its more black and white. Thoughts?
Lot of things are used as a crutch. And probably your view has to do more with a distaste for religion than a belief that there should be shades of gray. Are there shades of gray regarding abortion in the Democrat party? How about Global Warming?

Something that bothers you happens to be what you notice the most. That's about all there is to this.

Groucho
05-11-09, 11:39 AM
For the record, a lot of "liberal" changes in our government have had their roots in churches. Anti-abolitionists, civil rights, etc. Even with same-sex marriage: there are more churches that recognize these unions than there are state governments.

Ronnie Dobbs
05-11-09, 11:58 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

wendersfan
05-11-09, 12:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state:hscratch:

kvrdave
05-11-09, 12:02 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state

The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[3] The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878,[4] and then in a series of cases starting in 1948.[5] This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Sounds like a weak argument to base that our Founding Fathers built the country on the concept given the origin being more than a quarter of a century later, doesn't it? I would think you'd have as good (or better) rationale to say that our Founding Fathers built this country on slavery.

Nausicaa
05-11-09, 12:04 PM
Why do convervativism and religion have to be mutually exclusive? I think how I grew up my views could swing more conservative than most but what really turns me off is when God is brought into a conversation. There's a lot of gray areas in life and it seems that religion is used as a crutch so that rather than gray its more black and white. Thoughts?

That first sentence is an odd comment to make. During the last several decades, has there ever been a point where conservatism and Christianity were popularly regarded as disperate elements? On the contrary, the two have been politically wed for at least thirty years.

As for why, I think it's enough to point out that large swaths of Americans are religious. And, as religious beliefs are usually deeply held and to a large degree inform a believer's identity, its useful to exploit.

dork
05-11-09, 12:42 PM
Even with same-sex marriage: there are more churches that recognize these unions than there are state governments.
:lol: I know you're just trying to be evenhanded, but statements like this is why ratios were invented.

Groucho
05-11-09, 12:44 PM
:lol: I know you're just trying to be evenhanded, but statements like this is why ratios were invented.Are you implying there are more than 50 churches? :hscratch:

dork
05-11-09, 12:50 PM
There are probably more than 50 on your block....

Groucho
05-11-09, 12:58 PM
There are probably more than 50 on your block....I live in Utah, son. There's only one church for this state. Other states don't work the same way?

Dr Mabuse
05-11-09, 02:06 PM
You need to understand what happened in England, starting with Henry VIII and following that, surrounding a state church to understand the context of our framing documents.

Hardly anyone does, therefore most don't understand the framing documents and their meaning.

Nor do they understand the actual meaning of "separation of church & state". It actually means quite the opposite of what many today understand it to mean. Nor do most people know where that phrase was coined, it wasn't in the founding or framing documents.

The church was literally the state for decades, including during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

JasonF
05-11-09, 02:26 PM
The church was literally the state for decades, including during the presidency of Thomas Jefferson.

:hscratch: I agree that the modern conception of separation of church and state isn't the same one that the founders (or framers, if classicman prefers) had. But there's no way you can say that the church was the state in the early 19th century.

kvrdave
05-11-09, 02:29 PM
Once again, JasonF shows he has no regard for the First Amendment. -ohbfrank-

wendersfan
05-11-09, 02:33 PM
But there's no way you can say that the church was the state in the early 19th century.Dr Mabuse was careful not to specify which state. ;)

Dr Mabuse
05-11-09, 02:40 PM
But there's no way you can say that the church was the state in the early 19th century.

Like I said(posted), not many are aware of the actual history.

I meant what I said(posted damn it!), and yes I meant it literally.

http://i260.photobucket.com/albums/ii18/drmabuse06/Forum%20comments/link.gif (http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06-2.html)

JasonF
05-11-09, 02:53 PM
:lol: Oh, you were talking about the physical church and the physical capital building. That's different from what I thought you were saying.

Dr Mabuse
05-11-09, 02:56 PM
:lol: Oh, you were talking about the physical church and the physical capital building. That's different from what I thought you were saying.

What you were thinking goes back to Henry VIII, and the Pilgrims leaving and all.

:lol:

rw2516
05-11-09, 04:38 PM
This seems good a place as any to ask something I've always been curious about. What upholds prohibative laws only in effect on Sunday? Alcohol a prime example. Why not prohibit sales on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?
What's the reasoning behind denying someone the ability to work and make a living on sunday because the church doesn't think he should be able to, even when that person doesn't subscribe to the church's beliefs.

Red Dog
05-11-09, 04:43 PM
This seems good a place as any to ask something I've always been curious about. What upholds prohibative laws only in effect on Sunday? Alcohol a prime example. Why not prohibit sales on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?
What's the reasoning behind denying someone the ability to work and make a living on sunday because the church doesn't think he should be able to, even when that person doesn't subscribe to the church's beliefs.

See McGowan v. Maryland (1961). The SCt has not addressed blue laws to my knowledge since then. The Court found valid secular reasons for blue laws (basically gov't encouragement to take a day off work weak for rest and relaxation).

Regardless, blue laws do clearly infringe on freedom IMO.

kvrdave
05-11-09, 05:05 PM
This seems good a place as any to ask something I've always been curious about. What upholds prohibative laws only in effect on Sunday? Alcohol a prime example. Why not prohibit sales on Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday?
What's the reasoning behind denying someone the ability to work and make a living on sunday because the church doesn't think he should be able to, even when that person doesn't subscribe to the church's beliefs.

The same thing that prevents someone from allowing smoking in his place of business. Just from a different set of "morals."

wishbone
05-11-09, 05:20 PM
Regardless, blue laws do clearly infringe on freedom IMO.In Colorado, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Louisiana, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Oklahoma, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, car dealerships continue to operate under blue-law prohibitions in which an automobile may not be purchased or traded on a Sunday. Maryland permits Sunday automobile sales only in the counties of Prince George's, Montgomery, and Howard. Texas and Utah prohibit car dealerships from operating over consecutive weekend days. In some cases these laws were created or retained with the support of those whom they affected, to allow them a day off each week without fear of their competitors still being open.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

Some like to take a look at dealership cars on Sundays so that they are free of sales personnel shadowing them. ;)

rw2516
05-11-09, 07:14 PM
See McGowan v. Maryland (1961). The SCt has not addressed blue laws to my knowledge since then. The Court found valid secular reasons for blue laws (basically gov't encouragement to take a day off work weak for rest and relaxation).


Fine. I'll take pick what day to rest and relax. Just pass labor law against working seven days a week. Comes back to religion.

kvrdave
05-11-09, 07:40 PM
Fine. I'll take pick what day to rest and relax. Just pass labor law against working seven days a week. Comes back to religion.


Or does it just come back to culture?

Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

crazyronin
05-11-09, 08:39 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_law

Some like to take a look at dealership cars on Sundays so that they are free of sales personnel shadowing them. ;)

Damn right! :up: I prefer to go to dealerships on Sunday. I just want to eyeball new cars, not to get the hard sell.

Artman
05-11-09, 11:59 PM
Romans 14:5 One man considers one day more sacred than another; another man considers every day alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind.

I've always liked that one.

As far as Christianity, you can believe and vote however you want politically. We tend to hear more about the "religious right" but there's religious liberals as well, including our current President.

JasonF
05-12-09, 12:45 AM
there's religious liberals as well, including our current President.

-ohbfrank- We're talking about Christianity, not Secret Islam.

classicman2
05-12-09, 07:49 AM
I've always liked that one.

As far as Christianity, you can believe and vote however you want politically. We tend to hear more about the "religious right" but there's religious liberals as well, including our current President.

I don't know how religious he is; but the second part (him being a liberal) is certainly correct. ;)

sracer
05-12-09, 10:02 AM
I've always liked that one.

As far as Christianity, you can believe and vote however you want politically. We tend to hear more about the "religious right" but there's religious liberals as well, including our current President.
There's a difference between Christians who have political views and politicians/political activists who use Christianity as a political tool.

You only hear from the 2nd group.

classicman2
05-12-09, 10:16 AM
What is the above post supposed to mean?

kvrdave
05-12-09, 11:36 AM
It's okay for groups with common goals to work towards them through the government unless they are religious.

CRM114
05-12-09, 11:53 AM
Damn right! :up: I prefer to go to dealerships on Sunday. I just want to eyeball new cars, not to get the hard sell.

They are all locked though. And you can't drive them. :down:

CRM114
05-12-09, 11:55 AM
There's a difference between Christians who have political views and politicians/political activists who use Christianity as a political tool.

You only hear from the 2nd group.

Organized religion has always been a political tool. It's the reason for it's existence.

sracer
05-12-09, 11:58 AM
Organized religion has always been a political tool. It's the reason for it's existence.
rotfl

CRM114
05-12-09, 12:04 PM
"[Religion] is the opium of the people."

It's only funny to you because you believe the tales and fables as if they were truth. :shrug:

adamblast
05-12-09, 12:40 PM
It's unproductive, in general, to debate people who get their opinions from imaginary beings. Such folk must be fought politically, on ocassion, but the ship of rationality has already passed.

Red Dog
05-12-09, 12:43 PM
-popcorn-

Finally......getting to some kernels with butter on them.

JasonF
05-12-09, 12:44 PM
Finally......getting to some kernels with butter on them.

:rolleyes: You and your imaginary sky butter. Get your rosaries off my snack food!

kvrdave
05-12-09, 03:22 PM
"[Religion] is the opium of the people."

It's only funny to you because you believe the tales and fables as if they were truth. :shrug:yet some still believe in Obama. I tend to look at those who believe in the fables and coming miracles of socialized healthcare, government car companies, etc. The same way. They are kind of cute, like children who don't yet understand why they can't just spread their arms and fly like Superman.

CRM114
05-12-09, 03:45 PM
Or you are just an eternal pessimist. :shrug:

Dr Mabuse
05-12-09, 04:09 PM
Or he made a quite relevant comparison, and you missed the point.

CRM114
05-12-09, 05:08 PM
Or he made a quite relevant comparison, and you missed the point.

That religion is as fake as universal health care? I thought religion relied on this quaint concept called "faith?" :lol:

Groucho
05-12-09, 05:21 PM
This thread is uncharacteristically mean-spirited!

Can't we go back to agreeing that [insert cult here] are a bunch of wackos?

adamblast
05-12-09, 05:30 PM
I've been gone for ages, Groucho. I meant to complement you on your heartwarming avatar/logo.

Artman
05-12-09, 07:10 PM
That religion is as fake as universal health care? I thought religion relied on this quaint concept called "faith?"

Have we seen U Health care here and working yet? Are there any indicators that it actually would? (given our size for example...)

Ky-Fi
05-12-09, 07:29 PM
It's unproductive, in general, to debate people who get their opinions from imaginary beings. Such folk must be fought politically, on ocassion, but the ship of rationality has already passed.

I couldn't agree more. But I'm sympathetic to them, as I do understand the DESIRE to believe in a society of rational, ethical atheists, who's superior intellectual and moral understanding of man and the universe would have led them to surpass all the social, political, ethical and technological accomplishments of the religious societies, if only they had been given a fair chance.

Dr Mabuse
05-12-09, 08:28 PM
I couldn't agree more. But I'm sympathetic to them, as I do understand the DESIRE to believe in a society of rational, ethical atheists, who's superior intellectual and moral understanding of man and the universe would have led them to surpass all the social, political, ethical and technological accomplishments of the religious societies, if only they had been given a fair chance.

Nice.

CRM114
05-12-09, 09:25 PM
I couldn't agree more. But I'm sympathetic to them, as I do understand the DESIRE to believe in a society of rational, ethical atheists, who's superior intellectual and moral understanding of man and the universe would have led them to surpass all the social, political, ethical and technological accomplishments of the religious societies, if only they had been given a fair chance.

Sounds like you are describing the current community of atheists. The only problem is that they are vastly outnumbered by those easily-malleable and indoctrinated Americans. Would a person who can live a perfectly "moral" life without the dogma of an organized religion be by definition "intellectually superior?" Or would you say the ability to create a moral reality based on anonymous writings about supernatural beings and occurrences to have a superior intellect?

Ky-Fi
05-12-09, 09:52 PM
Would a person who can live a perfectly "moral" life without the dogma of an organized religion be by definition "intellectually superior?" ?

For anyone that can lead a perfectly moral life, I would say that indeed religion has nothing to offer them.

Or would you say the ability to create a moral reality based on anonymous writings about supernatural beings and occurrences to have a superior intellect?

