http://www.lfpress.com/2014/09/26/ripley-how-my-mind-has-changed (http://www.lfpress.com/2014/09/26/ripley-how-my-mind-has-changed)
Interview with the guy.
Quote
Reverend Bob Ripley was a minister for over 30 years, with 15 of those years as Senior Minister at Metropolitan United Church, one of the most prominent churches of the United Church of Canada. He wrote a syndicated column discussing religion for 25 years.
In his September 26, 2014 column on LFPress, he announced to the world that he no longer believed in God. He's releasing a book which chronicles his journey, titled "Life Beyond Belief: a Preacher's Deconversion."
Bob joins Seth Andrews for a candid discussion about his life, his beliefs, his doubts, and the transition from Christian minister to skeptic/humanist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imbVOJnwKWY&index=8&list=UUeYP27qLtfUMY1b1Cyy3WdQ (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imbVOJnwKWY&index=8&list=UUeYP27qLtfUMY1b1Cyy3WdQ)
I'm cool with Atheism, I see it as a very valuable tool in questioning the origins of life, the universe and everything. But, it's a tool, not an end in itself IMHDO. There is other thinking obviously on the subject, some of which argues down this vain......
The Atheist creation model;
In the beginning there was nothing, absolutely nothing; and then it exploded!
Contrary to popular thinking; many great thinkers in our society were not as "Atheist" as people claimed. Case in point; the great Carl Sagan...
(http://img633.imageshack.us/img633/6364/843hCj.jpg)
8) That's just like my Agnostic opinion, man.
I'd recommend "The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan.
Enlisting Carl Sagan as a defense of faith is a dead end IMO.
Quote
?I am not an atheist. An atheist is someone who has compelling evidence that there is no Judeo-Christian-Islamic God. I am not that wise, but neither do I consider there to be anything approaching adequate evidence for such a god. Why are you in such a hurry to make up your mind? Why not simply wait until there is compelling evidence??
It's just a matter of how the question is framed.
Remember an Atheist doesn't say God does not exist. An atheist says "show me the evidence" and "until you do I don't believe". I know a lot of atheists and I don't know any that would say they "became" and atheist. All just realized that they had been atheists all along while continuing to try and prop up things that could better be characterized as wishful thinking rather than beliefs.
Put together with his other writings, it's clear he was not saying that lack of belief in a god was stupid. He was saying that claiming to know there is no god is stupid, because we don't know or understand enough about the universe to make such an assertion. As a scientist he would never make such an assertion.
As Sagan's character in Contact said.
Quote
The question [Do you believe in God?] has a peculiar structure. If I say no, do I mean I'm convinced God doesn't exist, or do I mean I'm not convinced he does exist? Those are two very different questions.
This was typical of Sagan's views. And IMO he was incorrectly defining what atheism is.
Quote
An atheist is someone who is certain that God does not exist, someone who has compelling evidence against the existence of God. I know of no such compelling evidence. Because God can be relegated to remote times and places and to ultimate causes, we would have to know a great deal more about the universe than we do now to be sure that no such God exists. To be certain of the existence of God and to be certain of the nonexistence of God seem to me to be the confident extremes in a subject so riddled with doubt and uncertainty as to inspire very little confidence indeed.[66]
Religions confidently states that there positively is a God and even that they know his will.
If a person does not believe in God he is an atheist. Cut and dry. And he is not necessarily saying there is no God. Almost all say, because of the lack of evidence and the transparent self interest of organized religions and the nearly endless list of ways that religious beliefs about the universe have been proven wrong over and over and over through the years that they doubt that there is any God. Atheists are saying religion is stupid and faith is stupid in the exact sense that Carl Sagan said so. If religions and the religious relegated their nonsense to appropriate levels of doubt then nobody would have a problem. But of course the religious will tell you that birth control is wrong because God says so for instance. And of course a lot of far worse absolutes. They do a terrible disservice to a society attempting to manage it's self in a sensible way. The certainty becomes a giant anchor that modern society is forced to drag along like something from an iron age myth. What a coincidence.
Dictionary definition of atheism is...
atheist
[ey-thee-ist]
noun
1.
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.
Faith begins with a default belief and a determination to maintain it in the absence of proof to the contrary.
It is belief without evidence. It is Faith. Sagan rejected this.
There are a lot of quotes by Sagan himself that don't exactly make him a defender of faith to say the least.
Quote
You can't convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it's based on a deep seated need to believe.
-- Carl Sagan
Think of how many religions attempt to validate themselves with prophecy. Think of how many people rely on these prophecies, however vague, however unfulfilled, to support or prop up their beliefs. Yet has there ever been a religion with the prophetic accuracy and reliability of science? ... No other human institution comes close.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, page 30
It is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World
The evidence, so far at least and laws of Nature aside, does not require a Designer. Maybe there is one hiding, maddeningly unwilling to be revealed.
-- Carl Sagan, Pale Blue Dot
The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon Haunted World, page 429
If you want to save your child from polio, you can pray or you can inoculate.
-- Carl Sagan, The Demon-Haunted World, page 30
The suppression of uncomfortable ideas may be common in religion or in politics, but it is not the path to knowledge, and there's no place for it in the endeavor of science. We do not know beforehand where fundamental insights will arise from about our mysterious and lovely solar system. The history of our study of our solar system shows us clearly that accepted and conventional ideas are often wrong, and that fundamental insights can arise from the most unexpected sources.
-- Carl Sagan, Cosmos television series, quoted from The Carl Sagan Electronic Monument
And many many more...
Funny you would mention The Demon Haunted World, I'm reading that now...well, listening to the book on CD. It's a great read!
Quote from: DigitalBuddha on November 06, 2014, 08:35:24 AM
Funny you would mention The Demon Haunted World, I'm reading that now...well, listening to the book on CD. It's a great read!
It's very good.
I'd also recommend Daniel Dennette.
Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon
http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338 (http://www.amazon.com/Breaking-Spell-Religion-Natural-Phenomenon/dp/0143038338)
Quote
Dennett surveys various theories of religion:
From Scott Atran - Religion is (1) a community's costly and hard-to-fake commitment (2) to a counterfactual and counterintuitive world of supernatural agent(s) (3) who master peoples' existential anxieties, such as death and deception (4) leading to ritualistic and rhythmic co-ordination of 1, 2, and 3; such as communion. This tendency to invent a supernatural agency is an evolutionary by-product - which involves exaggerated use of everyday cognitive processes - to produce unreal worlds that easily attract attention, are readily memorable, and are subject to cultural transmission, selection, and survival. Add a few hopeful solutions to the problems involving the tragedies of life, and you get religion.
Don't get me start with quoting.
Quote
The world always makes the assumption that the exposure of an error is identical with the discovery of truth ? that error and truth are simply opposite. They are nothing of the sort. What the world turns to, when it has been cured of one error, is usually another error, and maybe one worse than the first one.
? H L Mencken, thanks to Laird Wilcox, editor, ?The Degeneration of Belief?
For it is the natural tendency of the ignorant to believe what is not true. In order to overcome that tendency it is not sufficient to exhibit the true; it is also necessary to expose and denounce the false.
? H L Mencken (attributed: source unknown)
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can?t disarm their enemy.
