[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
My issue with Christian religion is that it indoctrinates young children…
[/quote]
Not something to worry yourself about, our parenting. You’ll just frustrate yourself as there’s really not much atheists can do to stop us from passing on our faith to our children. It’s probably just about as old as mankind itself.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
My issue with Christian religion is that it indoctrinates young children…
Not something to worry yourself about, our parenting. You’ll just frustrate yourself as there’s really not much atheists can do to stop us from passing on our faith to our children. It’s probably just about as old as mankind itself.[/quote]
No but it is important for countries to maintain the separation of Church and State. And for groups to look out for the insidious creeping power grab that is going on in the US at the moment.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Humans have an innate need to believe in something external to ourselves,an outside agency ordering,or giving meaning to,the Universe.It can manifest in any number of ways,of which religion is only one.Science can be seen as another.But an absence of belief really the seems to not be part of our make up.
Not at all, we actually are designed to see patterns and to look for causes for effects. This is the exact same reason that people fall for superstitions so easily and believe in the paranormal with very little evidence. This says nothing at all about the truth of a God as it can easily be explained by evolutionary benefits.
Did I say anything about the truth/existence of God?Read my post again.
No but your point of an absence of belief is misleading. An absence of belief in what? An absence of belief in Thor? Or Zeus? Or possibly YHWH? These things are obviously part of our make up because the majority of humans that have ever lived have not had these beliefs.
It is natural to ascribe events to an invisible power but it is also natural to investigate the nature of the power. Religion tells us to stop that investigation at a given step and is therefore unnatural.
Let me rephrase in a way that may be more understandable for you,because you are tying yourself up in knots and not making much sense in trying to reach a conclusion that my post said absolutely nothing about.
a.Most people in the world that are alive now and have lived before believe/d in something/someone outside of themselves that gave structure/meaning/pattern.
b.This may be,but is not limited to,religion,science,evolution,political system,personality cults,Thor,God,Yaweh,Odin,Satan or long deep wet kisses that last for three days.
c.My statements made no claim as to the validity/lack thereof or value of any of the aforementioned systems.
d.So to me,it appears that a person who has an absence of belief would be in the very small minority and a nihilist to boot.Therefore,the vast majority of people have beliefs in things they will never in their lives be able to confirm other than by third party accounts,if they’re lucky.
E.So human beings appear to have a built in need to believe,for whatever reason.I made no claim to know the reason,and I don’t have to for my point to be valid.
OK let me try and simplify this for you.
You are fine down to point D. Atheism has nothing to do with not believing in anything at all, that is Nihilism (as you mention.) Atheism is just the lack of a firm belief in a sentient superhuman power that controls the universe. Being an atheist says nothing about your beliefs in political systems, sciences etc.
I don’t know why you are trying to link the two unless you are in some way attempting to imply that an atheist must by definition be Nihilist and using this in some way to denigrate Atheism.[/quote]
Once again,read it again.Then stop trying to ascribe reasons to what I wrote that are quite clearly not there to try to refute a point I am not making.Look at the list of possible beliefs that I wrote down.They encompass the full range from theist to agnostic to atheist to scientist to lover of Kevin Costner baseball movies.And the list could be made almost endless.You and I can be found in one or more of those categories of belief.Stop fixating on the atheist/theist angle.I assigned no more or less value to any category.Belief is belief,it’s not a concept limited to the existence of God debate.
I have not at any time said that there is/isn’t a God/gods.It’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making.We,as human beings,appear to be hard wired to believe in things outside of our own sphere of knowledge.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Humans have an innate need to believe in something external to ourselves,an outside agency ordering,or giving meaning to,the Universe.It can manifest in any number of ways,of which religion is only one.Science can be seen as another.But an absence of belief really the seems to not be part of our make up.
Not at all, we actually are designed to see patterns and to look for causes for effects. This is the exact same reason that people fall for superstitions so easily and believe in the paranormal with very little evidence. This says nothing at all about the truth of a God as it can easily be explained by evolutionary benefits.