That needs more words before it's a real sentence.

creekdipper
05-12-09, 10:06 PM
Sounds like you are describing the current community of atheists. The only problem is that they are vastly outnumbered by those easily-malleable and indoctrinated Americans. Would a person who can live a perfectly "moral" life without the dogma of an organized religion be by definition "intellectually superior?" Or would you say the ability to create a moral reality based on anonymous writings about supernatural beings and occurrences to have a superior intellect?


The answer to your question depends entirely upon the definition of "a perfectly moral life"? In order to provide that definition, one would have to believe in moral absolutes...which would have to have their origins from some source, whether human or supernatural.

In the absence of agreed-upon moral absolutes, the measuring stick becomes entirely subjective. A person who sees nothing wrong with adultery, for instance, can still lay claim to leading a "perfectly moral life" and claim intellectual superiority. Without moral absolutes, how could anyone disagree with him/her?

That's why the premise of your question becomes a moot point unless one is willing to be judgmental and declare one's personal moral beliefs to be superior to others.

Adrian_Monk
05-13-09, 12:13 AM
I couldn't agree more. But I'm sympathetic to them, as I do understand the DESIRE to believe in a society of rational, ethical atheists, who's superior intellectual and moral understanding of man and the universe would have led them to surpass all the social, political, ethical and technological accomplishments of the religious societies, if only they had been given a fair chance.

I have a hard time buying into the credibility of somebody trying to debate their own moral standards as moral absolutes while correcting the grammar of their opposition, yet not knowing the difference between "who's" and "whose."

kvrdave
05-13-09, 12:27 AM
So, the thread is over, I take it. We've already come to this point....and 5 pages early.

Ky-Fi
05-13-09, 08:04 AM
I have a hard time buying into the credibility of somebody trying to debate their own moral standards as moral absolutes while correcting the grammar of their opposition, yet not knowing the difference between "who's" and "whose."

Ahh, it seems that you've missed the subtlety of my point. I MEANT to misspell that word, simply to point out the ultimate nature of man: that while he may be capable of brilliant observation and profound understanding, he is ultimately a flawed and fallen creature, not to be fully relied upon as the ultimate arbiter of wisdom and morality.

I guess I sometimes forget that people here aren't always able to follow the minutia of my flawless, meticulously constructed posts.

CRM114
05-13-09, 09:05 AM
So, the thread is over, I take it. We've already come to this point....and 5 pages early.

:lol: The religion threads are always over before they start. The devout always have a position based on supernatural arguments.

creekdipper
05-14-09, 05:15 PM
:lol: The religion threads are always over before they start. The devout always have a position based on supernatural arguments.

As do the non-devout, who believe in a guiding supernatural force called "Chance" (or Fate, or Random Selection, or any one of many names).

Whether people admit it or not, their positions are shaped by their religious beliefs (which includes atheists even though they continually resist that notion).

I believe you said something similar in a different thread (except for the idea that everyone's worldview becomes their religious creed).

arminius
05-14-09, 05:39 PM
Atheism is a religon. It just differs to other religons in the amount of gods they believe in.

eXcentris
05-14-09, 06:17 PM
Atheism is not religion and it is certainly not based on "beliefs". This is just an argument religious people use to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma.

kvrdave
05-14-09, 06:22 PM
Atheism is not religion and it is certainly not based on "beliefs". This is just an argument religious people use to bring Atheists down to their level of accepting un-evidenced dogma.

Well religious people and the SCOTUS in Torcaso v. Watkins. Atheism is not a religion to atheists because they don't like the conotations of the phrase. Sorry about that.

rw2516
05-14-09, 06:26 PM
As do the non-devout, who believe in a guiding supernatural force called "Chance" (or Fate, or Random Selection, or any one of many names).

Whether people admit it or not, their positions are shaped by their religious beliefs (which includes atheists even though they continually resist that notion).

I believe you said something similar in a different thread (except for the idea that everyone's worldview becomes their religious creed).

Well, if "Shit Happens" is a religion I'm going to open a church with big sign that says SHIT HAPPENS and sue for a gazillion bucks claiming freedom of religion when forced to take it down.

eXcentris
05-14-09, 06:43 PM
Well religious people and the SCOTUS in Torcaso v. Watkins. Atheism is not a religion to atheists because they don't like the conotations of the phrase. Sorry about that.

Well whoop dee doo, the US Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. I'm convinced...

kvrdave
05-14-09, 06:55 PM
Well whoop dee doo, the US Supreme Court declared that Secular Humanism was a religion. I'm convinced...

You don't think they are a group of Atheists?

eXcentris
05-14-09, 07:12 PM
You don't think they are a group of Atheists?

Yup, but it still doesn't make "Atheism" a religion.

Moreover...


It is important to note that this citation of Secular Humanism as a religion is not merely dictum. The Supreme Court refers to the important 1957 case of Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia (101 U.S. App. D.C. 371) in its holding that Secular Humanism is a non-theistic religion within the meaning of the First Amendment. The Ethical Culture movement is one denomination of Secular Humanism which reaches moral and cultural relativism, situation ethics, and attacks belief in a spiritual God and theistic values of the Old and New Testaments. The Washington Ethical Society case involved denial of the Society's application for tax exemption as a religious organization. The U.S. Court of Appeals reversed the Tax Court's ruling, defined the Society as a religious organization, and granted its tax exemption. The Court Stated, The sole issue raised is whether petitioner falls within the definition of a "church" or a "religious society" . . . .


Plus... this is a judgement based not only on law, but US law. I can't fathom how this can be used as some sort of universal proof/truth that Atheism is a religion...

kvrdave
05-14-09, 07:15 PM
Meh, it honestly doesn't matter to me what you want to call it. A religion is a belief structure, as is a non-religion. I don't see much difference between them other than a difference in opinions as to their beliefs. :shrug: They are all simply world views that bring biases into them.

eXcentris
05-14-09, 07:29 PM
Do you agree that the word “belief” has, thru centuries of usage, been incorporated as part of the religious language? For example, I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet, this has nothing to do with "belief". Which goes back to my original point. See post #63. :)

kvrdave
05-14-09, 07:37 PM
Do you agree that the word “belief” has, thru centuries of usage, been incorporated as part of the religious language? For example, I "believe" that the sun will rise tomorrow. Yet, this has nothing to do with "belief". Which goes back to my original point. See post #63. :)


Do you "believe" life sprang from non-life? Do you have "belief" that it will some day be shown through naturalistic processes? Or is there science and facts behind this "belief" (assuming you aren't the only Atheist in the world who doesn't hold to that)?

How is that "belief" different in kind from the religious idea of it?

eXcentris
05-14-09, 08:36 PM
Do you "believe" life sprang from non-life? Do you have "belief" that it will some day be shown through naturalistic processes? Or is there science and facts behind this "belief" (assuming you aren't the only Atheist in the world who doesn't hold to that)?

How is that "belief" different in kind from the religious idea of it?

I will "believe" when there's enough scientific evidence to support these propositions. So, this isn't "belief", it's merely ignorance as in "I do not know". And I do not feel the need to have "beliefs" to fill in the gaps like religious people do.

creekdipper
05-15-09, 03:25 AM
I will "believe" when there's enough scientific evidence to support these propositions. So, this isn't "belief", it's merely ignorance as in "I do not know". And I do not feel the need to have "beliefs" to fill in the gaps like religious people do.

In other words, you take it on faith. -wink-

creekdipper
05-15-09, 03:26 AM
Well, if "Shit Happens" is a religion I'm going to open a church with big sign that says SHIT HAPPENS and sue for a gazillion bucks claiming freedom of religion when forced to take it down.

And you'll probably win given that Secular Humanism is the dominant religion of our culture.

Although it would be hard to see your legal argument since being forced to take your sign down would just be in accordance with your religious beliefs and would bolster them by providing concrete evidence in support of your religion. To protest would be oxymoronic.

kvrdave
05-15-09, 09:44 AM
In other words, you take it on faith. -wink-

:lol: Exactly. You can't rationally say "I do not believe in the supernatural in any form, but I don't know if life arose from natural processes."

arminius
05-15-09, 09:55 AM
I will "believe" when there's enough scientific evidence to support these propositions. So, this isn't "belief", it's merely ignorance as in "I do not know". And I do not feel the need to have "beliefs" to fill in the gaps like religious people do.
Then woudn't that be agnostic and not atheism? Atheism is a belief system without any basis in scientific fact.

wendersfan
05-15-09, 10:11 AM
Atheism is a belief system without any basis in scientific fact.I wouldn't consider atheism to be a belief system, although a lot of people (theists and atheists) treat it as such. But I see "belief" and "faith" to be two different things, however similar they might appear.

kvrdave
05-15-09, 10:26 AM
I wouldn't consider atheism to be a belief system, although a lot of people (theists and atheists) treat it as such. But I see "belief" and "faith" to be two different things, however similar they might appear.

Then it is probably nitpicking or just a difference of opinion, since atheisms does have beliefs about things, I would think it would qualify as a belief system. If nothing else, it is certainly a world view in some form. And like it or not, that world view takes some things on faith.

wendersfan
05-15-09, 10:32 AM
I'm honestly not prepared to argue with on this, intellectually or otherwise. I have faith in what I have faith in, I believe what I believe, and I let others tend to their own faith and belief. :shrug:

kvrdave
05-15-09, 10:42 AM
I have no problem with that until others decide that everything they believe has a rational basis but most things someone else believes is done on faith for the most part. Some "rationalists" don't seem to be able to recognize the faith they have in their own beliefs but need to mock others for haivng faith in their own.

wendersfan
05-15-09, 10:51 AM
I have no problem with that until others decide that everything they believe has a rational basis but most things someone else believes is done on faith for the most part. Some "rationalists" don't seem to be able to recognize the faith they have in their own beliefs but need to mock others for haivng faith in their own.At that point I usually chuckle, turn, and walk away.

Or change the subject to next week's Champions League final. ;)

kvrdave
05-15-09, 10:56 AM
Often I do unless there is a heavy amount of condesention (not directed at eXcentris) and an air of superiority based on "intellectuality."

arminius
05-15-09, 12:20 PM
Often I do unless there is a heavy amount of condesention (not directed at eXcentris) and an air of superiority based on "intellectuality."

Are you saying I'm all wet?:mad:

kvrdave
05-15-09, 12:23 PM
:lol:

Tracer Bullet
05-15-09, 12:29 PM
Not believing that something exists is now a belief system?

wishbone
05-15-09, 12:35 PM
Not believing that something exists is now a belief system?"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

:shrug:

Tracer Bullet
05-15-09, 12:36 PM
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

:shrug:

Okay, I'll keep that in mind for all of you that don't believe in unicorns, mermaids, and leprechauns.

Dr Mabuse
05-15-09, 12:39 PM
Not believing that something exists is now a belief system?

It always has been.

But people can play games with themselves on most anything.

Indifference constitutes a lack of belief. Atheism is not that at all, it's just another form of religion. Going by the old yard stick of "that which angers you has conquered you", atheists are more religious than many religious people, they are obsessed with religion, the religious, and God. I do often find they are more knowledgeable about the bible than most 'Christians' in fact. It's just another religious group that behaves like any other group.

I've known people who were truly indifferent. They weren't anything like 'atheists'.

Dr Mabuse
05-15-09, 12:40 PM
"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice."

:shrug:

Quoting 'Rush' lyrics to make a point now are we?

kvrdave
05-15-09, 12:41 PM
Not believing that something exists is now a belief system?

I don't believe manmade global warming exists. That isn't based on a belief system?

eXcentris
05-15-09, 01:29 PM
I understand we're playing semantics here, but as wendersfan pointed out, "belief" doesn't not necessarily equate with "faith". As I stated previously, thru centuries of usage, the word "belief" has sort of been hijacked by religion to equate to "faith". I think that some religious folk call atheism a religion because they can't fathom that one would not seek meaning when it comes to the unexplained. And once they've brought atheism on their own turf by calling it a "belief system" they will then argue about the morality (or lack of) of such a godless belief system...

So ok, I went to one extreme to make a point. Now do I have some "beliefs". Probably, but they are certainly not structured in a way that they could be called "religious". I mean it's not like I meet with a bunch of other atheists every week and we discuss what we should or should not believe in. :)

And I'm certainly not obsessed with religion, the religious or God as Dr. Mabuse pointed out. Perhaps this occurs (this obsession from atheists) where religion has a larger place in society than it does here. I went thru my "anger at religion" phase when I was young (If I told you about my upbringing you'd understand why), but now, I just don't care.

wishbone
05-15-09, 01:44 PM
Quoting 'Rush' lyrics to make a point now are we?I used it on an intro philosophy paper on Simone de Beauvoir -- even got a note back about her borrowing some ideas from Immanuel Kant on the subject. :lol:

Tracer Bullet
05-15-09, 01:55 PM
It always has been.