? H L Mencken, ?Aftermath? (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
Moral certainty is always a sign of cultural inferiority. The more uncivilized the man, the surer he is that he knows precisely what is right and what is wrong. All human progress, even in morals, has been the work of men who have doubted the current moral values, not of men who have whooped them up and tried to enforce them. The truly civilized man is always skeptical and tolerant.
? H L Mencken, Minority Report (1956), quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief
The most common of all follies is to believe passionately in the palpably not true. It is the chief occupation of mankind.
? H L Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949)
The priest, realistically considered, is the most immoral of men, for he is always willing to sacrifice every other sort of good to the one good of his arcanum ? the vague body of mysteries that he calls the truth.
? H L Mencken, Treatise on the Gods (1949)
Deep within the heart of every evangelist lies the wreck of a car salesman.
? H L Mencken, quoted by atheist spokesman Ron Barrier in describing the Christian antiatheist author Ray Comfort
The curse of man, and cause of nearly all of his woes, is his stupendous capacity for believing the incredible.
? H L Mencken, A Mencken Chrestomathy (1949), quoted from James A Haught, editor, 2000 Years of Disbelief
In my opinion the one about the priest and evangelist is a little targeting. All people who are arrogant and closed minded and consider themselves without fault are like that, also in my opinion the curse of man is not in believing the incredible. The curse of man is his abuse of knowledge in the pursuit of his own selfish desires whether they be in the belief of the incredible or the mundane grasp of self comfort in all it's forms. If moral certainty is the equivalent of closed mindedness and intolerance then I would agree about it being the sign of cultural inferiority, but I don't think that it is. I believe moral certainty is the camouflage of choice for the closed minded and intolerant. I believe the natural tendency of the ignorant is to follow the being who is the most self assured because they figure that person has something they lack.
In the land of the quantum the way this dude saw things really brought the universe down man. However I do believe he had some valid points about the dis function of the world, and if one is open and can see there are things to work on than a change for the better can be had. Which means all things balance out in the end.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 06, 2014, 12:31:51 PM
In my opinion the one about the priest and evangelist is a little targeting.
What's your point?
I'd say Mencken's feeling about that were pretty well stated by...
Quote
The way to deal with superstition is not to be polite to it, but to tackle it with all arms, and so rout it, cripple it, and make it forever infamous and ridiculous. Is it, perchance, cherished by persons who should know better? Then their folly should be brought out into the light of day, and exhibited there in all its hideousness until they flee from it, hiding their heads in shame.
True enough, even a superstitious man has certain inalienable rights. He has a right to harbor and indulge his imbecilities as long as he pleases, provided only he does not try to inflict them upon other men by force. He has a right to argue for them as eloquently as he can, in season and out of season. He has a right to teach them to his children. But certainly he has no right to be protected against the free criticism of those who do not hold them. He has no right to demand that they be treated as sacred. He has no right to preach them without challenge. Did Darrow, in the course of his dreadful bombardment of Bryan, drop a few shells, incidentally, into measurably cleaner camps? Then let the garrisons of those camps look to their defenses. They are free to shoot back. But they can?t disarm their enemy.
? H L Mencken, ?Aftermath? (coverage of the Scopes Trial) The Baltimore Evening Sun, (September 14, 1925)
Which I happen to agree with.
As "undude" as the may or may not be.
I guess your meaning is that the critisicm goes beyond priests to more generally cover the "close minded". I'm not sure he was specifically addressing close mindedness so much as the license afforded the "holy" by their faith.
As far as the "Used car salesman" crack goes...... well it's a classic.
The problem is no one asks us atheists, but they love to tell us what we think. Atheism is just the denial of deities. Nothing more.
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
Atheism isn't the only thing about us. It's just one piece of a puzzle.
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 06, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
We have pizza, dude, pizza and beer.
And, yay, though it is good.
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 06, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
The problem is no one asks us atheists, but they love to tell us what we think. Atheism is just the denial of deities. Nothing more.
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
Atheism isn't the only thing about us. It's just one piece of a puzzle.
I like to wait till the dust settles a bit on these discussions, because there's usually lots of strong opinions expressed - which I'm guilty of - but this quote says it all. Thanks Masked Dude. Even though I don't officially call myself an atheist (because of the baggage associated with it), I align with MD's summation.
Quote from: Hominid on November 07, 2014, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 06, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
The problem is no one asks us atheists, but they love to tell us what we think. Atheism is just the denial of deities. Nothing more.
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
Atheism isn't the only thing about us. It's just one piece of a puzzle.
I like to wait till the dust settles a bit on these discussions, because there's usually lots of strong opinions expressed - which I'm guilty of - but this quote says it all. Thanks Masked Dude. Even though I don't officially call myself an atheist (because of the baggage associated with it), I align with MD's summation.
Here here.
I really am trying not to take the bait.
I swear.
Well in this instance I started it.
But in general.
VAGINA?(http://dirtysports.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Vaginas-.jpg)
Quote from: jgiffin on November 06, 2014, 09:57:01 PM
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 06, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
We have pizza, dude, pizza and beer.
And, yay, though it is good.
Oh hell yeah...
But, yeah, vagina.
Quote from: Hominid on November 07, 2014, 12:29:25 AM
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 06, 2014, 05:31:18 PM
The problem is no one asks us atheists, but they love to tell us what we think. Atheism is just the denial of deities. Nothing more.
We don't have creation stories, agendas, or religious movements.
Atheism isn't the only thing about us. It's just one piece of a puzzle.
I like to wait till the dust settles a bit on these discussions, because there's usually lots of strong opinions expressed - which I'm guilty of - but this quote says it all. Thanks Masked Dude. Even though I don't officially call myself an atheist (because of the baggage associated with it), I align with MD's summation.
I was trying to press the Like button when I realized this forum doesn't have it. :)
I don't think that is entirely true about people loving to tell atheist what atheist think. I will give you their are some fanatics out there who do regurgitate things true and false about atheist, but lets face facts Atheist love to tell people what they think all on their own. I remember when no one bothered with atheist at all, it was something that just was like every other religion, but then atheist started taking everybody to court and now here we are.
Let's put it this way. Most atheists don't. :) The activist groups are like NAACP, ACLU, and various religious groups. They don't always speak for the majority of the people they claim to represent.
But what's the difference between someone posting prayers every day versus someone posting secular words of wisdom? And considering most religious people are quick to tell me I'm serving their evil one, why can't I defend myself?
The story of the world. You have those of us who abide and those people who say they abide with us stirring sh@# up. In the end it all comes down to the same old human flaws we all suffer. I accept and move on as much as I can, but every once and awhile a little Walter seeps out as is only natural. So I understand were you are coming from. Good thing we all get the choice to say F%^& it and move on enjoying the people who accept us for who we are and abiding the ones that don't. And on the few occasions we find out we are the very people we are fuming about I am grateful for mirrors were I can look myself in the eye and say chill out dude it is just a moment not a life unless you make it that way.
Aint no wrong to self defense if there was then they wouldn't have given the Dude Walter. I am of the mind of you have no need for defense because we all have the right to be who we are just as long as we are not dragging other people with us against their will. It is what makes the world such an interesting place, of course, it is also why we have the fanatics that we have to put up with. In my little real estate of reality I would like to believe that all my spiritual and religious peoples would offer up an apology with feelings of embarrassment for our crazy family members. The thing that gets my Walter on every time is how easily these so called pious people forget that religion was meant to save by uniting the self with divine and recognizing that divinity in the world and others not to condemn and deny, but look how easily they do. I think I am going to leave it here and as a wise Italian once said forged about id because I can feel my ire arising over the travesties of the world and that is just way to much work in the wrong direction. I was wrong I will end it with the words of Tupac and Spock Keep your head up. Live long and prosper.