Did I say anything about the truth/existence of God?Read my post again.
No but your point of an absence of belief is misleading. An absence of belief in what? An absence of belief in Thor? Or Zeus? Or possibly YHWH? These things are obviously part of our make up because the majority of humans that have ever lived have not had these beliefs.
It is natural to ascribe events to an invisible power but it is also natural to investigate the nature of the power. Religion tells us to stop that investigation at a given step and is therefore unnatural.
Let me rephrase in a way that may be more understandable for you,because you are tying yourself up in knots and not making much sense in trying to reach a conclusion that my post said absolutely nothing about.
a.Most people in the world that are alive now and have lived before believe/d in something/someone outside of themselves that gave structure/meaning/pattern.
b.This may be,but is not limited to,religion,science,evolution,political system,personality cults,Thor,God,Yaweh,Odin,Satan or long deep wet kisses that last for three days.
c.My statements made no claim as to the validity/lack thereof or value of any of the aforementioned systems.
d.So to me,it appears that a person who has an absence of belief would be in the very small minority and a nihilist to boot.Therefore,the vast majority of people have beliefs in things they will never in their lives be able to confirm other than by third party accounts,if they’re lucky.
E.So human beings appear to have a built in need to believe,for whatever reason.I made no claim to know the reason,and I don’t have to for my point to be valid.
OK let me try and simplify this for you.
You are fine down to point D. Atheism has nothing to do with not believing in anything at all, that is Nihilism (as you mention.) Atheism is just the lack of a firm belief in a sentient superhuman power that controls the universe. Being an atheist says nothing about your beliefs in political systems, sciences etc.
I don’t know why you are trying to link the two unless you are in some way attempting to imply that an atheist must by definition be Nihilist and using this in some way to denigrate Atheism.
Once again,read it again.Then stop trying to ascribe reasons to what I wrote that are quite clearly not there to try to refute a point I am not making.Look at the list of possible beliefs that I wrote down.They encompass the full range from theist to agnostic to atheist to scientist to lover of Kevin Costner baseball movies.And the list could be made almost endless.You and I can be found in one or more of those categories of belief.Stop fixating on the atheist/theist angle.I assigned no more or less value to any category.Belief is belief,it’s not a concept limited to the existence of God debate.
I have not at any time said that there is/isn’t a God/gods.It’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making.We,as human beings,appear to be hard wired to believe in things outside of our own sphere of knowledge.[/quote]
In which case you are not really making a point at all.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
And for groups to look out for the insidious creeping power grab that is going on in the US at the moment.[/quote]
Well, we’re trying to protect our 2nd, how much we’re allowed to take home, how much debt is foisted on us, and roll-back the welfare state while stopping further expansion of entitlements. Thanks for noticing the power grab underway. We’re doing our best to stop it.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Humans have an innate need to believe in something external to ourselves,an outside agency ordering,or giving meaning to,the Universe.It can manifest in any number of ways,of which religion is only one.Science can be seen as another.But an absence of belief really the seems to not be part of our make up.
Not at all, we actually are designed to see patterns and to look for causes for effects. This is the exact same reason that people fall for superstitions so easily and believe in the paranormal with very little evidence. This says nothing at all about the truth of a God as it can easily be explained by evolutionary benefits.
Did I say anything about the truth/existence of God?Read my post again.
No but your point of an absence of belief is misleading. An absence of belief in what? An absence of belief in Thor? Or Zeus? Or possibly YHWH? These things are obviously part of our make up because the majority of humans that have ever lived have not had these beliefs.
It is natural to ascribe events to an invisible power but it is also natural to investigate the nature of the power. Religion tells us to stop that investigation at a given step and is therefore unnatural.