But people can play games with themselves on most anything.

Indifference constitutes a lack of belief. Atheism is not that at all, it's just another form of religion. Going by the old yard stick of "that which angers you has conquered you", atheists are more religious than many religious people, they are obsessed with religion, the religious, and God. I do often find they are more knowledgeable about the bible than most 'Christians' in fact. It's just another religious group that behaves like any other group.

I've known people who were truly indifferent. They weren't anything like 'atheists'.

Then I'm a pretty good atheist by your definition, as I don't really care if a god or gods exists or not. It's an uninteresting question to me.

I do not believe that one or more gods happens to exists, because there's no evidence for it, but I don't give it any more consideration than believing whether or not unicorns exists. I don't believe unicorns exist either, but I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Ky-Fi
05-15-09, 02:13 PM
Then I'm a pretty good atheist by your definition, as I don't really care if a god or gods exists or not. It's an uninteresting question to me.

I do not believe that one or more gods happens to exists, because there's no evidence for it, but I don't give it any more consideration than believing whether or not unicorns exists. I don't believe unicorns exist either, but I don't really spend a lot of time thinking about it.

Ah, then that explains why you've never posted in any of the numerous other religion/atheism threads. -wink-

Dr Mabuse
05-15-09, 02:16 PM
Ah, then that explains why you've never posted in any of the numerous other religion/atheism threads. -wink-

Precisely.

Dr Mabuse
05-15-09, 02:47 PM
"The opposite of the religious fanatic is not the fanatical atheist but the gentle cynic who cares not whether there is a god or not." - Eric Hoffer

"The opposite of faith is not heresy, it's indifference." Elie Wiesel

Nausicaa
05-15-09, 02:48 PM
I think a key distinction is that all humans are born atheists. Religious belief is learned behavior. Certainly, some people are raised religious and 'discover' atheism later in life - but I don't see how that constitutes a belief system. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in god.

Most people today, religious or not, don't believe in Egyptian mythology. However, disbelief isn't itself said to be another belief system.

Dr Mabuse
05-15-09, 02:57 PM
A belief in gods or a God is inherent in the human makeup.

The need to worship and/or idolize is also inherent in humans, be it a pop star, a ruler, an object, a shaman, God, gods, or a tribal leader.

The entire history of man on earth makes this fact painfully clear, and incontrovertible.

Your specific point that religious behavior is learned is accurate as to the aspect of specific rituals in a given religion, but not accurate as to a general sense of a belief in gods or God. A statement like 'people are born atheist' is wholly inaccurate.

There are no atheist societies in history, from stone age tribes discovered in the amazon, to the oldest cultures ever discovered. Belief in the spiritual is as natural to humans as breathing.

CRM114
05-15-09, 03:08 PM
I have no problem with that until others decide that everything they believe has a rational basis but most things someone else believes is done on faith for the most part. Some "rationalists" don't seem to be able to recognize the faith they have in their own beliefs but need to mock others for haivng faith in their own.

Yeah, except you have the whole deity thing messing up your "faith."

CRM114
05-15-09, 03:09 PM
Not believing that something exists is now a belief system?

And your belief system is condescending and causes people to "chuckle" at you.

Tracer Bullet
05-15-09, 03:23 PM
You're all wrong, because I have no desire to respond to any of these posts, and I'm really bored.

arminius
05-15-09, 03:27 PM
You're all wrong, because I have no desire to respond to any of these posts, and I'm really bored.
Are you really bored or maybe you just believe you are bored.

CRM114
05-15-09, 05:07 PM
A belief in gods or a God is inherent in the human makeup.

The need to worship and/or idolize is also inherent in humans, be it a pop star, a ruler, an object, a shaman, God, gods, or a tribal leader.

The entire history of man on earth makes this fact painfully clear, and incontrovertible.

Your specific point that religious behavior is learned is accurate as to the aspect of specific rituals in a given religion, but not accurate as to a general sense of a belief in gods or God. A statement like 'people are born atheist' is wholly inaccurate.

There are no atheist societies in history, from stone age tribes discovered in the amazon, to the oldest cultures ever discovered. Belief in the spiritual is as natural to humans as breathing.

There was no modern science either. Saying there is some biological need to worship is completely laughable. Surely it was a premise thought up by a religious person.

rw2516
05-15-09, 05:39 PM
This has always been my take

Truth first hand experience/witness
Belief no first hand knowledge but evidence makes me accept it as truth. Ex: I've never been to the Eiffel Tower to see if it's really there but I believe it is really there because of all the evidence presented to me.
Faith accepting something as truth with no evidence

Venusian
05-15-09, 05:53 PM
There was no modern science either. Saying there is some biological need to worship is completely laughable. Surely it was a premise thought up by a religious person.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/nov/14/20041114-111404-8087r/

His findings have been criticized by leading clerics


I doubt it

kvrdave
05-15-09, 06:28 PM
Yeah, except you have the whole deity thing messing up your "faith."


What messes up your faith then? You have beliefs about things that you cannot support with evidence yet continue to beliefe. How is my god of the gaps different than your own?

kvrdave
05-15-09, 06:29 PM
There was no modern science either. Saying there is some biological need to worship is completely laughable. Surely it was a premise thought up by a religious person.

It's turtles all the way down. :lol:

Ky-Fi
05-15-09, 07:37 PM
There are no atheist societies in history, from stone age tribes discovered in the amazon, to the oldest cultures ever discovered. Belief in the spiritual is as natural to humans as breathing.

Although we do have plenty of evidence of what happens when an ATTEMPT is made to form an atheist society, when the silly superstitions of the traditional religions are tossed aside in favor of progress, social justice, human rationality and modern science: The Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba....

Of course you're right that there's an inherent, profound need for spirituality in mankind. And it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that when you remove God from the picture, something else is going to be put in His place---like, oh, I don't know.....maybe THE STATE? It's difficult enough for human societies to avoid totalitarianism when they DO believe that there's a God whose authority supercedes any king or government---but without God, it's impossible. The countries I named provide empirical evidence of my position. I know the emotions and faith of many atheists tell them that an atheist society needn't be totalitarian----but can anyone provide historical evidence to support that?

I was in the Soviet Union in 1987 and visited the Kremlin, and I saw ol' Lenin stuffed and mounted under glass. All of us tourists lined up in a solemn procession, in an atmosphere of hushed, holy reverence. Of course it was a morbid, pathetic attempt by the Soviets to imbue their regime with a quasi-religious validity, because deep down they recognized the inherent emptiness of their purely materialistic, atheist worldview.

eXcentris
05-15-09, 08:21 PM
"...but without God, it's impossible".

Must be the reason why those pesky Buddhists are always pillaging and rampaging.

Plus I still don't see how all your historical evidence should be taken as proof that a non totalitarian atheist society is impossible. Romans and Greeks probably went "One God??? Are you friggin mad! Everything is going to turn to shit!" :)

Ky-Fi
05-15-09, 08:34 PM
Plus I still don't see how all your historical evidence should be taken as proof that a non totalitarian atheist society is impossible.

Oh, I certainly didn't prove it was impossible. I just said I thought belief in such a thing relied mostly on faith and emotional desire, as there's scant evidence to support it as a rational likelihood.

Oh, and I would add that there are gods in Buddhism, and in Asia it's been quite common for people to believe in Buddhism AND another religion that has gods. And in regards to them and to the Greeks and Romans, they all at least shared the belief that man was not the highest power in the universe, which was my point.

eXcentris
05-15-09, 09:10 PM
Oh, I certainly didn't prove it was impossible. I just said I thought belief in such a thing relied mostly on faith and emotional desire, as there's scant evidence to support it as a rational likelihood.

Oh, and I would add that there are gods in Buddhism, and in Asia it's been quite common for people to believe in Buddhism AND another religion that has gods. And in regards to them and to the Greeks and Romans, they all at least shared the belief that man was not the highest power in the universe, which was my point

Well more or less. Some Buddhists believe in a God, some don't and some don't care. The point is that belief in a God doesn't really have any relevance in the teachings of Buddhism.

As to you other point there's scant evidence because atheists are still a minority group in contemporary societies. Note that there's also scant evidence that societies would turn to hell if atheists took over so to speak. There's no correlation, for example between delinquency, criminality, etc... and "religiousness" (or lack of).

CRM114
05-15-09, 09:15 PM
:lol: How is the state an atheist's god? The claims always gets more absurd as the religious argument goes on.

eXcentris
05-15-09, 09:29 PM
Knowing Ky-Fi, he's probably referring to the evil God of "multiculturalism/"socialism"" you find in those hippie leftist societies. :lol:

Ky-Fi
05-15-09, 09:59 PM
Note that there's also scant evidence that societies would turn to hell if atheists took over so to speak.

Whether one would describe it as "hell" or not is subjective, I suppose---but the 20th century, in the countries I mentioned earlier, has certainly given us a mountain of evidence as to what society would look like if atheists took over.

But, I do realize that the reality of human nature and society is a bitter pill to those with a wonderful, unbridled faith in their utopias, no matter how irrational. You just hold on to that faith that atheists would build a wonderful society, and don't let gloomy gusses like Ky-Fi, with all his "examples", rain on your parade.

Tracer Bullet
05-15-09, 11:43 PM
Although we do have plenty of evidence of what happens when an ATTEMPT is made to form an atheist society, when the silly superstitions of the traditional religions are tossed aside in favor of progress, social justice, human rationality and modern science: The Soviet Union, People's Republic of China, North Korea, Cuba....

Those aren't atheist countries. They're communist. Nice try, though!

eXcentris
05-16-09, 12:25 AM
But, I do realize that the reality of human nature and society is a bitter pill to those with a wonderful, unbridled faith in their utopias, no matter how irrational. You just hold on to that faith that atheists would build a wonderful society, and don't let gloomy gusses like Ky-Fi, with all his "examples", rain on your parade.

Utopia? Irrational? Unbridled faith? (now that's a good one...) Isn't this the type of attacks religious people always complain about receiving?

I was trying to have a reasonable discussion. From the above, I can only conclude you are not interested in having one...

eXcentris
05-16-09, 12:34 AM
State atheism was promoted by the majority of those countries, and surely was the motivation behind atrocities committed against Tibetans, Albanians, Buddhists in Cambodia etc. etc. The Russian Orthodox Church was almost wiped out. :shrug:

Is history not filled with examples of atrocities commited in the name of religion? I'm not sure that insisting on this aspect really helps religious people make their point... But hey who knows, I might wake up tomorrow morning with an burning desire to become a communist! :)

eXcentris
05-16-09, 12:44 AM
It was more of a general response not specifically directed at you.

Sorry... it's late... Cheers... ;)

Birrman54
05-16-09, 01:06 AM
Isn't the 'atheism' in those communist societies more a symptom of the state not wanting any competition for the devotion of the citizenry? It's not as if the dictatorships arose because of a mass uprising of rational skeptics.

Hank Ringworm
05-16-09, 01:27 AM
Interesting philosophical question that relates in a couple ways:

If it were possible for one to give in wholly to a specific irrational belief, and if said belief would improve said one's life, would it be irrational if that one didn't hold that belief? That is, can the utility of an irrational belief make the act of believing it completely rational? Does utility trump truth? (The answer, whatever it may be, may not apply equally to personal and public [political] life.)

I guess the broader question involves the meaning of life. More specifically, whether it's some aggregate search for universal truth or exists only for the individual. (The simple fact that that question may be answered in many different ways points toward the latter, I think.) But I only guess.

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 08:10 AM
Isn't the 'atheism' in those communist societies more a symptom of the state not wanting any competition for the devotion of the citizenry? It's not as if the dictatorships arose because of a mass uprising of rational skeptics.

I would argue that it's exactly the other way around: the state not wanting any competition for the devotion of the citizenry is a symptom of its atheism.

The idea of a repressive, totalitarian state is in no way a part of orthodox Marxism---but the idea that there is no God, and that the traditional religions need to be swept away in order for man to progress IS Marxist orthodoxy.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-09, 11:31 AM
State atheism was promoted by the majority of those countries, and surely was the motivation behind atrocities committed against Tibetans, Albanians, Buddhists in Cambodia etc. etc. The Russian Orthodox Church was almost wiped out. :shrug:

State atheism was/is enforced by many Communist countries because religious organizations are a direct threat to their power. For a Communist country to "work" on any level, the party must be the sole "provider" to the people.