As for me and you, we just abide. Let them fight & argue. :)
I'll buy you your beverage of choice. :D
Exactly. Rum is my beverage of choice for prohibition drinks which means white Russians are up my alley they are damned good. Dave and buster also has something I enjoy called a Scooby snack it is also mouth watering delicious. I mean if you weren't a drinker and they gave you a shot you would think you were drinking a milk shake and of course I hit a beer up once I find myself reaching the limit, but lately I have just been drinking tea and water. Drinks only come when the party is in the mix which I have only attended one this past year. Although I do have a wedding to attend and my friend said something about a party bus being involved. I tried the whole unwind with a delicious adult beverage once or twice a week, but have found it really doesn't fit me all to well. Didn't mean to be long worded, but it's a lot less when spoken then written. :D I guess I will end this one in the immortal words of the Gladiator. "Are you not entertained? ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED?" No particular reason other than it popped in my head.
I suspect this whole thread is some kind of weird hipster prank :)
This is the first time I have ever been called a hipster. On the other side of that weird has followed me the whole of my existence, and no one can explain exactly why they just say that I am. So well played sir, very well played indeed.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 08, 2014, 02:05:45 AM
I don't think that is entirely true about people loving to tell atheist what atheist think. I will give you their are some fanatics out there who do regurgitate things true and false about atheist, but lets face facts Atheist love to tell people what they think all on their own. I remember when no one bothered with atheist at all, it was something that just was like every other religion, but then atheist started taking everybody to court and now here we are.
Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.
Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.
Which parts would it be illegal to hold public office for atheist because that just sounds like propaganda. I never really knew much about atheist until they made it illegal for people on television to say Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rosh Hashanah, and fought over the pledge of allegiance. The question, am I serious yes. the answer, yes, I remember when they would acknowledge the holidays individually on their specific day or days, and then one day someone said something about atheist fighting in court about the offence of such acknowledgements and the following year came Happy Holidays. so as far as that never been off limits thing goes when was atheism ever within limits anymore than any other religion. To the statement about it is no longer off limits to Offend people by criticizing religion I say when has religion ever not been criticized. What is offensive about the criticizing of religion is not the criticism, it is the unruly disrespect and lack of manners which is used to voice ones opinions. In closing, I feel no need to get used to disrespect and ill manners. Blatant snarkitude does not equal intelligent conversation nor does it equivocate to truth. It just reeks of undudelyness and you might as well be sitting on the other side of the desk in a wheel chair as the real Mr. Lebowski as for me I will be soaking with my tunes letting go and living life. The pressing religion for taxes that had to come out of that special they did on televangelist in which some of the most well known evangelist have accrued so major shadiness points. I mean ridiculous amounts of shadiness points.
P.S.
seriously if your first statement is true I would really like to know what states made it illegal for atheist to hold public office because I find that really outrageous and am struck dumb founded about how they think that would ever hold up in a court of law. It is an illegal act in itself.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 13, 2014, 04:47:14 AM
Get used to it.
And a real press to strike down the Tax free status of religion.
But that all pales compared to the court of public opinion.
It is no longer off limits to "offend" people by criticizing religion.
Atheism has never been off limits.
It is actually Illegal for atheists to hold public office in parts of the USA.
Which parts would it be illegal to hold public office for atheist because that just sounds like propaganda. I never really knew much about atheist until they made it illegal for people on television to say Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, Kwanza, Rosh Hashanah, and fought over the pledge of allegiance. The question, am I serious yes. the answer, yes, I remember when they would acknowledge the holidays individually on their specific day or days, and then one day someone said something about atheist fighting in court about the offence of such acknowledgements and the following year came Happy Holidays. so as far as that never been off limits thing goes when was atheism ever within limits anymore than any other religion. To the statement about it is no longer off limits to Offend people by criticizing religion I say when has religion ever not been criticized. What is offensive about the criticizing of religion is not the criticism, it is the unruly disrespect and lack of manners which is used to voice ones opinions. In closing, I feel no need to get used to disrespect and ill manners. Blatant snarkitude does not equal intelligent conversation nor does it equivocate to truth. It just reeks of undudelyness and you might as well be sitting on the other side of the desk in a wheel chair as the real Mr. Lebowski as for me I will be soaking with my tunes letting go and living life. The pressing religion for taxes that had to come out of that special they did on televangelist in which some of the most well known evangelist have accrued so major shadiness points. I mean ridiculous amounts of shadiness points.
P.S.
seriously if your first statement is true I would really like to know what states made it illegal for atheist to hold public office because I find that really outrageous and am struck dumb founded about how they think that would ever hold up in a court of law. It is an illegal act in itself.
I have no problem in being "disrespectful" for things a person doesn't respect.
States with anti Atheist statutes.
Arkansas:
Article 19, Section 1
"No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court."[87]
Maryland:
Article 37
"That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution."[88]
Mississippi:
Article 14, Section 265
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state."[89]
North Carolina:
Article 6, Section 8
"The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God."[90]
South Carolina:
Article 17, Section 4
"No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution."[91]
Tennessee:
Article 9, Section 2
"No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state."[92]
Texas:
Article 1, Section 4
"No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."[93]
An eighth state constitution affords special protection to theists.
Pennsylvania:
Article 1, Section 4
"No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth."[94]
Also as to the legality or constitutionality of the above it's really a moot point to people who hold other laws higher.
Quote
Anti-atheist discrimination is against the law; in the United States, anyway. But people still sometimes discriminate against atheists.
It's illegal for public schools to prevent students from viewing atheist Web sites, while allowing them to look at religious ones. But the San Antonio Independent School District did it anyway.
It's illegal to make atheists swear religious oaths when they testify in court. But the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida in Fort Myers did it anyway.
It's illegal for the U.S. military to spend money evangelizing to U.S. soldiers, to demand that U.S. soldiers attend chapel, or to order U.S. soldiers to take a "spiritual fitness" test and order them to visit evangelizing chaplains when they fail it. But the U.S. military did it anyway.
It's illegal for businesses to give church-goers discounts they don't give to non-believers. But the Fisherman's Quarters II restaurant in Asheville, N.C. did it anyway.
It's illegal to deny atheist organizations the right to advertise in venues where religious groups advertise regularly. But when American Atheists and the NEPA Freethought Society tried to place a bus ad in Pennsylvania that simply had the word, "atheists," with the names and URLs of the organizations in smaller type, the transit system rejected the ad because it was "too controversial."
It's illegal to deny atheist students in public high schools the right to organize clubs. But it happens all the time. Talk to Secular Student Alliance high school specialist JT Eberhard. He spends a ridiculous amount of his working day pushing high school administrations to stop throwing up illegal roadblocks to atheist students, and to let them have the clubs they're legally allowed to have.
http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/6_outrageous_incidents_of_discrimination_against_nonbelievers/ (http://www.salon.com/2012/12/20/6_outrageous_incidents_of_discrimination_against_nonbelievers/)
Quote
In some countries, this anti-atheist discrimination is severe. It doesn?t take the form of government proselytizing or being denied the right to organize clubs. It takes the form of being arrested. It takes the form of being imprisoned, for years. It takes the form of being targeted by a mob screaming for your blood ? and when the police who should be there to protect you show up, instead they throw you in jail.