Let me rephrase in a way that may be more understandable for you,because you are tying yourself up in knots and not making much sense in trying to reach a conclusion that my post said absolutely nothing about.
a.Most people in the world that are alive now and have lived before believe/d in something/someone outside of themselves that gave structure/meaning/pattern.
b.This may be,but is not limited to,religion,science,evolution,political system,personality cults,Thor,God,Yaweh,Odin,Satan or long deep wet kisses that last for three days.
c.My statements made no claim as to the validity/lack thereof or value of any of the aforementioned systems.
d.So to me,it appears that a person who has an absence of belief would be in the very small minority and a nihilist to boot.Therefore,the vast majority of people have beliefs in things they will never in their lives be able to confirm other than by third party accounts,if they’re lucky.
E.So human beings appear to have a built in need to believe,for whatever reason.I made no claim to know the reason,and I don’t have to for my point to be valid.
OK let me try and simplify this for you.
You are fine down to point D. Atheism has nothing to do with not believing in anything at all, that is Nihilism (as you mention.) Atheism is just the lack of a firm belief in a sentient superhuman power that controls the universe. Being an atheist says nothing about your beliefs in political systems, sciences etc.
I don’t know why you are trying to link the two unless you are in some way attempting to imply that an atheist must by definition be Nihilist and using this in some way to denigrate Atheism.
Once again,read it again.Then stop trying to ascribe reasons to what I wrote that are quite clearly not there to try to refute a point I am not making.Look at the list of possible beliefs that I wrote down.They encompass the full range from theist to agnostic to atheist to scientist to lover of Kevin Costner baseball movies.And the list could be made almost endless.You and I can be found in one or more of those categories of belief.Stop fixating on the atheist/theist angle.I assigned no more or less value to any category.Belief is belief,it’s not a concept limited to the existence of God debate.
I have not at any time said that there is/isn’t a God/gods.It’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making.We,as human beings,appear to be hard wired to believe in things outside of our own sphere of knowledge.
In which case you are not really making a point at all.[/quote]
That’s open to debate.But what is not open to debate is that I haven’t made any of the points you have been driving at or claim I have made in the last few posts.
[quote]Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Humans have an innate need to believe in something external to ourselves,an outside agency ordering,or giving meaning to,the Universe.It can manifest in any number of ways,of which religion is only one.Science can be seen as another.But an absence of belief really the seems to not be part of our make up.
Not at all, we actually are designed to see patterns and to look for causes for effects. This is the exact same reason that people fall for superstitions so easily and believe in the paranormal with very little evidence. This says nothing at all about the truth of a God as it can easily be explained by evolutionary benefits.
Did I say anything about the truth/existence of God?Read my post again.
No but your point of an absence of belief is misleading. An absence of belief in what? An absence of belief in Thor? Or Zeus? Or possibly YHWH? These things are obviously part of our make up because the majority of humans that have ever lived have not had these beliefs.
It is natural to ascribe events to an invisible power but it is also natural to investigate the nature of the power. Religion tells us to stop that investigation at a given step and is therefore unnatural.
Let me rephrase in a way that may be more understandable for you,because you are tying yourself up in knots and not making much sense in trying to reach a conclusion that my post said absolutely nothing about.
a.Most people in the world that are alive now and have lived before believe/d in something/someone outside of themselves that gave structure/meaning/pattern.
b.This may be,but is not limited to,religion,science,evolution,political system,personality cults,Thor,God,Yaweh,Odin,Satan or long deep wet kisses that last for three days.
c.My statements made no claim as to the validity/lack thereof or value of any of the aforementioned systems.
d.So to me,it appears that a person who has an absence of belief would be in the very small minority and a nihilist to boot.Therefore,the vast majority of people have beliefs in things they will never in their lives be able to confirm other than by third party accounts,if they’re lucky.
E.So human beings appear to have a built in need to believe,for whatever reason.I made no claim to know the reason,and I don’t have to for my point to be valid.
OK let me try and simplify this for you.