Communist atheism is not an ideological position. It is a calculated one.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-09, 11:32 AM
I would argue that it's exactly the other way around: the state not wanting any competition for the devotion of the citizenry is a symptom of its atheism.

The idea of a repressive, totalitarian state is in no way a part of orthodox Marxism---but the idea that there is no God, and that the traditional religions need to be swept away in order for man to progress IS Marxist orthodoxy.

Your second paragraph contradicts your first. Besides which, just because Communists are atheists doesn't mean all atheists are communists.

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 11:38 AM
I never argued that all atheists are communists--I'm arguing that atheism as the underlying world view will lead to totalitarianism.

My second paragraph does not contradict my first. Atheism is a core element of Marxism, and has been since its beginnings. Totalitarianism is not. It's not logical to posit that the symptom would appear before the cause.

Tracer Bullet
05-16-09, 12:14 PM
I never argued that all atheists are communists--I'm arguing that atheism as the underlying world view will lead to totalitarianism.

Ridiculous. Again, atheism is not a belief system and does not logically lead to any particular set of circumstances.

Plus, I guess all the monarchs of Europe never used the church to subjugate anyone, right? I must have just dreamed that.

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 12:30 PM
Ridiculous. Again, atheism is not a belief system and does not logically lead to any particular set of circumstances.

Plus, I guess all the monarchs of Europe never used the church to subjugate anyone, right? I must have just dreamed that.

As I said in an earlier post, it's been difficult enough for human societies to avoid repression and totalitarianism when they DO believe that there's an objective moral authority higher than man---without that belief, it's even more difficult, as reality has demonstrated.

kvrdave
05-16-09, 02:29 PM
Ridiculous. Again, atheism is not a belief system and does not logically lead to any particular set of circumstances.



Apathy is not a belief system, but if atheism is a strongly held belief based on a number of things the person has thought through, why wouldn't it be a belief system? And it would seem that it does lead to a lot of perticular set of circumstances. If Atheism is true, then all things can be answered from a naturalistic viewpoint. Those things that cannot be answered from a natualistic viewpoint, will be in time. Morality is a cultural or societal construct based on what is valued by the culture and can change based on changes to the culture.

Whether one thinks about these deeply or not, are they not all things that flow logically from an Atheistic viewpoint? What more does one need to have a belief system?

I'm honestly perplexed as to why there is any discussion about this at all. What is so offensive about having a belief system?

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 02:39 PM
I'm honestly perplexed as to why there is any discussion about this at all. What is so offensive about having a belief system?

It's just a debating trick. When you won't define something, it can't really be attacked and you don't have to worry about defending it.

arminius
05-16-09, 03:07 PM
Apathy is not a belief system, but if atheism is a strongly held belief based on a number of things the person has thought through, why wouldn't it be a belief system? And it would seem that it does lead to a lot of perticular set of circumstances. If Atheism is true, then all things can be answered from a naturalistic viewpoint. Those things that cannot be answered from a natualistic viewpoint, will be in time. Morality is a cultural or societal construct based on what is valued by the culture and can change based on changes to the culture.

Whether one thinks about these deeply or not, are they not all things that flow logically from an Atheistic viewpoint? What more does one need to have a belief system?

I'm honestly perplexed as to why there is any discussion about this at all. What is so offensive about having a belief system?
The atheistic position of smugness is derived from their not believing in something, ergo negating belief.:scratch2:

kvrdave
05-16-09, 03:45 PM
Knowing most of the Atheists on this board, there are few that I would say take the position because they enjoy being smug but rather because they have come to the decision after thinking about the various issues. While I may disagree with how they come to the conclusion, they do make it based on what they think is a rational assessment. But I still don't understand why anyone would want to think that it doesn't qualify as a belief system. Hell, we all have belief systems about all kinds of things that don't have to do with religion. Is the distaste for a "belief system" because they associate is soley with spiritual ideas? That seems hard to believe given all the belief systems we share that are not religious in nature. Does it make everyone feel better if I change the word to "philosophy" instead of "belief system?" "World view?" It feels like we are just getting hung up on symantics.

eXcentris
05-16-09, 03:53 PM
It's just a debating trick. When you won't define something, it can't really be attacked and you don't have to worry about defending it.

And when religious people choose to define "beliefs" based on their own acceptance of un-evidenced dogma and then apply that to atheism, it's not a debating trick?

Which invariably leads to...


As I said in an earlier post, it's been difficult enough for human societies to avoid repression and totalitarianism when they DO believe that there's an objective moral authority higher than man---without that belief, it's even more difficult, as reality has demonstrated.

I.E. Your "godless" morals are not as good as mine...


I'm honestly perplexed as to why there is any discussion about this at all. What is so offensive about having a belief system?


I understand your point and it really isn't, except when it leads the devout to make silly claims like the above...

CRM114
05-16-09, 04:52 PM
Whether one would describe it as "hell" or not is subjective, I suppose---but the 20th century, in the countries I mentioned earlier, has certainly given us a mountain of evidence as to what society would look like if atheists took over.

But, I do realize that the reality of human nature and society is a bitter pill to those with a wonderful, unbridled faith in their utopias, no matter how irrational. You just hold on to that faith that atheists would build a wonderful society, and don't let gloomy gusses like Ky-Fi, with all his "examples", rain on your parade.

What examples? Communist countries? Perhaps Communism had something to do with their failed experiments and not atheism? Do you really believe a capitalist atheist country would be doomed to failure? Please.

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 04:59 PM
What examples? Communist countries? Perhaps Communism had something to do with their failed experiments and not atheism? Do you really believe a capitalist atheist country would be doomed to failure? Please.

Who's to say? As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, you're basing your idea of what an atheist society could look like on your suppositions, speculations and faith, whereas as I'm looking at the objective evidence of historical reality.

wewantflair
05-16-09, 08:25 PM
Who's to say? As I've pointed out numerous times in this thread, you're basing your idea of what an atheist society could look like on your suppositions, speculations and faith, whereas as I'm looking at the objective evidence of historical reality.

What did all of those examples you gave have in common before their respective revolutions? Does this not merit consideration before arriving at your rather forceful assertion?

Ky-Fi
05-16-09, 09:17 PM
What did all of those examples you gave have in common before their respective revolutions? Does this not merit consideration before arriving at your rather forceful assertion?

I take it that you mean those societies had their traditional religions, and they ended up with huge problems, and were greatly in need of reform? Sure, that's a fair point. All I'm saying is the materialist/chance/atheist worldview is not the way to go when you're looking for improvement.

Or, to quote Chesterton: "Reformers are always right about what is wrong, but they are usually wrong about what is right."

wewantflair
05-16-09, 09:30 PM
I take it that you mean those societies had their traditional religions, and they ended up with huge problems, and were greatly in need of reform? Sure, that's a fair point. All I'm saying is the materialist/chance/atheist worldview is not the way to go when you're looking for improvement.

Or, to quote Chesterton: "Reformers are always right about what is wrong, but they are usually wrong about what is right."

But you were asserting that adopting an "atheistic" view essentially screwed those countries up; what your analysis ignores, however, is that they were severely screwed up beforehand.

You are asserting causality where such an assertion cannot be substantiated, at least without significant consideration of other factors, namely pre-existing conditions.

movielib
05-17-09, 12:03 AM
Knowing most of the Atheists on this board, there are few that I would say take the position because they enjoy being smug but rather because they have come to the decision after thinking about the various issues. While I may disagree with how they come to the conclusion, they do make it based on what they think is a rational assessment.
Thank you. I don't think I should have to thank you. It's just plainly true and you understand it. I thank you because so many people (probably a sizable majority) do not see it.

But I still don't understand why anyone would want to think that it doesn't qualify as a belief system. Hell, we all have belief systems about all kinds of things that don't have to do with religion. Is the distaste for a "belief system" because they associate is soley with spiritual ideas? That seems hard to believe given all the belief systems we share that are not religious in nature. Does it make everyone feel better if I change the word to "philosophy" instead of "belief system?" "World view?" It feels like we are just getting hung up on symantics.
I do not agree with you about this. Atheism, in and of itself, is not a belief system. It is merely an absence of a belief in one thing - god(s) (or, perhaps, more broadly, the supernatural, although not really because I think someone can believe in supernatural things without believing in god(s)).

However, I would never claim that means an atheist does not have a belief system. I certainly do have a belief system (and I don't care if you call it a belief system or a philosphy or a worldview - I'm not insulted by any of those) basically rooted in the nonagression principle. One can have a belief system based on rationality or not on rationality and, admittedly, even that is subject to interpretation. I believe mine is based on rationality. I could be wrong. :)

kvrdave
05-17-09, 02:10 AM
I do not agree with you about this. Atheism, in and of itself, is not a belief system. It is merely an absence of a belief in one thing - god(s) (or, perhaps, more broadly, the supernatural, although not really because I think someone can believe in supernatural things without believing in god(s)).

However, I would never claim that means an atheist does not have a belief system. I certainly do have a belief system (and I don't care if you call it a belief system or a philosphy or a worldview - I'm not insulted by any of those) basically rooted in the nonagression principle. One can have a belief system based on rationality or not on rationality and, admittedly, even that is subject to interpretation. I believe mine is based on rationality. I could be wrong. :)

Let me try this....Deism, in and of itself, is not a belief system. It is merely a belief in one thing -god(s). However, I would never claim that means a deist does not have a belief system.

I think we (not just you and me) are still saying the same thing but trying to claim something else. A belief system (or system of beliefs) isn't something one has to consciously decide they have to have one. We all have them. One's belief or non-belief, if actually considered, necessitates a belief system that flows from that stance.

In the end, I don't care whether people think they have a belief system or not. They do. And the point is that it is asinine for those to declare someone to be biased (and thus, incapable of looking at something objectively) because of their belief system while claiming they have no bias because they have no belief system. That is an end to a discussion not because anyone has "won" but because one party is incapable of recognizing the implications of their own position or bias.

As a result, I find the last 2 pages (roughly) to be nothing more than a mental circle jerk of North and South going Zax (I hope that is plural. Dr. Seuss never really made that clear). And probably why you wisely stay out of these threads for the most part. Someday I will learn that from you. :lol:

movielib
05-17-09, 07:38 AM
Let me try this....Deism, in and of itself, is not a belief system. It is merely a belief in one thing -god(s). However, I would never claim that means a deist does not have a belief system.

I think we (not just you and me) are still saying the same thing but trying to claim something else. A belief system (or system of beliefs) isn't something one has to consciously decide they have to have one. We all have them. One's belief or non-belief, if actually considered, necessitates a belief system that flows from that stance.

In the end, I don't care whether people think they have a belief system or not. They do. And the point is that it is asinine for those to declare someone to be biased (and thus, incapable of looking at something objectively) because of their belief system while claiming they have no bias because they have no belief system. That is an end to a discussion not because anyone has "won" but because one party is incapable of recognizing the implications of their own position or bias.

As a result, I find the last 2 pages (roughly) to be nothing more than a mental circle jerk of North and South going Zax (I hope that is plural. Dr. Seuss never really made that clear). And probably why you wisely stay out of these threads for the most part. Someday I will learn that from you. :lol:
As usual, I don't think you and I are as far apart as may appear to some on the surface. All I'm saying is a belief and an absence of a belief are not the same thing.

I don't believe in the existence of unicorns (at least on Earth). I am an a-unicornist. I don't think that is the basis of a belief system. But I suppose it is part of or the result of a belief system. My belief system requires proof or at least a fair amount of evidence (or at least I like to think that) so I am an a-unicornist because I think such evidence is lacking.

I admit I believe some things (or at least the possibility of some things) on scant evidence. A couple we have discussed many times over the years are intelligent life (other than here) in the universe which, while I am convinced it is much rarer than the original Drake equation implied, is still likely because of the enormous vastness of the universe; and the oscillating universe, which though I think is extremely unlikely, still has a minuscule chance, maybe along the lines of a snowball in hell (which I don't believe in).

Indeed, one could argue that anything we believe or don't believe is an element of our belief system. At least unicornism has no importance to my belief system (which I do have).

But then I must admit my atheism is important to my belief system, but only because theism is such a dominant force in the world. But I do consider it a consequence of that system (requiring evidence/proof) rather than a basis for it. Obviously, some people who require evidence think the evidence is there and are thus theists.