Quote
Sanal Edamaruku, India. A humanist organizer and a renowned skeptical debunker of supernatural claims ? sort of a James Randi of India ? Sanal Edamaruku is the president of the Indian Rationalist Association. He?s also the guy who, in March 2012, profoundly embarrassed the Catholic Church on national television, when he debunked a supposed ?miracle? believed in by thousands by proving that a weeping Jesus on the cross was actually the result of a leaky drain. The Catholic Church, naturally, was profoundly grateful for this information, as it cares passionately about the truth and wants to be sure that any ?miracles? it promotes are truly the hand of God?
?No, wait, That?s not what happened at all. In April 2012, a group called the Association of Concerned Catholics filed a complaint against Edamaruku with the Mumbai police under Section 295 of the country?s penal code? a complaint the Catholic Church didn?t officially support but also didn?t speak out against or try to stop in any way. The police, recognizing this complaint for the blatant absurdity that it was, laughed them out of the room?
?No, wait. That?s not what happened at all. The Mumbai police actually took this seriously. They issued an arrest, charging Edamaruku with ?hurting the religious sentiments of a particular community.? The police haven?t dropped it, either: they have since gone to Edamaruku?s home in Delhi to serve the arrest warrant, and to demand information on his whereabouts. What?s more, they are denying him ?anticipatory bail,? so if he submitted to the arrest he could do months of jail time before his trial. Edamaruku, unwilling to do months of jail time for first-degree debunking of fraudulent miracles, has fled the country, and is currently in hiding in Finland. (More information at the A Friendly Atheist blog.)
I was going to explain NC laws about that, but Biker did. Although Torcaso v Watkins made it moot, the laws are still on the books and often states try to enforce it.
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 13, 2014, 10:31:02 AM
I was going to explain NC laws about that, but Biker did. Although Torcaso v Watkins made it moot, the laws are still on the books and often states try to enforce it.
Yeah the fact that the laws are still on the books really speaks to the functional reality.
The fact that our rights are all protected by a secular constitution that makes no mention of God tells you everything. Wanna see what a country "founded on Christian principles" would look like?
Look at laws like this. All below the bible belt.
I blame the lowering of educational standards for this seeming dominance of conservative values that prefer faith over evidence. We're being dumbed down..... So, it's easier to convince sheeple of a biblical god rather than employing critical thinking. My opinion, not yours...
As to the definition of atheism, each person claiming to be one should define their own terms and not be labelled by anyone else's. Hence, no one should (as others have said) tell others what their beliefs are.
And - you know - VAGINA.
First point> You must be looking for the religious fanatics, that is why you see them popping up everywhere, and maybe I am looking for the Atheistic fanatics because I have noticed more of a decline in religion and more of an uptake on who gives a crap as long as I get mine. I don't believe that there are more conservatives, but I do agree that they have bullied their way onto center stage and will do whatever it takes to stay there even promoting and creating the sensational and fanatical. As for the education system I blame big business. as long as the educational system cranks out a nation of idiots then they can keep what is theirs and take what is yours while telling you it is the man who did you wrong, and we would believe it because of crapucation backed by supposedly upstanding and God fearing conservatives sprinkled in with the double agent democrat both of whom are big business reps..(sounds a little to much like a conspiracy theorist now that I read it..)
second point>If you deviated from the definition of atheism which is the disbelief of God or gods then are you still an atheist, and if so is this a situation like when a vegan says I am vegan not vegetarian or, are you promoting an Atheistic schism?
Indubitably. It does divert the brains much needed blood supply.
I'll try voice the frustration at the tendency for the religious to marginalize fundamentalists as fanatics. As though they were not "real" Christians or Muslims or whatever. If I can speak for atheists I'd say that we find that frustrating and in fact disingenuous. A "nuanced" reading of anything (the Bible and Koran for instance) is only legitimate if it was written with the nuance intended. To introduce nuance later is just to gloss over the unsavory outcomes of a strict adherence to the words and seems very slippery and smacks of apologetics. The so called fanatics look to me (us) to be exactly what is intended by the words. It is only in the context of secular values that this become unacceptable. The truth is that one can easily see that the Bible and Christianity clearly does support the sort of intolerance toward atheism and in fact other faiths that we see in the southern states with statutes against atheism. There are plenty of passages in the bible to that effect. To suggest that they should be either ignored or read with some type of nuance IMO is just an attempt to reinvent things after the fact, in the context of a world much improved by the triumphs of secular values over religious intolerance.
As for an atheist fanatic, I can't imagine what that could possibly be. A person who really really really doubts the existence of god? Disbelief does not motivate actions. Beliefs motivate actions.
Many if not most atheists also believe that most religions are full of intolerance. To me it seems undeniable with even a very basic reading of any of the holy books. How could we be surprised at the outcomes?
Christianity is supposed to follow the new testament, but religious fanatics love to pick from the old as well as the new. In the end after all the talk Jesus commanded his disciples to love no more no less. Yet you speak of religious intolerance as if it is what Jesus taught. If you are a Christian and you follow Jesus than in the end your calling is to love not to pick and choose what you want to follow and from what part of the Bible to follow it from, and calling someone a fanatic does not make them not real it is simply calling a spade a spade if anything we should be say religious fundamentalist fanatic.
Fanatic - a person filled with excessive and single-minded zeal, especially for an extreme religious or political cause.
Atheism- is a religion of disbelief regardless of how you define it. The coined term from the Bible is doubting Thomas someone who refuses to believe in anything unless they see it with their own eyes, and experience it first hand for themselves.
The idea of disbelief not motivating action is simply not true. People use disbelief to do whatever they want all the time. Grab a degreed professional to disprove a fact regardless if it is true then I don't have to worry about belief in it so I can do what I want. Manipulators of all kind use this trick all the time.
I will tell you what drives me crazy. People who believe that religion is what is destroying the world. secularism is what is destroying the world Religious fanatics use and abuse Their holy books to justify murder and mistreatment of others. secularist use atheism as a means of destroying the very planet they depend upon by undermining the sacredness of the world they live in. At least that is what I would say if I was a fanatic, but I am not. What I am is a realist with dreamer tendencies. My habit is not to say religious this, atheist that. Damn fundamentalist! No, Damn secularist! You need to see people for what we are people and all the flaws of us.
People who crave power amongst other things will cling to whatever works for them. Religion, Business, Secularism, Atheism,...etc. What ever they can get their hands on to get what they want. Ye old battle of good vs. evil my friend, and I am sure that these human pieces of paraquat enjoy laughing at us bonafide dudes realized and unrealized as we point at each other and argue the points as to why we are right and why everyone else is mistaken. Personally I believe in a God, but I won't know if I am right or wrong until I get to were I am going so until then, meeh.
QuoteAtheism- is a religion of disbelief regardless of how you define it.
Saying that atheism is a belief is like saying baldness is a hairstyle. Disbelief is not a belief, it is the absence of belief. It's not a religion; it's not a lifestyle. For example, someone makes the claim that a teapot is flying around the sun... I do not believe that, but it doesn't define me as someone to be a disbeliever in teapots in space. If you're going to respond by saying "prove there isn't one", you have to realize that the burden of proof lies with the one making the extraordinary claim that something exists where there is no proof. Teapots, gods, flying spaghetti monsters...