You are fine down to point D. Atheism has nothing to do with not believing in anything at all, that is Nihilism (as you mention.) Atheism is just the lack of a firm belief in a sentient superhuman power that controls the universe. Being an atheist says nothing about your beliefs in political systems, sciences etc.
I don’t know why you are trying to link the two unless you are in some way attempting to imply that an atheist must by definition be Nihilist and using this in some way to denigrate Atheism.
Once again,read it again.Then stop trying to ascribe reasons to what I wrote that are quite clearly not there to try to refute a point I am not making.Look at the list of possible beliefs that I wrote down.They encompass the full range from theist to agnostic to atheist to scientist to lover of Kevin Costner baseball movies.And the list could be made almost endless.You and I can be found in one or more of those categories of belief.Stop fixating on the atheist/theist angle.I assigned no more or less value to any category.Belief is belief,it’s not a concept limited to the existence of God debate.
I have not at any time said that there is/isn’t a God/gods.It’s totally irrelevant to the point I was making.We,as human beings,appear to be hard wired to believe in things outside of our own sphere of knowledge.
In which case you are not really making a point at all.
That’s open to debate.But what is not open to debate is that I haven’t made any of the points you have been driving at or claim I have made in the last few posts.[/quote]
Fair enough. I apologise for my inference.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
In which case you are not really making a point at all.
That’s open to debate.But what is not open to debate is that I haven’t made any of the points you have been driving at or claim I have made in the last few posts.
Fair enough. I apologise for my inference.[/quote]
No worries.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
Neuromancer wrote:
Humans have an innate need to believe in something external to ourselves,an outside agency ordering,or giving meaning to,the Universe.It can manifest in any number of ways,of which religion is only one.Science can be seen as another.But an absence of belief really the seems to not be part of our make up.
Not at all, we actually are designed to see patterns and to look for causes for effects. This is the exact same reason that people fall for superstitions so easily and believe in the paranormal with very little evidence. This says nothing at all about the truth of a God as it can easily be explained by evolutionary benefits.
Did I say anything about the truth/existence of God?Read my post again.
No but your point of an absence of belief is misleading. An absence of belief in what? An absence of belief in Thor? Or Zeus? Or possibly YHWH? These things are obviously part of our make up because the majority of humans that have ever lived have not had these beliefs.
It is natural to ascribe events to an invisible power but it is also natural to investigate the nature of the power. Religion tells us to stop that investigation at a given step and is therefore unnatural.[/quote]
What religion says you are not supposed to question the religion or any of its doctrine? Definitely not Catholic or Jewish. I am not familiar with other religions, but those two I know do not say do not question in any part of the equation. They are very verbal in asking for questioning.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
Dustin wrote:
pat wrote:
Dustin wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
For every one atheist leader who has carried out atrocities I can give you 100 religious leaders.
Let’s cut to the chase and quit the masturbating. Bottom line you think you are better and smarter because you think atheism is right and the shit and you want everybody else to think the same.
And you know that you are superior to me because your God loves you whereas I am going to hell.
I don’t want everyone to think the same, I am just surprised that otherwise rational intelligent people cannot see how obvious the fallacies and falsehoods in religion are.
But again I say there are none so blind as those that will not see.
Feel free to dispute the facts of the article with facts. The fact that a very little known document at the time was referred to in a footnote is hardly a smoking gun. Second, it is this pope who officially signed in to church ‘law’ on the correct way of dealing with these acts of abuse trumping all previous documents.
Second, these “isolated incidents by a few people” managed to murder over 300 million and counting and enslave half the world with their oppressive regimes; more than half if you look at sheer land mass. Them are some pretty major “small isolated incidents”. This is a matter of historical fact.
You can list 100 religious leader to me mentioning 1 atheist tyrant? Fine, I go with Pol Pot…Now list 100 religious leaders who engaged in terrible acts on people, sexually or other wise.