I think the heart of your last post is the third paragraph. I agree completely with that paragraph.

As you noticed, I do stay out of these threads much more than I used to. I can't not read them, however. And sooner or later I'm almost always (maybe always) drawn in by something although I do manage to minimize my participation. In the old days I'd have had at least a dozen posts by now. :)

Ky-Fi
05-17-09, 07:53 AM
In the end, I don't care whether people think they have a belief system or not. They do. And the point is that it is asinine for those to declare someone to be biased (and thus, incapable of looking at something objectively) because of their belief system while claiming they have no bias because they have no belief system. That is an end to a discussion not because anyone has "won" but because one party is incapable of recognizing the implications of their own position or bias.


Perfectly stated.

kvrdave
05-17-09, 11:35 AM
An a-unicornist? Just try to get elected to public office once that is known. -wink-

I admit I believe some things (or at least the possibility of some things) on scant evidence. A couple we have discussed many times over the years are intelligent life (other than here) in the universe which, while I am convinced it is much rarer than the original Drake equation implied, is still likely because of the enormous vastness of the universe;

This one, in particular, bothers me. I am becoming more and more convinced that we are either unique, or life is so rare as to not matter. I am convinced that we won't find anything in my lifetime. Frankly, it is killing my "suspension of disbelief" when I watch Star Trek or read the books. And I love reading those books. :lol: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!

Yeah, stupid to have something come down to that, but at least I'm not so ignorant as to think unicorns don't exist. -ptth-

Tracer Bullet
05-17-09, 01:19 PM
I think that I'm happy that I went out last night to see Peaches and then went to a bar and got drunk.

movielib
05-17-09, 01:20 PM
An a-unicornist? Just try to get elected to public office once that is known. -wink-



This one, in particular, bothers me. I am becoming more and more convinced that we are either unique, or life is so rare as to not matter. I am convinced that we won't find anything in my lifetime. Frankly, it is killing my "suspension of disbelief" when I watch Star Trek or read the books. And I love reading those books. :lol: I WANT TO BELIEVE!!!
I would be shocked beyond belief(!) if it were discovered in my lifetime. So few Klingons, so little time.

But I'm excellent at suspending disbelief as my book and film tastes and my posting history attest to. ;)

Yeah, stupid to have something come down to that, but at least I'm not so ignorant as to think unicorns don't exist. -ptth-
Oh, stick a horn in it! :p

CRM114
05-17-09, 09:20 PM
In the end, I don't care whether people think they have a belief system or not. They do. And the point is that it is asinine for those to declare someone to be biased (and thus, incapable of looking at something objectively) because of their belief system while claiming they have no bias because they have no belief system. That is an end to a discussion not because anyone has "won" but because one party is incapable of recognizing the implications of their own position or bias.

I do not think this is true.

A religious person's world view or belief system MUST FOLLOW the teachings of their religion. The belief system is pre-defined and taught to the person.

An atheist's "philosophy" or world view never needs to address anything beyond the here and now. I guess you could be qualifying some atheist's view that life is about eating cheeseburgers and sleeping a "belief system." Without all of the constructs of a religion (heaven, God, sin etc) the "system" is random.

kvrdave
05-17-09, 09:42 PM
I do not think this is true.

A religious person's world view or belief system MUST FOLLOW the teachings of their religion. The belief system is pre-defined and taught to the person.



So that's why all Catholics oppose birth control.

CRM114
05-18-09, 08:56 AM
Don't divert the point. I never said "all" of the teachings. If that were true, that would make religion seem silly. For instance, one wouldn't want to combine cream and meat in any way.

wishbone
05-18-09, 09:03 AM
For instance, one wouldn't want to combine cream and meat in any way.http://i43.tinypic.com/5twbkk.jpg

CRM114
05-18-09, 09:40 AM
Mmmm. Is that SOS?

kvrdave
05-18-09, 11:40 AM
Don't divert the point. I never said "all" of the teachings.


A religious person's world view or belief system MUST FOLLOW the teachings of their religion.

I bolded, but you put it in all caps. It looks to me like that is exactly what you were saying. But perhaps it is simply that some people have a way with words, and you....uh,....not have way.

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 12:30 PM
An atheist's "philosophy" or world view never needs to address anything beyond the here and now.

If that were true, you never would have considered the existence of God important enough to reach a conclusion on, and to subsequently consider yourself an atheist.

I think you guys who say that atheism isn't a belief system are either ignoring or willfully denying a whole string of logical conclusions that follow the belief that there is no God. (edited out the word "syllogisms" pursuant to Classicman's scornful mocking)

You have to conclude that all men were not "created" equal, but instead were born equal. In a purely material sense, this is most certainly false, as there is an incredible range of human intelligence, physical capabilities, and utility to society.

You have to conclude that men were not endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, since they have no creator.

When one believes man has an immortal soul, then the importance of the individual in relation to the state rises dramatically. On the other hand, if you believe men live for 80 years and then disappear, then the state, which can last much longer, becomes much more important than the individual.

If you believe the universe is without purpose, consists only of measurable matter and energy, and that humans arose by chance, and are the final arbiters of all human morality, then that's going to give you a completely different perspective on the world than a religious worldview.

A great many of our most cherished political and social values that take for granted in the US arose from the founders' Judeo-Christian worldview. Now, if you want to make the effort to draw up a logical chain of atheistic reasoning to support all those values, maybe you can do it. But to deny that the basic view of humanity and the universe is monumentally important to the type of society that will follow is just ridiculous.

And in fact, I don't think many atheists truly believe this. Doesn't Dawkins posit that belief in religion leads to all sorts of societal woes? Doesn't he suggest that if one were to adopt an atheist worldview then that would change? Of course he believes that the basic view of the world underlies the development of societies, as do virtually all philosophers.

classicman2
05-18-09, 12:36 PM
Hmm! - syllogisms - I like that. ;)

Red Dog
05-18-09, 12:56 PM
If that were true, you never would have considered the existence of God important enough to reach a conclusion on, and to subsequently consider yourself an atheist.


That's how I roll. I don't care.


You have to conclude that all men were not "created" equal, but instead were born equal. In a purely material sense, this is most certainly false, as there is an incredible range of human intelligence, physical capabilities, and utility to society.

You've made this statement before (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/545102-anti-religion-display-washington-state-capital-24.html#post9156602). I didn't understand how you determined it then and I don't understand it now.

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 01:02 PM
You've made this statement before (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/politics-world-events/545102-anti-religion-display-washington-state-capital-24.html#post9156602). I didn't understand how you determined it then and I don't understand it now.

I don't think we're on the same page here. On that link you said "I'm not aware of any atheistic logic that 'all men are created equal'."

I agree---that's my point---that statement wouldn't logically come from an atheistic world view.

Red Dog
05-18-09, 01:50 PM
I don't think we're on the same page here. On that link you said "I'm not aware of any atheistic logic that 'all men are created equal'."

I agree---that's my point---that statement wouldn't logically come from an atheistic world view.

Yeah but then you go on to say that an atheist must believe that all men are born equal. I fail to understand where you drew that conclusion from. An atheist wouldn't necessarily believe in either of the 2 (created equal vs. born equal).

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 01:56 PM
Yeah but then you go on to say that an atheist must believe that all men are born equal. I fail to understand where you drew that conclusion from. An atheist wouldn't necessarily believe in either of the 2 (created equal vs. born equal).

Oh, all right--I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess you're right that atheists don't have to believe that people are equal at all. So what then is the logical foundation for believing that they should be treated equally under the law?

wendersfan
05-18-09, 01:59 PM
So what then is the logical foundation for believing that they should be treated equally under the law?Why not the veil of ignorance?

Red Dog
05-18-09, 02:08 PM
Oh, all right--I was just giving them the benefit of the doubt. I guess you're right that atheists don't have to believe that people are equal at all. So what then is the logical foundation for believing that they should be treated equally under the law?

I don't know - common sense. :shrug: The belief that if a government/state continually denies equal rights under the law, the government/state will eventually fail.

I'm sure that there is something from various religions that give some basis for equal protection. But I've never studied it, and frankly, I don't care because I don't see a but-for relationship between religion and equality.

Nausicaa
05-18-09, 02:17 PM
I think you guys who say that atheism isn't a belief system are either ignoring or willfully denying a whole string of logical conclusions that follow the belief that there is no God. (edited out the word "syllogisms" pursuant to Classicman's scornful mocking)

No conclusions arise from atheism other than the non-existence of God.

You have to conclude that all men were not "created" equal, but instead were born equal. In a purely material sense, this is most certainly false, as there is an incredible range of human intelligence, physical capabilities, and utility to society.

Huh? If it's not true that 'all men are born equal' because people demonstrably possess different degrees of intelligence etc., then it's equally false that 'all men were created equal'. People aren't equal in either instance, not in ability or circumstance - this is obvious. The notion of equality here has more to do with equal rights, which you mention next.

You have to conclude that men were not endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights, since they have no creator.

An atheist might conclude that inalienable rights were not endowed by a creator, but not that they don't, or shouldn't exist.

When one believes man has an immortal soul, then the importance of the individual in relation to the state rises dramatically. On the other hand, if you believe men live for 80 years and then disappear, then the state, which can last much longer, becomes much more important than the individual.

This seems more like your interpretation than something that plays out in practice. I think the state is generally granted highest importance in nearly all societies. Regardless, this isn't a conclusion an atheist must accept as part of his worldview.

If you believe the universe is without purpose, consists only of measurable matter and energy, and that humans arose by chance, and are the final arbiters of all human morality, then that's going to give you a completely different perspective on the world than a religious worldview.

Absolutely! But that doesn't make atheism in and of itself a belief system, it is simply a component of one's worldview (I think kvrdave agrees with this point?). Atheism deals with one question - the existence of God - and doesn't necessarily inform any other aspect of the atheist's worldview. I think religion informs a person's worldview to a much greater degree because it's associated dogma makes many, many more positive claims about the nature of reality and how people should behave. Atheism doesn't even mean anything absent the existence of religious belief in a god.

A great many of our most cherished political and social values that take for granted in the US arose from the founders' Judeo-Christian worldview. Now, if you want to make the effort to draw up a logical chain of atheistic reasoning to support all those values, maybe you can do it. But to deny that the basic view of humanity and the universe is monumentally important to the type of society that will follow is just ridiculous.

This may be partially true, but Judeo-Christian values don't exist in a vacuum. Reality is much more dynamic than that. Our legal system developed from English common law, for example. An infinitely complex confluence of philosophies, personalities, and events has shaped America. I won't deny the importance of Christianity in Western culture, but values like freedom and equality under the law don't exist exclusively in the realm of religion, and they don't suddenly go out the window for atheists.

And in fact, I don't think many atheists truly believe this. Doesn't Dawkins posit that belief in religion leads to all sorts of societal woes? Doesn't he suggest that if one were to adopt an atheist worldview then that would change? Of course he believes that the basic view of the world underlies the development of societies, as do virtually all philosophers.

On the contrary, while Dawkins does posit that religious belief can lead to societal woes, he doesn't conclude that atheist societies would thus be utopian. The point is religious belief makes no difference when it comes to morality. On an individual level, religious people are just as capable of acting immorally as anyone else. And on a societal level, religiosity doesn't seem to correlate with a peoples' propensity for 'goodness', if such an objective exists.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 02:22 PM
Why not the veil of ignorance?

You've gone to that well way too often already.

CRM114
05-18-09, 02:31 PM
I bolded, but you put it in all caps. It looks to me like that is exactly what you were saying. But perhaps it is simply that some people have a way with words, and you....uh,....not have way.

Please. I was raised a Catholic and we ate fish on Fridays. But we always went to Confession and took Communion. But I know you are just playing the blissfully ignorant card.

wendersfan
05-18-09, 02:42 PM
You've gone to that well way too often already.At least one other time. Why is that "too often"?

kvrdave
05-18-09, 02:44 PM
Please. I was raised a Catholic and we ate fish on Fridays. But we always went to Confession and took Communion. But I know you are just playing the blissfully ignorant card.


:lol: What the hell is your problem?

You say
A religious person's world view or belief system MUST FOLLOW the teachings of their religion.
I easily point out how that is a load of crap, then you claim you didn't mean "all" the teachings, when you just said they "MUST FOLLOW the teachings."

I know you have a low opinion of the mind that could be religious, but figure out your own consistencies rather than try to claim you aren't saying what it is obvious you are saying to anyone who can read the English language.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 02:45 PM
At least one other time. Why is that "too often"?


no, no. I mean you living under the veil. -ptth-

CRM114
05-18-09, 02:51 PM
:lol: What the hell is your problem?