Regarding only following the new testament, THAT is picking and choosing what to follow. Here's a good video to watch - it's not too long: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TasoRGeDHCc (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TasoRGeDHCc)
Sorry, but Matthew 5:17-21 and Hebrews 13:8 say that both Testaments are to be followed.
Yay for comparative religions courses.
(And strangely I've started on an article about the issue of OT & NT.)
You should not be sorry my Dudely Masked Dude because you are correct Jesus does say that he is not there take away from the prophets or the laws but to fulfill the letter of the law which solidifies the prophets and established laws which he then goes on to explain those laws and how they are to be fulfilled, but how these laws are to be followed is what is important and what makes me say that Christians are to follow the new and not the old testament, and this is what I mean by selectively choosing something and making it to fit so that you can get what you want. Hebrews 13:8 Simply solidifies Christ as consistent. So I must concede the point of taking from both testaments, but if you try to apply an eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth using old testament rules then you would be wrong and could not say you are following the teachings of Christ. I would very much like to read your article seeing as I too say Yay to comparative religion. :O)
The statement about selectively choosing was not directed at you. It was a side tangent supporting fact for my prior opinion.
To my Dudely Hominid I never said prove that their isn't one. I simply stated that I believed. I would never ask anyone to look at the world through my beer goggles unless it is to understand me as a person as I would do the same for them so that we could live in a mutual state of respect and harmony.
Atheism is a religion, lifestyle, and a belief as it fits all these criteria
lifestyle -the way in which a person or group lives. Atheist live in a state of belief in disbelief.
Religion - people always focus on this part (the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.)
•a particular system of faith (atheist have faith that nothing exist)&worship( people also get hung up on the word worship.)
•a pursuit or interest to which someone ascribes supreme importance. (atheist ascribe supreme importance that nothing exist the same as religious people ascribe supreme importance that something does.)
belief 1. an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists.(people always focus on the last part as well)
•something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.
Atheist have a firmly held opinion or conviction that nothing exist.
trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
I never said I choose to follow the New testament alone.I simply made a point that Christians living a Christly life should focus on how Christ lived which was with understanding, compassion, forgiveness, love not in a old testament punishment shall be doled upon you way because that is not the way that Christ said to live. I like to think that the thing we should focus on is openness and changeability. I would like to think I grow in a positive way with everything heard, seen, experienced, and I would hope that I am able to leave people in the same way I wish to grow. In goodness. I will checkout that vid Hominid. I am always game for knowledge.
In ending I wanted some help with this thought. Everyone believes in numbers, but no one can show you a number how is that different from a belief in God.The fact that this thing we have all come to believe in that no one can see, but it works couldn't that in itself be a possible proof in the miraculous, sacred, and unbelievable such as the possibility of a God, Dragons, Unicorns, Magic, and the pot of gold at the end of rainbows just to lighten the mood and leave you with a sense of awe and wonder.
Your entire first paragraph demonstrates the contradictory nature of the bible, proving that the bible is the best argument against itself. IOW, properly interpreted with no pre-existing faith, the bible should make an atheist out of anyone reading it due to the massive volumes of contradictions. If it doesn't then the reader is alread biased in their belief and value system, ignoring evidence and facts.
You still miss the point that non-belief IS NOT A BELIEF OR A RELIGION. You need a primer in philosophy my friend - no insult intended; I went through this myself when de-constructing and examining why I believed in god and the bible. I don't any more for reasons mentioned above. And because I don't, I no longer struggle trying to patch together logical incongruities in my head.
Peace dude. I like the beer goggle analogy.
No my first paragraph tells you that what was is no longer what is. The word of God as I was taught is a living thing and all living things grow and change. You don't go arguing about laws that have expanded and grown to reflect the times in the court system. I don't hear arguments about how it was legal at one time to whip your wife for wrong doings in front of the court house on a Sunday as reason not to obey the laws of today. What the bible shows and what Jesus showed was that you don't mess with the law, but that doesn't mean that the laws can not change for the betterment of humanity as people grew to understand more the laws in the bible reflected that. It isn't contradiction it is growth. It is how the world works written for your perusal in a blast form the past still relevant today if you can bridge the gap of old thinking and bring it into the mind of today.
I am not going to touch the philosophy comment we both know that that statement won't stand
I don't think I miss the point about non-belief as not belief non-belief is in itself a belief. It is not my fault that atheism is itself a paradox and to get down to brass tax atheisms disbelief in God is because of its belief in the scientific method. So atheism is a belief, lifestyle, and a religion.This has really got my mind whirling. I hope the future holds many more cool exchanges as this one.
Thanks for the appreciation of the beer goggle analogy I almost went with rose colored glasses, but I decided to go with something I have experience with. :)
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 20, 2014, 02:55:52 AM
No my first paragraph tells you that what was is no longer what is. The word of God as I was taught is a living thing and all living things grow and change. You don't go arguing about laws that have expanded and grown to reflect the times in the court system. I don't hear arguments about how it was legal at one time to whip your wife for wrong doings in front of the court house on a Sunday as reason not to obey the laws of today. What the bible shows and what Jesus showed was that you don't mess with the law, but that doesn't mean that the laws can not change for the betterment of humanity as people grew to understand more the laws in the bible reflected that. It isn't contradiction it is growth. It is how the world works written for your perusal in a blast form the past still relevant today if you can bridge the gap of old thinking and bring it into the mind of today.
I am not going to touch the philosophy comment we both know that that statement won't stand
I don't think I miss the point about non-belief as not belief non-belief is in itself a belief. It is not my fault that atheism is itself a paradox and to get down to brass tax atheisms disbelief in God is because of its belief in the scientific method. So atheism is a belief, lifestyle, and a religion.This has really got my mind whirling. I hope the future holds many more cool exchanges as this one.
Thanks for the appreciation of the beer goggle analogy I almost went with rose colored glasses, but I decided to go with something I have experience with. :)
But the point is that they CHANGE THE LAWS.
Just saying that "the word of God" is a living thing does not make it so.
I have heard no such specific pronouncements from the Pope or anyone else.
The bible still says what it says and some people follow the words.
And there is no pronouncement that they are "Unchristian" for doing so.
The fact that in the last several decades we've seen things like an apology for murdering Galileo or the concession that maybe gays won't burn for eternity etc just highlights that it is only once the positions become untenable that they "live". And even then it is just a hand waving sort of concession that does not rise to the level of a "change".
IMO it is not enough to just pronounce something as a "living or changing word" if you don't actually change it.
If the laws state something that is exactly what they mean. And until someone challenges it that law can be prosecuted. It may lose in court and be struck down but the point is that at that point it will be gone. No longer written.
And I can't help but notice how much the very concept of a "living word of God" run contrary to the actual written words.
Quote
Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Psalms
But the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Peter
It goes on and on.
If there is one thing that the bible says very emphatically it is that "the word of God is Eternal".
Does the bible use the term "the living word"? Sure but the meaning is very much the oposite of what you are proposing.
For instance
Quote
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 412
The statement about non belief being a belief is pure non sense.
I don't believe in astrology. I have no replacement belief for it. One minus one is zero. It's not negative one.