OK I see your Saloth Sar (even though he went to a Roman Catholic School and was actually a Theravada Buddhist, not an atheist) and raise you 5,000 buggering priests (numbers admitted by the Roman Catholic Church.)
So give me another 49 Atheist atrocity mongers and I will respond again.
All the folks who did this:
http://www.hawaii.edu/powerkills/NOTE4.HTM
Ah ok I see where you went wrong. You see a Catholic educated Marxist Communist with a God complex and you see that as Atheist (interesting parallel between our mate Saloth and Stalin.)
And you will find while they were in their seminaries and or Catholic schools they did not commit such atrocities, only after they rejected their religion did they murder, torture, rape, with impunity.
I can also use religion to justify these horrible acts. And I wouldn’t be the first to do it.
Religion wasn’t used to justify it other than the purging of the religious because “religion poisons the mind”. These dudes had the same opinion of religion you do, but they took it a step further.
Religion has been used to justify rape, murder, and torture. European history is full of examples.
I don’t see how you could argue otherwise.
And my opinion of religion is not like “those dudes”.
So because someone said religion, God is false or something. I am not following, many people have raped murdered and tortured in the name of almost all countries. I do not see you saying countries are not real or some weird illogical shit. Sure I could go out and kill someone and say hey Catholic church told me too, or it was for the Catholic Church. Unless the leader of the Catholic Church told me too then I’m just spewing shit, and if the Pope did tell me, it is on that Pope. The Church is seen as the body of God’s wife, and sometimes different parts of the body become infected, ill, sick, etc. And if the Bible itself says you should be willing to cut off your own hand if it causes you to sin. So it should be then the Church is supposed to check itself when things may be wrong. Yet, when the Pope decrees something and the member follow it, it is not the followers who are punished. It is the Pope. It should also not be the entire Church that is blamed, it should be the Pope.[/quote]
You got all of that out of my post?
My point to Pat was that religion has been used to justify all sorts of horrible acts. We can turn on the TV and see that in our own time. We also have European history to provide us examples.
There is really no way to argue otherwise.
We can debate that “X” amount died from atheist governments/dictators compared to “X” amount from religion. That would be pointless though, as I’m not going to change anyone’s mind and neither are you, Pat, or Sloth.
[quote]Dustin wrote:
You got all of that out of my post?
My point to Pat was that religion has been used to justify all sorts of horrible acts. We can turn on the TV and see that in our own time. We also have European history to provide us examples.
There is really no way to argue otherwise.
We can debate that “X” amount died from atheist governments/dictators compared to “X” amount from religion. That would be pointless though, as I’m not going to change anyone’s mind and neither are you, Pat, or Sloth.
[/quote]
Well, I never went into a debate thinking I would change the person mind I was debating. Debate or discussion is for the persuasion of onlookers. My point is that when people say they do something in the name of said religion you have to look at it at a logical view. Early in this thread someone said something like Hitler used Christianity to back him up or something along those lines. Well, the fact is that Christianity is not a religion, it is a faith. Second, Hitler was not a leader and I highly doubt that he was a Christian. You have to look at Hitler’s motives, the man wanted to take over the world and the German’s believed in God. So, it would be wise of Hitler to tell the people of Germany that God/Jesus is our faith and we hate Jews, etc. I am not sure what Hitler said, but I can guess that is somewhere close to what he did.
Another thing about religion, people say that people used religion to do heinous things. I wonder sometimes if the Church (in the instance of slavery) did not try to solidify their actions and the actions of their members by trying to form the word to make their actions honorable, or at least not damnable for the sole reason of not pissing of the members of the church, or to clear the conscience. There has been misunderstandings of the Bible, and there has been heinous things done that people attempted to justify through the word, but were later shown to be false justifications.
So, I think the thinking that the Bible told, or that religion told these people that their actions were supported through these things is a fallacy.