You say

I easily point out how that is a load of crap, then you claim you didn't mean "all" the teachings, when you just said they "MUST FOLLOW the teachings."

I know you have a low opinion of the mind that could be religious, but figure out your own consistencies rather than try to claim you aren't saying what it is obvious you are saying to anyone who can read the English language.

How can I be more clear. I thought I was but you continue to be confused.

As a Catholic, I MUST go to confession and communion ("must follow the teachings") but I do not eat meat on Fridays ("not ALL of the teachings").

It's not that difficult and I gave perfectly clear examples. Since the religious often have no actual arguments, they often construct straw men to bash. I'm used to it.

Venusian
05-18-09, 02:59 PM
I don't know what kvrdave is talking about...but I don't know what you're saying either.

Catholics don't follow all Catholicism teachings. I'll buy that. (side note: I dont think Catholics are forbidden from eating fish on Fridays). So how do you say they "must" follow the teachings when they obviously don't follow all. Are you just saying they have to follow some teachings?

CRM114
05-18-09, 03:02 PM
I don't know what kvrdave is talking about...but I don't know what you're saying either.

Catholics don't follow all Catholicism teachings. I'll buy that. (side note: I dont think Catholics are forbidden from eating fish on Fridays). So how do you say they "must" follow the teachings when they obviously don't follow all. Are you just saying they have to follow some teachings?

No, I'm saying by rule they must follow the teachings of the Vatican. In practice, they do not. But that is all beside the point. The Catholic religion provides a belief system for its followers. Atheists have no pre-defined constructs.

(I meant meat on Fridays. Fish is what we used to eat instead of meat I suppose as some sort of fast.)

kvrdave
05-18-09, 03:11 PM
Since the religious often have no actual arguments, they often construct straw men to bash. I'm used to it.

man, that is all I see you do, and with nothing but a condescending tone.

Religious people must follow the teachings of their religion, but not all of them. Fine. Great point. That nails it down. Others have no pre-defined constructs, so they can (or not, presumably) make some and follow them or not. Huge difference.

Venusian
05-18-09, 03:14 PM
So the point is that religion provides a belief system for its followers...but they don't always follow it (in essence, creating their own). Atheism provides no belief system. People create their own.

Okay. I agree completely. I don't understand why yall were arguing over that.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 03:20 PM
In the end, I don't care whether people think they have a belief system or not. They do. And the point is that it is asinine for those to declare someone to be biased (and thus, incapable of looking at something objectively) because of their belief system while claiming they have no bias because they have no belief system. That is an end to a discussion not because anyone has "won" but because one party is incapable of recognizing the implications of their own position or bias.

As a result, I find the last 2 pages (roughly) to be nothing more than a mental circle jerk of North and South going Zax (I hope that is plural. Dr. Seuss never really made that clear). And probably why you wisely stay out of these threads for the most part. Someday I will learn that from you. :lol:


Annoying that I saw all this and still stuck around. :lol:

CRM114
05-18-09, 03:21 PM
And criticizing endlessly liberal ideology is not going to sound "condescending" to me? I'm sorry that I find belief in the supernatural comical and fascinating and if that comes off as condescending. It's like talking about the Easter Bunny in all seriousness, it's impossible.

But it was you who took my on-topic post 151 and parsed words to make me look the fool for a page of posts. I suppose that is not condescension, right?

CRM114
05-18-09, 03:31 PM
So the point is that religion provides a belief system for its followers...but they don't always follow it (in essence, creating their own). Atheism provides no belief system. People create their own.

Okay. I agree completely. I don't understand why yall were arguing over that.

No. Religious people have a predefined belief system. Catholicism for example believes in baptism, communion, confirmation. They believe in sin and heaven and hell. Obviously, one can deviate from the teachings but to call yourself a Catholic, you need to believe in the basics.

Atheists do not need to create a heaven or a hell or sin to teach them how to lead a good life. If you want to call variable opinions on life a "belief system" be my guest. But there is a very obvious and stark difference.

Venusian
05-18-09, 03:41 PM
Atheists do not need to create a heaven or a hell or sin to teach them how to lead a good life. If you want to call variable opinions on life a "belief system" be my guest. But there is a very obvious and stark difference.
What is the difference? An atheist believes it is immoral to violate the rights of others. That is a belief. How is that different than a theist's beliefs? One might be able to argue the source is different but other than that what is different about the actual belief?

Red Dog
05-18-09, 03:42 PM
What is the difference? An atheist believes it is immoral to violate the rights of others. That is a belief. How is that different than a theist's beliefs? One might be able to argue the source is different but other than that what is different about the actual belief?

Sounds like you are describing a libertarian rather than an atheist.

Venusian
05-18-09, 03:45 PM
Sounds like you are describing a libertarian rather than an atheist.
it was supposed to be an example of a belief, not necessarily an actual belief of an atheist.

CRM114
05-18-09, 03:47 PM
What is the difference? An atheist believes it is immoral to violate the rights of others. That is a belief. How is that different than a theist's beliefs? One might be able to argue the source is different but other than that what is different about the actual belief?

A Christian may not violate the rights of others because it is a sin and sinning results in not going to heaven. There is learned motivation stemming from a belief system: sin and heaven.

But I invite you to re-read post 151 (http://forum.dvdtalk.com/9450021-post151.html). It's all there, a page and half ago. :lol:

cpgator
05-18-09, 03:47 PM
And criticizing endlessly liberal ideology is not going to sound "condescending" to me? I'm sorry that I find belief in the supernatural comical and fascinating and if that comes off as condescending. It's like talking about the Easter Bunny in all seriousness, it's impossible.

But it was you who took my on-topic post 151 and parsed words to make me look the fool for a page of posts. I suppose that is not condescension, right?

If nothing else, you do make these threads entertaining. :lol:

Venusian
05-18-09, 03:52 PM
I do not think this is true.

A religious person's world view or belief system MUST FOLLOW the teachings of their religion. The belief system is pre-defined and taught to the person.

An atheist's "philosophy" or world view never needs to address anything beyond the here and now. I guess you could be qualifying some atheist's view that life is about eating cheeseburgers and sleeping a "belief system." Without all of the constructs of a religion (heaven, God, sin etc) the "system" is random.

I understand what you're saying about an atheist's "philosophy" but I don't see how that makes what kvrdave said not true. Couldn't this "philosophy" still bias the atheist?

eXcentris
05-18-09, 03:53 PM
Speaking of religion and politics... :)


Report: Bush's Pentagon mixed Bible, intelligence memos
BY NEWSDAY.COM
1:37 PM EDT, May 18, 2009

Bible quotations and images of American soldiers praying were used as the cover sheets for Pentagon briefing memos prepared in the early days of the Iraq War for then-Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, according to an explosive article on the GQ Web site.

The memos were circulated to a handful of top leaders that included President George W. Bush, acccording to Robert Draper, the author of the article.

The cover sheets, 11 of which GQ placed on their Web site, included extensive quotations from the Bible. One sheet pairs a photo of praying soldiers with a quote from Isaiah, "Here I am Lord, Send Me."

Another features a photo of tanks driving into Iraq, under another quote from Isaiah, "Open the gates that the righteous nations may enter, The nation that keeps faith."


Cover sheets for the memos:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

cpgator
05-18-09, 03:54 PM
sinning results in not going to heaven.

:lol:

You are quite the expert. Since all people sin, I guess Heaven must be empty. :lol:

classicman2
05-18-09, 03:59 PM
A Christian may not violate the rights of others because it is a sin and sinning results in not going to heaven.

:lol:

CRM114
05-18-09, 04:07 PM
:lol:

You are quite the expert. Since all people sin, I guess Heaven must be empty. :lol:

Oh brother. -rolleyes-

CRM114
05-18-09, 04:08 PM
Speaking of religion and politics... :)



Cover sheets for the memos:

http://men.style.com/gq/features/topsecret

I saw that on TV this afternoon. That is fucked up. Especially the one with the tanks going into Baghdad.

CRM114
05-18-09, 04:09 PM
:lol:

It is funny. To think that there is someone judging you and allowing you into paradise after death. Hysterical. :lol:

kvrdave
05-18-09, 04:23 PM
They are laughing at what you believe the theology is. That is how the strawman is done. Take someone else's belief, misrepresent it into something it isn't, knock down the misrepresentation, claim victory.

classicman2
05-18-09, 04:40 PM
It is funny. To think that there is someone judging you and allowing you into paradise after death. Hysterical. :lol:

What's even more funny is that you continue to make comments about something you obviously know nothing about.

Tracer Bullet
05-18-09, 04:54 PM
I've changed my mind. I believe in Satan, at least, because that's the only explanation I can come up with for why I keep coming into this thread.

Groucho
05-18-09, 04:55 PM
They are laughing at what you believe the theology is. That is how the strawman is done. Take someone else's belief, misrepresent it into something it isn't, knock down the misrepresentation, claim victory.Something that has been done ad nauseum in this thread by both sides.

movielib
05-18-09, 05:11 PM
Annoying that I saw all this and still stuck around. :lol:
Annoying and inevitable are not mutually exclusive.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 06:00 PM
I've changed my mind. I believe in Satan, at least, because that's the only explanation I can come up with for why I keep coming into this thread.


:lol:

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 06:10 PM
No conclusions arise from atheism other than the non-existence of God.

And no other conclusions about the world and man follow from the belief that there is no God? Nonsense.



Huh? If it's not true that 'all men are born equal' because people demonstrably possess different degrees of intelligence etc., then it's equally false that 'all men were created equal'. People aren't equal in either instance, not in ability or circumstance - this is obvious. The notion of equality here has more to do with equal rights, which you mention next.

No, the idea that "all men are created equal" IS the logical foundation for equal rights. From the Christian worldview, the belief is that all men have an immortal soul, that they're all made in the image of their creator, and that they all have a spark of divinity. Also, Jesus talked about the Good News being equally available to all men. This is the logical foundation for believing that "all men are created equal", and that's the foundation for believing in equal rights, and that was the context it came from when it was detailed in the founding documents of the US. When you remove the spiritual foundation of that statement, and try to look at from a materialist/atheist perspective, it simply doesn't hold up.



An atheist might conclude that inalienable rights were not endowed by a creator, but not that they don't, or shouldn't exist.

Of course, anyone can believe in anything, but saying something "should" exist, and not being able to explain "why" it should exist, is to move out of the realm of logic and reason and into sentiment and emotion---and those aren't that reliable, IMO.


This seems more like your interpretation than something that plays out in practice. I think the state is generally granted highest importance in nearly all societies. Regardless, this isn't a conclusion an atheist must accept as part of his worldview.

Again, I'm not saying atheists WANT to put the state ahead of the individual, I'm saying that logically, that's likely to occur from the atheist world view. Again, the only examples we have of modern-day countries operating under the atheist world view are the communist countries, and that's what happened in each of them. If you can provide me with contrary evidence, please do so.




Absolutely! But that doesn't make atheism in and of itself a belief system, it is simply a component of one's worldview (I think kvrdave agrees with this point?). Atheism deals with one question - the existence of God - and doesn't necessarily inform any other aspect of the atheist's worldview. I think religion informs a person's worldview to a much greater degree because it's associated dogma makes many, many more positive claims about the nature of reality and how people should behave. Atheism doesn't even mean anything absent the existence of religious belief in a god..

When you're talking about atheism and Christianity, you're talking about completely opposite views on the ultimate nature of reality. Both systems more or less explain EVERYTHING that humans perceive. I don't see how one is more of "belief system" than another, or how one is less dogmatic than another.



This may be partially true, but Judeo-Christian values don't exist in a vacuum. Reality is much more dynamic than that. Our legal system developed from English common law, for example. An infinitely complex confluence of philosophies, personalities, and events has shaped America. I won't deny the importance of Christianity in Western culture, but values like freedom and equality under the law don't exist exclusively in the realm of religion, and they don't suddenly go out the window for atheists.

Of course they don't disappear instantly for atheists---because most of the atheists in the West have grown up in a culture imbued with centuries of a Christian worldview, and they take for granted the values that their forefathers fought to establish---and seem ignorant of how and why many of these values grew almost exclusively out of Christendom. The real question is whether those values can survive on their own after the logical underpinnings--the Christian roots---have been removed.



The point is religious belief makes no difference when it comes to morality. On an individual level, religious people are just as capable of acting immorally as anyone else.