Rejecting something that someone says is not a belief. I (and I believe 99.9999999% of the people in the world) would simply have no position about the existence of God if not for the claims by others that there is a God. My position is 100% in relation to the claims of others. It is not a belief in it's self. I do not replace God with some other belief. I just reject the claim.
A good number of Atheists actually dislike having any term for non belief. Which makes a valid point.
If I don't believe in Leprechauns I'm not a "Aleprechaunist". I'm just not delusional.
You may not want to read the article. It's more about cherry picking based on OT vs NT.
I usually don't like to debate theists because I always end up getting blamed for things I haven't done or said. (Not just Christians, and in person I always say multiple times we shouldn't.) What I will say is this: I like the overall philosophy of many faiths. Help others because we can, defend those who can't, and don't cause unnecessary harm. It's the little things in all religions and the extreme whackjobs that mess them up.
I don't believe in your God, but I also don't believe in Brahma, Zeus, or the Wiccan pantheon. Saying my belief is that means your religion is anti-Zeus and anti-Brahma. It would mean you and I have thousands of religions.
However, I will defend and fight for your right to believe. I just won't support any religion making their holy books my law.
To me, that's how I try to be dudely.
:)
Quote from: Masked Dude on November 20, 2014, 05:40:10 PM
What I will say is this: I like the overall philosophy of many faiths. Help others because we can, defend those who can't, and don't cause unnecessary harm. It's the little things in all religions and the extreme whackjobs that mess them up.
Well the trouble is if you remove all the "little things" from the Bible or the Koran that motivate "whack jobs" (I'd say strongest adherents) you wouldn't have enough left to fill the average daily newspaper.
That's pretty much why I listed those 3 things. :)
Quote from: BikerDude on November 20, 2014, 07:38:36 PM
Well the trouble is if you remove all the "little things" from the Bible or the Koran that motivate "whack jobs" (I'd say strongest adherents) you wouldn't have enough left to fill the average daily newspaper.
Turns out Thomas Jefferson undertook a similar project. It cuts the Bible down to a tidy 20 pages. See, http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf (http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf) for a compressed version or http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf (http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf) for the original. Having waded through the Koran, my guess is it would receive similar treatment.
Edit: I didn't realize the "original" original was available from the Smithsonian's cite. http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/ (http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/) It's pretty cool looking, and technically impressive, regardless of your substantive opinions.
I got a copy of it. It's very good reading. I recommend it.
Quote from: jgiffin on November 20, 2014, 10:34:01 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on November 20, 2014, 07:38:36 PM
Well the trouble is if you remove all the "little things" from the Bible or the Koran that motivate "whack jobs" (I'd say strongest adherents) you wouldn't have enough left to fill the average daily newspaper.
Turns out Thomas Jefferson undertook a similar project. It cuts the Bible down to a tidy 20 pages. See, http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf (http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf) for a compressed version or http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf (http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf) for the original. Having waded through the Koran, my guess is it would receive similar treatment.
Edit: I didn't realize the "original" original was available from the Smithsonian's cite. http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/ (http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/) It's pretty cool looking, and technically impressive, regardless of your substantive opinions.
What!?
But how can that be since we all know that the country was founded on Christian principles and the founding fathers were devout believers?
I know I heard that on Fox News. Must be true. Right?
While I'm here I'll just deposit a few interesting videos..
Carl Sagan God: A Reassuring Fable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4jTUF3CLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4jTUF3CLo)
And I can't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrqLV4yeiw&list=PL1DA0C8985FAE1C22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrqLV4yeiw&list=PL1DA0C8985FAE1C22)
Bertrand Russell (Expresses the frustration with the typical lax definition of "Christian". After that a drag really)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRKY2LIvH50 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRKY2LIvH50)
Some Stephen Fry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs)
Good Old Penn Jillette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM)
Quote from: BikerDude on November 21, 2014, 10:56:38 AM
Quote from: jgiffin on November 20, 2014, 10:34:01 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on November 20, 2014, 07:38:36 PM
Well the trouble is if you remove all the "little things" from the Bible or the Koran that motivate "whack jobs" (I'd say strongest adherents) you wouldn't have enough left to fill the average daily newspaper.
Turns out Thomas Jefferson undertook a similar project. It cuts the Bible down to a tidy 20 pages. See, http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf (http://www.nationallibertyalliance.org/files/docs/foundingdocs/Jefferson%20Bible.pdf) for a compressed version or http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf (http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf) for the original. Having waded through the Koran, my guess is it would receive similar treatment.
Edit: I didn't realize the "original" original was available from the Smithsonian's cite. http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/ (http://americanhistory.si.edu/JeffersonBible/the-book/) It's pretty cool looking, and technically impressive, regardless of your substantive opinions.
What!?
But how can that be since we all know that the country was founded on Christian principles and the founding fathers were devout believers?
I know I heard that on Fox News. Must be true. Right?
While I'm here I'll just deposit a few interesting videos..
Carl Sagan God: A Reassuring Fable
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4jTUF3CLo (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sd4jTUF3CLo)
And I can't resist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrqLV4yeiw&list=PL1DA0C8985FAE1C22 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJrqLV4yeiw&list=PL1DA0C8985FAE1C22)
Bertrand Russell (Expresses the frustration with the typical lax definition of "Christian". After that a drag really)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRKY2LIvH50 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NRKY2LIvH50)
Some Stephen Fry
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CqibqD4fJZs)
Good Old Penn Jillette
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IpNRw7snmGM)
Oh man, I dig me some Bertrand. Seriously. Greatest philosopher of the modern age. The philo-posers after him spouted infinite pools of irrelevancies. I'm looking at you, Lewis, Wittgenstein, and Derrida...
Biker Dude apologies if you thought I was ignoring our conversation. I was a groomsman at a good friends wedding and a party dude for the past 3 days and might I add that this isn't about me proving religion as right because I get the feeling that this is what it is turning into. My whole stand from the beginning was that you can't blame religion for what is broke and wrong in this world because it isn't the religion or the lack of religion that jacks up the world it is the smallness of people. Any how this will be the last I comment about this. As far as I can see you have been picking and choosing the bits that support your points just like the, to coin your terms whack jobs do. So to address the elephant I left in the room.
But the point is that they CHANGE THE LAWS.
It wasn't a they thing or it was a they thing. It was a Jesus thing and he did so at the behest of God so as to form the new covenant between God and humanity which gives us a shot at living our lives in a bigger and better way instead of a small and selfish way. Reading Hebrews all the way through will clarify and will show you why I say N.T. and WWJD over O.T. in the case of Christianity.
Forever, O LORD, your word is firmly fixed in the heavens.
Psalms
But the word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which by the gospel is preached unto you.
Peter These do nothing to support your fact of God's Law being unchangeable they just say what God says is an immutable fact for all eternity or the ultimate truth.
(Well the trouble is if you remove all the "little things" from the Bible or the Koran that motivate "whack jobs" (I'd say strongest adherents) you wouldn't have enough left to fill the average daily newspaper.)
The above statement if done would leave you with the strongest adherents which are the hardest to follow and which the Whack jobs do not follow. Jesus simplified it as his last command which was to Love one another as he has loved without condition.
The statement about non belief being a belief is pure non sense.
belief-trust, faith, or confidence in someone or something.
faith- complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
These are the definitions of faith and belief so are you telling me that you are not confident in your statements of non belief, because if so then you are correct my statement is pure nonsense, but if you are confident or certain in your statements of non belief then it is not my fault you fall under the parameters of paradox.