Think of it this way if a church told us that black people needed to be slaves because of the black curse talked about in the Bible, you would be outraged. You could only be able to believe this if you had the tendency to accept that this is true from prior prejudice.
So, I would say that if I told you that black people should be slaves because of the black curse, you would only agree with me if you thought a) having slaves was okay, b) black people were inferior. Otherwise you would protest if you did not think having slaves was okay and that black people were equal.
Yes, there were things done heinously in the Church, but the Church is very much derived from tradition. If you thoroughly study the Bible, you are hard pressed to show me actual verses (even proof texting) were it says homosexuality is a sin. I can only guess that through tradition (my mom said, her grandma said, her daddy said, that being homo was bad), the church advocated that homosexuality was a sin. I am not sure were such things started, maybe in an Anglo country were it was viewed to be a weakness to submit to another man. I was raised in certain traditions so a skewed interpretation of the word could influence me easier through my traditions than someone that does not have the same traditions.
Anyway, so ultimately I think that tradition is far easier and clearer subject to blame than religion. Dictators however, are easy to pinpoint when it comes to heinous things being done. Hitler, Castro, Stalin, etc.
Side note: This is the issue with converting Indians from Hindu to Catholicism. They do not easily believe our faith because it comes from a different tradition. With different tradition comes different words, philosophy, ideas, etc. I do not have the specifics but if you change the word to apply to their tradition then it can be more fully understood by the Indians.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Should Christianity, as the Bride of Christ, go around flirting with the god symbols of other Nations whilst claiming a symbolic relationship with the God of the Bible?
Sure. I don’t believe in the other gods.[/quote]
Husband says to his wife:
“Yes, I had sex with her but it didn’t mean anything, honey. You are the one that I love.”
Is he lying?
No.
Do onlookers think he is faithful?
No.
The way you conduct yourself reflects how much reverence you have for the one you claim to love.
It is not just about you and who you claim to love.
To a truly committed man/woman the need to flirt with fantasies does not even arise.
Hence the absence of temptation, which is never on the object desired but in the subject within.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Should Christianity, as the Bride of Christ, go around flirting with the god symbols of other Nations whilst claiming a symbolic relationship with the God of the Bible?
Sure. I don’t believe in the other gods.
Husband says to his wife:
“Yes, I had sex with her but it didn’t mean anything, honey. You are the one that I love.”
Is he lying?
No.
Do onlookers think he is faithful?
No.
The way you conduct yourself reflects how much reverence you have for the one you claim to love.
It is not just about you and who you claim to love.
To a truly committed man/woman the need to flirt with fantasies does not even arise.
Hence the absence of temptation, which is never on the object desired but in the subject within.
[/quote]
My faith involves an omniscient God. The above sounds like a husband misunderstanding an innocent act for unfaithful one.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Alpha F wrote:
Should Christianity, as the Bride of Christ, go around flirting with the god symbols of other Nations whilst claiming a symbolic relationship with the God of the Bible?
Sure. I don’t believe in the other gods.
Husband says to his wife:
“Yes, I had sex with her but it didn’t mean anything, honey. You are the one that I love.”
Is he lying?
No.
Do onlookers think he is faithful?
No.
The way you conduct yourself reflects how much reverence you have for the one you claim to love.
It is not just about you and who you claim to love.
To a truly committed man/woman the need to flirt with fantasies does not even arise.
Hence the absence of temptation, which is never on the object desired but in the subject within.
[/quote]
You must have just come from Bible camp. Or that coach from Colorado’s promise keepers. What if this man you speak of promised his wife that he would love her through sick and health all his days, but did not promise she would be the only one. Is he now not faithful, because someone sees him flirting with another women or coming out of her house after having sex with her? Or maybe because someone saw him coming out of a gentleman’s club? What is wrong with temptation, Jesus was tempted.
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism.[/quote]
I’m not sure the victims would’ve agreed.