Well, those are two different points. Certainly, religious people are just as capable of acting immorally as anyone else, as all human beings are flawed.
But as far as the idea that religious belief makes no difference when it comes to morality, that's harder to say. People come from different circumstances and have different demons. To me, the question is not "is the bad religious person worse than the good atheist"--of course he is---I would argue that the more important question is whether the bad religious person would have been worse if he weren't religious.[/QUOTE]


And on a societal level, religiosity doesn't seem to correlate with a peoples' propensity for 'goodness', if such an objective exists.

Ah, you postmodern relativists---you can't even make your own point without kicking the legs out from under it. -wink-

Nausicaa
05-18-09, 06:30 PM
Ah, you postmodern relativists---you can't even make your own point without kicking the legs out from under it. -wink-

You know what they say about liberals - so open-minded we won't even take our own side in an argument. That's me! :wave: :)

eXcentris
05-18-09, 06:41 PM
As I stated eariler, there's absolutely no correlation between delinquency, criminalitity, "immoral behavior" and the degree of "religiousness". So good luck with that argument (about "godless" morals being inferior...)

CRM114
05-18-09, 06:50 PM
What's even more funny is that you continue to make comments about something you obviously know nothing about.

I was only raised and confirmed Catholic. To get confirmed, one has to attend Catechism.

But as much as Greek mythology is fascinating, it is still merely mythology and not worthy of any serious consideration as being true.

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 06:59 PM
As I stated eariler, there's absolutely no correlation between delinquency, criminalitity, "immoral behavior" and the degree of "religiousness". So good luck with that argument (about "godless" morals being inferior...)

I'll say that you would most certainly see a correlation between lower criminality and people who really lived by Christian principles----monogamous mother and father, no adultery or promiscuity, temperence when it came to alcohol and drugs, hard-working, non-materialistic, etc. Now just because someone says they're a Christian doesn't mean they're living like this, and just because someone isn't a Christian doens't mean they're not living like this. But as a whole, it's better for society if this set of values is promulgated, and I think it would most certainly correlate to lesser delinquency.

eXcentris
05-18-09, 07:08 PM
Congratulations, you just figured out that both religious people and atheists are also flawed humans. :)

Ky-Fi
05-18-09, 07:26 PM
Congratulations, you just figured out that both religious people and atheists are also flawed humans. :)

Well, it's generally atheist Marxism that doesn't understand that---as they don't believe in original sin, they see man as an essentially good creature who has just been kept in chains and driven to desperation by economic deprivation and oppression----and if they can just loosen those chains, they'll end up with their New Man and a subsequent utopia.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 07:26 PM
As I stated eariler, there's absolutely no correlation between delinquency, criminalitity, "immoral behavior" and the degree of "religiousness". So good luck with that argument (about "godless" morals being inferior...)


Is there any correlation with intelligence?

Dr Mabuse
05-18-09, 07:40 PM
Is there any correlation with intelligence?

You know the answer to that right?

wewantflair
05-18-09, 07:54 PM
I'll say that you would most certainly see a correlation between lower criminality and people who really lived by Christian principles----monogamous mother and father, no adultery or promiscuity, temperence when it came to alcohol and drugs, hard-working, non-materialistic, etc. Now just because someone says they're a Christian doesn't mean they're living like this, and just because someone isn't a Christian doens't mean they're not living like this. But as a whole, it's better for society if this set of values is promulgated, and I think it would most certainly correlate to lesser delinquency.

Adherence to dogma and superstition has nothing to do with embodying any of the above values.

This stuff has been debunked and explained so many times in so much of the literature on this subject it's truly a wonder it keeps getting brought up.

Here's a starting point: "Judeo-Christian values" or "Christian principles" aren't really Judeo-Christian in origin. Those values existed well before Christianity and Judaism.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 07:58 PM
You know the answer to that right?

My asnwer would be biased based on my relgious beliefs. I was hoping someone without a belief system would answer it. We need the opinion of the objective disinterested. :lol: Atlas Shrugged.

eXcentris
05-18-09, 08:03 PM
The correlations are mostly socio-economic.

parrotheads4
05-18-09, 08:23 PM
Our founding Fathers built this country on seperation of church and state amongst other things why is religion such a central point among political parties? But why is it so important to pander to religious groups? Why do convervativism and religion have to be mutually exclusive? I think how I grew up my views could swing more conservative than most but what really turns me off is when God is brought into a conversation. There's a lot of gray areas in life and it seems that religion is used as a crutch so that rather than gray its more black and white. Thoughts?


About an hour north of NYC is a village called Kiryas Joel. This village is made up entirely of Hasidic Jews. Each family has about 8 kids which has caused the population to balloon. In 1990 the population of the village was 7,400. Today it's estimated to be about 35,000. I've read that 80% of the residents are on welfare. A friend of mine works nearby and swears they all drive Cadillac Escalades. The village is draining the county Medicaid system. The village gets more state aid per person than any other community. They get State and Federal money to build housing, govít centers, halls, etc. Few taxes are ever paid because we donít tax religion, and they claim that everything in the village is of religious significance.

Why is this happening?

Bloc voting. The rabbi tells the community who to vote for, and they do it. This community is controlling local, and even State politics.

kvrdave
05-18-09, 08:24 PM
About an hour north of NYC is a village called Kiryas Joel. This village is made up entirely of Hasidic Jews. Each family has about 8 kids which has caused the population to balloon. In 1990 the population of the village was 7,400. Today it's estimated to be about 35,000. I've read that 80% of the residents are on welfare. A friend of mine works nearby and swears they all drive Cadillac Escalades. The village is draining the county Medicaid system. The village gets more state aid per person than any other community. They get State and Federal money to build housing, govít centers, halls, etc. Few taxes are ever paid because we donít tax religion, and they claim that everything in the village is of religious significance.

Why is this happening?

Bloc voting. The rabbi tells the community who to vote for, and they do it. This community is controlling local, and even State politics.

I was going to guess Democrats. -wink-

wendersfan
05-18-09, 09:36 PM
I was going to guess Democrats. -wink-Based on this document:

http://www.orangecountygov.com/documentView.asp?docID=5542

and this one:

http://gis.orangecountygov.com/gallery/PDFs/districts/ed_11x85/Monroe.pdf

It looks like they went heavily for McCain/Palin but I can't be sure.

parrotheads4
05-18-09, 10:28 PM
It looks like they went heavily for McCain/Palin but I can't be sure.

I don't think political philosophy ever plays a role. The vote is given to the candidates that promise the most.

Breakfast with Girls
05-18-09, 11:48 PM
Well, it's generally atheist Marxism that doesn't understand that---as they don't believe in original sin, they see man as an essentially good creature who has just been kept in chains and driven to desperation by economic deprivation and oppression----and if they can just loosen those chains, they'll end up with their New Man and a subsequent utopia.Who's talking about Marxism?

kvrdave
05-19-09, 12:02 AM
Based on this document:

http://www.orangecountygov.com/documentView.asp?docID=5542

and this one:

http://gis.orangecountygov.com/gallery/PDFs/districts/ed_11x85/Monroe.pdf

It looks like they went heavily for McCain/Palin but I can't be sure.

I wasn't actually trying to say that these people were Democrats, only that they were living the way they were because of policies that allowed them to, which were likely put in place by Democrats. And I was just having fun, anyway.

Birrman54
05-19-09, 01:02 AM
That must be the least successful concentration of Jews on the planet.

wendersfan
05-19-09, 06:36 AM
And I was just having fun, anyway.I know. And I was just trying to stop it.



;)

parrotheads4
05-19-09, 08:15 AM
That must be the least successful concentration of Jews on the planet.

You missed the part about "they all drive Cadillac Escallades".

They deal only in cash. I've heard they are involved in the diamond trade.

Venusian
05-19-09, 09:17 AM
I was only raised and confirmed Catholic. To get confirmed, one has to attend Catechism.

You may want to review your Catechism teachings then because what you said earlier was incorrect, as many posters pointed out.

CRM114
05-19-09, 09:19 AM
What was that? Keep in mind I don't really care if I've forgotten or confused part of the mythology.

Venusian
05-19-09, 09:26 AM
Check post 187.

CRM114
05-19-09, 09:32 AM
Oh please. Do I need to be technical about sin and hell? So an unrepentant sinner goes to hell. Happy? It's kooky no matter how you qualify it.

Venusian
05-19-09, 09:35 AM
Actually, that's not how it works either. You have to remember there is the whole Jesus thing in there.

wendersfan
05-19-09, 09:36 AM
Actually, that's not how it works either.No, but he is getting warmer (no pun intended.)

CRM114
05-19-09, 09:42 AM
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

kvrdave
05-19-09, 11:41 AM
I know. And I was just trying to stop it.



;)


:lol: You always do.

arminius
05-19-09, 01:06 PM
To die in mortal sin without repenting and accepting God's merciful love means remaining separated from him for ever by our own free choice. This state of definitive self- exclusion from communion with God and the blessed is called "hell."
-Catechism of the Catholic Church

Its called different things in different countries. Here I believe it is called New Jersey.

creekdipper
05-19-09, 10:45 PM
No. Religious people have a predefined belief system. Catholicism for example believes in baptism, communion, confirmation. They believe in sin and heaven and hell. Obviously, one can deviate from the teachings but to call yourself a Catholic, you need to believe in the basics.

Atheists do not need to create a heaven or a hell or sin to teach them how to lead a good life. If you want to call variable opinions on life a "belief system" be my guest. But there is a very obvious and stark difference.

This is only one of several statements made regarding the ability of atheists to "lead a good life" in the absence of a predefined belief system. I cannot fathom how anyone can seriously say that atheists (or anyone) act "morally" without having such behaviors taught. Children are naturally selfish: Christians would point to original sin while atheists would (I suppose) point to "survival of the fittest". If you've ever kept kids in a nursery, you know what I'm talking about: kids vie for attention, fight over toys, etc. If they are not corrected, they do not simply "grow out" of their selfishness; indeed, the situation grows worse as they grow older. Anyone who thinks that their "moral" or "ethical" behavior is the result of their own inner goodness (or evolving intelligence) is deluding himself. Everyone has his own dogma...the only difference is the source of that dogma. Or do atheists belief that rape is wrong today but right tomorrow?

Supposing that atheists teach their children values regarding respecting the rights of others, what is the source of those values? Again, if it were a 'natural' state, there would be no need to teach or model the desired behavior. One would simply keep the children from killing themselves or others until they grew into caring, respectful, mature beings.

To me, it is entirely hypocritical to say that one "doesn't need a predefined belief system" and then turn around and act in accordance with a belief system (even if it goes against natural desires). For instance, if an atheist is tempted to cheat, steal, or act in other ways that would harm others, what causes that person to deny the natural urges to act "unethically"? How can atheists subscribe to any moral absolute (such as "it's wrong to murder") without having a predefined belief system that comes from some outside source. You weren't born with those notions...those values were taught to you by someone acting in the role of moral arbiter. I can't imagine an atheist telling his child, "Now, Johnny, I personally think it's wrong to tell lies about your friend, but I can't tell you what to do. You just have to decide for yourself & form your own beliefs...or don't decide & only follow your impulses. Either way, it's all good...and I'll be proud of you."

Likewise, I would think that atheists pretty much subscribe to a basic list of "morals" regardless of how much they object to calling it a "belief system". Any atheist among us who is willing to admit to thinking that it's okay to commit violent offenses against fellow humans?

I didn't think so.

In the same vein, I can't understand why atheists keep scoffing at those who subscribe to supernatural beliefs even while believing that life began from nothing (which defies all scientific logic). One can say, "I dont' think about it or worry about it", but that is simply a way of ducking the question (the infamous "it's above my pay grade" dodge). If one is so absolutely convinced that no Creator exists, then one ought to at least be prepared to offer an alternate explanation. Otherwise, that person is truly believing in the supernatural to a far greater extent than a religious person, who at least presupposes the existence of a being who defies time & space. One who only believes in the physical universe ought to be able to theorize on how that physical universe could begin without the prior existence of ...something.

CRM114
05-19-09, 11:26 PM
Do you have an alternative explanation to Santa Claus? Even if he personally does not deliver presents under my tree, I truly believe he is inside us and uses us as vessels to deliver presents. Giving an explanation of something using cockamamy logic does not answer a question. It merely provides a fictional narrative to explain something unexplainable.

eXcentris
05-19-09, 11:44 PM
It merely provides a fictional narrative to explain something unexplainable.