For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart.
Hebrews 4:12
I am proven mistaken and poorly spoken on the point of God's living word because the changing doesn't come from God's words, but from the human who hears His words and tests himself against them to see if he is truly living God's words or in his smallness. I humbly thank you brotha.
Masked Dude, I know the feeling and I to do not debate because I am in agreement with everything you said except were you get the whole someone is frying in fire and brimstone I get the added addendum of please seek professional help.
Hey Hominid I watched the video it seems his stand point isn't about N.T. or O.T., but his lack of faith that people who follow the Bible or any Holy book can be civil because of all the vengeance and horrid punishments done by God, on the orders of God, or in the name of God following what Jesus taught I think would help although he too did read just a snip it of the bible to support his claim as well. However it is a very strong and well made argument supported by the acts of fundamentalist everywhere. It's just, in my opinion, seems to me to be a case of the extremes the fundamentalist wrongly using the bible are one extreme and he is the other extreme that counter balances. I will check out the vids Jgiffin.
Does anyone else think there exists concepts outside the binary of Atheism versus North American Protestant Christianity?
I do.
Absolutely. That duality is fictional at best. Just talk to a shaman...
Quote from: Dave on November 25, 2014, 08:46:26 AM
Does anyone else think there exists concepts outside the binary of Atheism versus North American Protestant Christianity?
I do.
I do as well dude, you are certainly not alone. I've only not brought it up because I am far too lazy to get caught up in an argument about why I am a Norse Polytheist or Asatru, or whatever the kids are calling it these days in today's world and so on and so forth and what have you. I'd much rather just enjoy a beer and say fuck it, however I didn't want to leave a fellow pagan hanging so I thought I'd break my normal silence and let you know there are other Dudeist Pagan Priests out there.
Avoidance is certainly wisdom.
But wisdom precludes motorcycles, fast cars, sex with loose women and pissing off Christians.
As a married aging white male I like to hold onto all of my meager list of vices.
If you notice though I have bowed out.
It's gotten really boring.
But as long as I'm here post a clip that sort of illustrates the craven nature of faith 'vs' the courage of reason.
From the movie "Touching the Void" about 2 mountain climbers. One gets a broken leg and as the other attempts to lower him down... well I won't spoil it. I do recommend it. It's free on Netflix.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWhmOwGqcMQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nWhmOwGqcMQ)
Quotecourage of reason
I like that.
Quote from: Hominid on November 25, 2014, 01:01:41 PM
Quotecourage of reason
I like that.
Oh hell yeah.
And not only the courage to live without self delusion and false consolation but imagine the courage it took back in the day to speak out.
For instance Salman Rushdie. He knew full well what he would face by criticizing Islam. At that time most people were unaware of the strain of Islam that was so radical. He knew it well, having been born and raised in Bombay and he was raised a Muslim. He knew full well how common the belief that the punishment for apostasy is death and how common it was for people to hold that belief. He was the first to make most people aware that there were influential people who would literally call for the death of a person who wrote a book they didn't like.
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything. My point was mostly that there are far more interesting things to talk about than atheism vs. Christianity or any 'ism vs. 'ism for that matter. To me the whole discussion is pointless and these sorts of arguments rarely get anyone anywhere except for people get more entrenched in their own opinions. That's why I tend to stay out of them on any forum and not just here on the Dudeism forum, they waste time that I could be out doing something more awesome, like brewing some beer or wasting time on reddit, or uh...you know, working, family and all that other stuff. Point is, lifes too short to waste on these sorts of debates.
Quote from: Jefftos on November 26, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything. My point was mostly that there are far more interesting things to talk about than atheism vs. Christianity or any 'ism vs. 'ism for that matter. To me the whole discussion is pointless and these sorts of arguments rarely get anyone anywhere except for people get more entrenched in their own opinions. That's why I tend to stay out of them on any forum and not just here on the Dudeism forum, they waste time that I could be out doing something more awesome, like brewing some beer or wasting time on reddit, or uh...you know, working, family and all that other stuff. Point is, lifes too short to waste on these sorts of debates.
Quote from: Jefftos on November 26, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything. My point was mostly that there are far more interesting things to talk about than atheism vs. Christianity or any 'ism vs. 'ism for that matter. To me the whole discussion is pointless and these sorts of arguments rarely get anyone anywhere except for people get more entrenched in their own opinions. That's why I tend to stay out of them on any forum and not just here on the Dudeism forum, they waste time that I could be out doing something more awesome, like brewing some beer or wasting time on reddit, or uh...you know, working, family and all that other stuff. Point is, lifes too short to waste on these sorts of debates.
I can't think of how just about any forum on the web can be viewed as much more than wasting time but
maybe it's just me. I guess I come here to waste time.
I enjoy the humor that a lot of people have on here. Thank you Dudeism.
Yet whenever a thread is started that has to do with religion (always Christianity) we Dudeist either avoid it and don't speak our minds or it turns into a drag. Dudeism seems to always result in lively discussion that doesn't raise anybodies blood pressure. But mix in a bit of Christianity and the outcome is always either "I just don't get involved" or it's an endless round of the same old nonsense. Sort of like magic really. Add salt and the water gets salty IMO.
I really don't think that most Dudeists would go to a Christian forum and answer posts that criticize Dudeism.
I really would not be bothered. It's just like their opinion man. They are entitled to it.
Quote from: BikerDude on November 26, 2014, 11:36:06 AM
Quote from: Jefftos on November 26, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything. My point was mostly that there are far more interesting things to talk about than atheism vs. Christianity or any 'ism vs. 'ism for that matter. To me the whole discussion is pointless and these sorts of arguments rarely get anyone anywhere except for people get more entrenched in their own opinions. That's why I tend to stay out of them on any forum and not just here on the Dudeism forum, they waste time that I could be out doing something more awesome, like brewing some beer or wasting time on reddit, or uh...you know, working, family and all that other stuff. Point is, lifes too short to waste on these sorts of debates.
Quote from: Jefftos on November 26, 2014, 11:13:14 AM
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
I do believe in other ways. You make one simple statement about religion not being the cause of all the evil in the world and suddenly your dragged into a debate labeled a protestant or pissed off Christian, and told you are arguing. I am certainly not a protestant or a pissed off Christian and I am most certain that I am not arguing. I thought this was the place of Dudely growing and it would appear it is the place of I am more Dude than you so stuff a sock in it Lebowski. I spend my days working out the kinks of a jacked hard enough life body. I am more often than not alone with my thoughts and ideas and came to seek growth through different perspectives, but instead what I have is much effort with little return so maybe Jefftos you are correct in the just read about it philosophy which in the end returns me to postulating and formulating with myself. So crotchety old dudes and Cobra Kia side kicks feel free to smugness. Avoidance is certainly cautiousness, but cautiousness is most certainly not always prudence. My last bit of wisdom for you is there is just as much fear to reason as there is courage make sure your on the side you claim to love for the other leads to folly my friend. And just to clarify if you think this is anger you would be wrong again. It is just the way I type. I have an overly stimulated side of niceness which I would normally use to find the tactful way of typing things, but I am tired, so instead I ask forgiveness for my bluntness. Peace and Love my brothers. One last thing, is the use of than correct or should it have been then???