[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
pat wrote:
Cockney Blue wrote:
My issue with Christian religion is that it indoctrinates young children to avoid logic, not question and blindly follow without evidence. If people were making a free decision as an adult that would be one thing, for the most part however they are not.
What? Well, it shows you know nothing about the Christianity. There are some bible-only evangelical sect that disavow all things not in the bible, but the Catholic Church does not follow. They invite you to think for yourself and to dig deep and discover the answers…Despite the which religion you follow, faith is always a one man journey.
The Catholic Church don’t really invite you to think for yourself though. They resisted the translation of bibles into the common tongue precisely to control what was thought by the masses. If the Catholic Church really welcomed people questioning it then they would not discourage the reading of the gnostic texts for instance, they also wouldn’t bury manuscripts that conflict with the party line in their vaults.
It actually doesn’t matter whether an atheist state would be a more pleasant or less pleasant place, (though my personal feeling is that the greater intellectual honesty would lead to a better society) that is not the argument. The argument is to pull back the cloak and look at things in the cold light of day. If people choose to believe then fine, let them believe whatever they like but keep the religion 100% separate from the state.
Who isn’t for separation of church and state? Intellectual honesty would lead you at least to the conclusion on agnosticism. Atheism closes the possibility of God’s existence. At the very least, being intellectually honest, would lead you to the fact that you do not know.
Here I think you are falling down because you are not correctly defining atheism. Atheism is not the belief that there is no god. Atheism is the lack of belief that there is a God. This is a very important distinction.
Now there are people who will tell you they are certain that there is no God and I agree that they are equally misguided as people who believe that the God as described by a dessert living tribe a few thousand years ago is listening to their thoughts and cares about them individually. My position on it is that we have a working model of the universe that doesn’t need a God in it therefore I see no reason to arbitrarily add a God to the model.
[/quote]
aâ??theâ??ismâ??â??/Ë?eɪθiË?ɪzÉ?m/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ey-thee-iz-uhm] Show IPA
â??noun 1. the doctrine or belief that there is no God.
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
ag·nos·ti·cism (Ä?g-nÅ?s’tÄ-sÄz’É?m)
n.
The doctrine that certainty about first principles or absolute truth is unattainable and that only perceptual phenomena are objects of exact knowledge.
The belief that there can be no proof either that God exists or that God does not exist.
By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.
Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.[/quote]
“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.
[quote]pat wrote:
Makavali wrote:
Religious belief is and always will be worse than atheism. Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God, they’re committed because the perpetrator is a fucked up individual. Religious atrocities are committed because God hates fags, women are inferior and because people suck at translating fairy tales.
“Atheist atrocities aren’t committed in the name of no God”, bullshit. Get educated before you speak on such matters.[/quote]
I am educated,and that isn’t where he is wrong.It’s the second part of the statement that needs correcting.Why do you not tackle that?For any of the great atrocities committed by men on other men,you can always follow the corrupting influence of power and overwhelming material greed.Add to that a smidge of the psycopathy found in all despots and you have what you need.The political or religious system used is a tool to be exploited to achieve whatever the twisted goal may be.
I’m not a religious man in the slightest,but I also find the statement Mak makes as regards which is better than what at the beginning of his post appalling.
[quote]pat wrote:
2. disbelief in the existence of a supreme being or beings
By your definition you are an agnostic, not an atheist. Atheists have concluded there is no God.
[/quote]
Erm, no.
[quote]I agree, but this works in reverse, there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever for there being a sentient God so why would anyone choose to believe in one?
Sure there is. It’s all around us. God does not have to be sentient to exist. Most of the time I find that non-believers are actually non-believers, it’s that they don’t understand why God isn’t more obvious if he wants us to believe in him. It’s a good question, I ask it myself daily.
[/quote]
No, there is no evidence whatsoever. There is nothing anywhere that requires God as an explanation. Everything in the Universe can be suitably explained with no recourse to God. Some of those explanations are not complete yet but that doesn’t give us evidence for God.