And religious folks can't fathom why some people are perfectly fine with leaving some things unexplained.

kvrdave
05-19-09, 11:47 PM
And religious folks can't fathom why some people are perfectly fine with leaving some things unexplained.


Oh, they aren't left unexplained, only half unexplained. I don't know what the answer could be, but your explanation cannot be right.

I honestly don't mind that stance, but don't take it on logic and rationality.

eXcentris
05-19-09, 11:53 PM
Half-unexplained, different competing theories... that's how the scientific process works. Eventually it sorts itself out without the need for divine intervention. :)

kvrdave
05-20-09, 12:11 AM
Half-unexplained, different competing theories... that's how the scientific process works. Eventually it sorts itself out without the need for divine intervention. :)

True, providing that everything that has ever happened has never had any supernatural element.

If you have a system that cannot take gophers into account, how will you ever explain the holes in the ground caused by them? Not a perfect analogy, but hopefully it makes the point. If you have a naturalistic system that cannot account for anything supernatural, how will you know if it occurred?

I am not one to appeal to "God did it" for everything. I can think of almost nothing that doesn't have a naturalistic explanation, including many accounts of miracles in the Bible. But just because you can't allow an explanation, does not mean that it didn't happen. Fred Hoyle was a pretty brilliant cosmologist by all accounts. His fatal flaw was that he could not accept a model of the universe which included a big bang and a continually expanding universe. He held to the "steady state" model until his death, which was decades after the Big Bang model was accepted. His model would not accept the actual answer, and he was a brilliant scientist....at least excluding that. :lol:

Like I said, I would stop research on anything. The one true miracle that I believe in (to be amended if things change) is the formation of life from nonlife. But I would keep funding it, and I still love to read about it. Pisses me off that panspermia has popped up as the "new" theory of the origins of life and no one seems to care to ask, "doesn't that just change the venue without actually answering anything?" Anyway, stupid, petty rant. Sorry.

I think much of history shows religious leaders afraid of science because they thought it would debunk their religion. I think most of those leaders where there for the power and not the theology, though, and many probably didn't actually believe the theology to begin with. Most religious people I know want the science because they believes it shows how elegant the creation of the universe is. That would include me.

Bah, I need to go watch tv. :wave:

Dr Mabuse
05-20-09, 07:35 AM
There's nothing on TV at 12:11 AM kvr.

creekdipper
05-20-09, 08:13 AM
Do you have an alternative explanation to Santa Claus? Even if he personally does not deliver presents under my tree, I truly believe he is inside us and uses us as vessels to deliver presents. Giving an explanation of something using cockamamy logic does not answer a question. It merely provides a fictional narrative to explain something unexplainable.

I'm impressed that you made it through your childhood (and evidently adulthood) without discovering that "Santa Claus" actually lives under the same roof as you.

creekdipper
05-20-09, 08:19 AM
And religious folks can't fathom why some people are perfectly fine with leaving some things unexplained.

Perhaps it's due to the insistence of so many pagan folk that they can't believe in anything without physical evidence.

However, they accept that their own universe exists without any plausible explanation for its origin short of divine intervention. Again, playing by their own rules that makes the a "natural" explanation for the origin of the universe impossible (nothing gives rise to ... nothing), they resort to falling back upon "accepting the unexplainable".

Sure sounds like faith in some supernatural force to me regardless of what label you use.

Now I think I'll go read the otter thread "How To Poop At Work" (which would seem to have a naturalistic explanation).

creekdipper
05-20-09, 08:25 AM
Half-unexplained, different competing theories... that's how the scientific process works. Eventually it sorts itself out without the need for divine intervention. :)

In this case, it requires a belief in a Bizzaro Universe which doesn't function according to any natural laws observed by scientists in this universe.

It's the stubborn insistence of those who have no plausible explanations...or even theories...to explain the origins of our universe, yet are so confident that the answer could not lie in the existence of a supernatural Creator.

In other words, "I don't have the answer...but I know that your answer can't be right because I find it silly".

Sort of a "Nyahh, nyahh" type of superior attitude....you know, "Religious people are stupid for accepting on faith that which they cannot see...but those rules don't apply to me because I believe in SCIENCE!" (Cue Thomas Dolby music) :hairpull:

CRM114
05-20-09, 10:07 AM
I'm impressed that you made it through your childhood (and evidently adulthood) without discovering that "Santa Claus" actually lives under the same roof as you.

Ah, but I did. Just as discovered that the God I was taught to worship was also just part of a narrative meant to console and assuage people.

CRM114
05-20-09, 10:11 AM
Perhaps it's due to the insistence of so many pagan folk that they can't believe in anything without physical evidence.

However, they accept that their own universe exists without any plausible explanation for its origin short of divine intervention. Again, playing by their own rules that makes the a "natural" explanation for the origin of the universe impossible (nothing gives rise to ... nothing), they resort to falling back upon "accepting the unexplainable".

Sure sounds like faith in some supernatural force to me regardless of what label you use.

Now I think I'll go read the otter thread "How To Poop At Work" (which would seem to have a naturalistic explanation).

Saying I don't know is not faith. I don't know the origins of the universe nor do I really care. I do know that any explanation in my lifetime will be woefully inadequate.

CRM114
05-20-09, 10:15 AM
In this case, it requires a belief in a Bizzaro Universe which doesn't function according to any natural laws observed by scientists in this universe.

It's the stubborn insistence of those who have no plausible explanations...or even theories...to explain the origins of our universe, yet are so confident that the answer could not lie in the existence of a supernatural Creator.

In other words, "I don't have the answer...but I know that your answer can't be right because I find it silly".

Sort of a "Nyahh, nyahh" type of superior attitude....you know, "Religious people are stupid for accepting on faith that which they cannot see...but those rules don't apply to me because I believe in SCIENCE!" (Cue Thomas Dolby music) :hairpull:

Fine. Then you agree that Christianity and Scientology's theories of the origin of the universe hold equal merit?

kvrdave
05-20-09, 11:14 AM
There's nothing on TV at 12:11 AM kvr.

It was only 9:11 over here. Actually, in my town, I think it is still 1989 as well.

Dr Mabuse
05-20-09, 11:19 AM
It was only 9:11 over here. Actually, in my town, I think it is still 1989 as well.

Oh yeah you're on the west coast, I was thinking back east for some reason.

I double checked my time zone stuff too.

:lol:

Tracer Bullet
05-20-09, 11:19 AM
It was only 9:11 over here. Actually, in my town, I think it is still 1989 as well.

Oh man, I don't know if you're going to be prepared for how insanely terrible the season finale of TNG is.

eXcentris
05-20-09, 01:54 PM
In other words, "I don't have the answer...but I know that your answer can't be right because I find it silly".

Correct.


Sort of a "Nyahh, nyahh" type of superior attitude....you know, "Religious people are stupid for accepting on faith that which they cannot see...but those rules don't apply to me because I believe in SCIENCE!" (Cue Thomas Dolby music) :hairpull:

I find it silly but I don't believe religious people are stupid. If they find comfort in their beliefs and it makes them happy then more power to them.

Superior attitude? Leaving atheists aside, how do you view the beliefs of religions other than yours? I think I know the answer to that...

cpgator
05-20-09, 02:26 PM
Superior attitude? Leaving atheists aside, how do you view the beliefs of religions other than yours? I think I know the answer to that... I can answer that. I personally don't care what religion someone is, or if they have no religion. I certainly feel my religion is the correct one, but I am sure others believe the same about theirs, or their lack of religion.

What I don't do is constantly mock other religions and the people who practice those religions. Bringing up the Easter bunny, Santa Claus, mythology, superheros, etc in every thread about religion gets old. Granted it is only done by certain posters, but it is those same posters who jump into all these threads. So, yeah - certain poster do appear to have a superior attitude about there lack of religion.

CRM114
05-20-09, 02:31 PM
How is your god different than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? Seriously. Am I suppose to treat your belief in the supernatural in some exclusive way apart from Tarot readers, palm readers and fortune tellers? I seriously would like to know why you feel privileged? Thousands of years of doctrine? So how is it different than Zeus or a sun god?

AND just look at a Scientology thread to see all the "superior" Christians who NEVER would dare mock another religion.

cpgator
05-20-09, 03:07 PM
How is your god different than the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus? Seriously. Am I suppose to treat your belief in the supernatural in some exclusive way apart from Tarot readers, palm readers and fortune tellers? I seriously would like to know why you feel privileged? Thousands of years of doctrine? So how is it different than Zeus or a sun god?

AND just look at a Scientology thread to see all the "superior" Christians who NEVER would dare mock another religion.

It isn't to you i suppose - but to Christians, there is obviously a bit of a difference. But either way, you are certainly entitled to your opinion. Heck, I can even completely understand your opinion and get where you are coming from. The point is the constant mocking - why is it necessary?

I could go up to each of the kids in line at Christmas waiting to talk with Santa and tell them that he is fake and it is stupid to believe in him. But in the end, i would just look like a jerk. And i could go into a fortune tellers business each day and tell them that here stuff is just make believe, but in the end, I would just look like a jerk.

My point is - what exactly are you trying to do in these threads? You certainly are going to change any minds, and I am sure you already know that because you seem like an intelligent guy.

kvrdave
05-20-09, 03:09 PM
Oh man, I don't know if you're going to be prepared for how insanely terrible the season finale of TNG is.


rotfl

Please don't tell me there were only 3 lights after all.

Artman
05-20-09, 03:51 PM
AND just look at a Scientology thread to see all the "superior" Christians who NEVER would dare mock another religion.

I for one constantly defend Tom Cruise! Seriously can't believe the hate he gets for no good reason...

classicman2
05-20-09, 03:54 PM
He's a lousy actor - is that reason enough? ;)

cpgator
05-20-09, 03:56 PM
I for one constantly defend Tom Cruise! Seriously can't believe the hate he gets for no good reason...

I'm a little mad at him for taking the hot out of katie holmes. :(

kvrdave
05-20-09, 03:59 PM
AND just look at a Scientology thread to see all the "superior" Christians who NEVER would dare mock another religion.

I don't see any Scientologists around here complaining. That seems like a big difference. If they were around and willing to discuss their beliefs I would be inclined to discuss it with them (if it interested me) and I would try to act like a decent human.

Similarly, there are gay people here and I try to treat them with common courtesy on issues where we may disagree.

Similarly, I would grant common courtesy to anyone of a group that was on this board and wanted to discuss something (again, if I interacted with them on the subect) even if I thought it was stupid.

You seem incapable of that, though not incapable of staying out of the subject entirely.

eXcentris
05-20-09, 05:18 PM
There goes Dave with his leftist hippie beliefs in tolerance and understanding again... -ohbfrank-

kvrdave
05-20-09, 08:24 PM
:lol: <img src=http://w3.gorge.net/kvrdave/hippie.gif>

Tracer Bullet
05-20-09, 09:36 PM
Similarly, there are gay people here and I try to treat them with common courtesy on issues where we may disagree.

You've never treated me with common courtesy!

printerati
05-20-09, 09:49 PM
You've never treated me with common courtesy!

Common courtesy != the reacharound when it comes to kvrdave. Now you know.

CRM114
05-20-09, 10:36 PM
I don't see any Scientologists around here complaining. That seems like a big difference. If they were around and willing to discuss their beliefs I would be inclined to discuss it with them (if it interested me) and I would try to act like a decent human.

Similarly, there are gay people here and I try to treat them with common courtesy on issues where we may disagree.

Similarly, I would grant common courtesy to anyone of a group that was on this board and wanted to discuss something (again, if I interacted with them on the subect) even if I thought it was stupid.

You seem incapable of that, though not incapable of staying out of the subject entirely.

:lol: Common courtesy to any group. You and many others routinely mock hippies and liberals and pretty much anyone who disagrees with your position. To take some moral high ground is laughable.

I don't think I "mock" any group of religious people. I point out the absurdity that religious people never seem to pick up on. It's not their fault, religious people usually surround themselves with other religious people. Religious people are brought up to steadfastly believe in what I see as pure myth. So when I bluntly point out what seems obvious to me, it hurts your feelings because you constructed this thing around yourself which is being challenged. You see this as mocking. I see it as my opinion. I suppose it's not politically correct to comment on other's religion. But this Politics in Otter. Let's thicken up our skins a bit. I've taken my share of abuse.

printerati
05-20-09, 11:32 PM
But this Politics in Otter. Let's thicken up our skins a bit.

Remind us again why you took a "break" from the forum several months back? ;)