I'm not saying we shouldn't talk about anything. My point was mostly that there are far more interesting things to talk about than atheism vs. Christianity or any 'ism vs. 'ism for that matter. To me the whole discussion is pointless and these sorts of arguments rarely get anyone anywhere except for people get more entrenched in their own opinions. That's why I tend to stay out of them on any forum and not just here on the Dudeism forum, they waste time that I could be out doing something more awesome, like brewing some beer or wasting time on reddit, or uh...you know, working, family and all that other stuff. Point is, lifes too short to waste on these sorts of debates.
I can't think of how just about any forum on the web can be viewed as much more than wasting time but
maybe it's just me. I guess I come here to waste time.
I enjoy the humor that a lot of people have on here. Thank you Dudeism.
Yet whenever a thread is started that has to do with religion (always Christianity) we Dudeist either avoid it and don't speak our minds or it turns into a drag. Dudeism seems to always result in lively discussion that doesn't raise anybodies blood pressure. But mix in a bit of Christianity and the outcome is always either "I just don't get involved" or it's an endless round of the same old nonsense. Sort of like magic really. Add salt and the water gets salty IMO.
I really don't think that most Dudeists would go to a Christian forum and answer posts that criticize Dudeism.
I really would not be bothered. It's just like their opinion man. They are entitled to it.
I suppose it depends on what you want to waste time on. Some people might consider gaming a waste of time but others enjoy it. I consider religious debate a waste of time but you obviously enjoy it. And that's cool, all I'm saying is it ain't my cup of tea. I even agree with a lot of the stuff you post or at least find it humorous, I just don't care to get involved when it comes to debates in general.
I consider it a waste of time.
I guess I do sort of enjoy it.
Well I did start it.
But I just hate that when I consider if I should post an article like this by a Preacher who lost his faith after 25 years on a board that is a "religious" board of sorts. I have to consider whether or not it's going to incite the ire of Christians and turn into a drag.
That feeling has really come to piss me off. So I sometimes post it.
I enjoy these stories of deconversion. Especially from "men of the cloth". Who generally do after the fact announce that "there are a lot more unbelievers in the priesthood than you would ever believe".
I'm telling you we are approaching a tipping point and I just like that.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 08:13:52 AM
...Cobra Kia side kicks...
I didn't expect to see a Karate Kid reference in this here thread. I like it.
Say what you will, Dude, but at least Cobra Kai is an ethos.
An ethos of intolerance to anyone who is not you breeds nothing worth claiming my friend, and rubbing peoples noses in things isn't better either. I made a simple but true statement that had nothing to do about religion and it was and is still totally overlooked. You raised no ire Biker Dude you just raised questions. I am sorry if I didn't consider that all you wanted to do was rail in peace without all the questions. Your right Jefftos, I did Walter myself into an ism vs ism debate, but I am Duding myself out. Is there any good philosophical topics to partake in were people don't get angry because their underwear is riding up on them or am I banished to the realm of multiple personalities were I know they know me and except me without judgments. On second thought no suggestions necessary I will search for myself. I wish nothing but Dudely peace to you all. Epic fail excepted and moving on.(Lonely Man Theme song plays as I bow out because music makes everything better and it seems overly dramatic like this whole debacle)
Someone's being passive-aggressive. No finger pointing of course...
(Fuck, here we go...)
Ha,ha, deduction would say that was pointed at me, but truth be told I just wanted to see if anyone would pick up on the Late 70s - early 80s Incredible Hulk Theme song reference. I just didn't know how else to write to include it. Now can anyone tell me how one can upload an avatar.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 26, 2014, 06:07:04 PM
An ethos of intolerance to anyone who is not you breeds nothing worth claiming my friend, and rubbing peoples noses in things isn't better either.
Dude, I just wanted to give you props for a semi-obscure reference to an 80s action movie. I love the
David Banner call-back, too. Seriously. I'm not even joking; call me a nerd but I like that stuff.
Your response, however, is vaguely accusatory of moral solipsism. Fair enough but, I hope, not descriptive of anything I've expressed. That's a position Bohr would characterize as "not even wrong." Your original, much better, point seems to be that the religiously-inclined do bad things in the name of religion and the atheistically-inclined do bad things in the name of atheism. I think that's close. However, most of the latter don't take action out of atheism, per se, but some different positive motivation incongruous with religion. Atheism at, is core, is essentially a negative belief. It's difficult to get a positive act from a negative cause. More likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry. But it's all the same: on the larger scale, it seems better to judge the act, not the motivation. Yeah, this all gets back to the utilitarian vs. Kantian argument but, ultimately, they're more opposed philosophically than practically.
Anyway, that's a long way from where I started. I just hope you hang around, post more stuff, and don't take anything posted by me or these other hosers too seriously.
QuoteMore likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry
Pls expound on this.
Jgiffin my original point was the whole point. Like you say, good people do good things bad people do bad things and they will always use what tools they have at hand such as systems like religion and science which is all I wanted to say, but I can get a little Monkish (Tony Shalhoub not Gregorian chant) when you start citing things which makes me read and if it seems like you are picking and choosing the stuff you like and omitting the rest then I am going to question and it doesn't just apply to the atheist or religious call yourself Roger rabbit for all I care if you make me search then I am going to search to death and if I find that you are picking and choosing than I am going to question. I am 100% sure people lose faith as I am 100% sure people gain and maintain faith and are also undecided in things, that is the nature of humanity. We are fickle beings who need affirmation in the things we believe from time to time even if it is only perceived that is more than enough to keep us going and if we don't have that affirmation then we go the other way or we convince ourselves that we are being tested because we can't imagine the world any other way. I didn't mean to give the perception of finger pointing. I meant to make the point of good to good and bad to bad the rest is just slight of hand meant to dazzle and confuse so that you take the bait. I take everything seriously as it is learning, but I hold onto learning only. The whole idea of taking offense at someone because they don't see as me is totally useless and given no hold because to give it hold is to keep from growing. And please don't equivocate the statement of taking all things seriously as meaning there is a stick where the sun don't shine. I party hard and never sweat the small stuff my friend. I appreciate the props and sorry if it felt like I was on the attack. I don't attack I chillax. A moment of anger is a lifetime of love lost so be not angry, but take merriment in those around you drink the drinks, dance the dances, and party on! until next time stay thirsty my friends.(props to Dos equis for one of the best coined phrases.)
I'm done.
OK I grant that I should probably take Hominid's lead here but...
The problem I have with the term "in the name of religion" is that it dismisses the direct effect of scripture.
When southern states pointed to the bible as a defense for slavery and when they continually insisted that "God was on their side" it was the direct effect of scripture.
The same holds true of Homophobia and Misogeny and a host of other common social difficulties.
To say that people are doing this "in the name of religion" is to abstract it away from a direct cause and effect that seems to me to be obvious. The beliefs behind these things are implicit in the words. Not some abstract relationship. To say that they are using this as a tool is in my opinion to add nuance where none exists. It is no coincidence that we see Islamic suicide bombers while we don't see Buddhist suicide bombers. This is a direct effect of scripture that glorifies martyrdom. And to point out that this relationship is not the only factor is in my opinion irrelevant.
The old "good people do good things, bad people bad things" saying is incomplete. It continues "in order to get good people to do bad things you need religion". Of course it's simplistic. I'd include nationalism, racism and a number of other motivations. But to those other causes we do not apply a different standard. There is no one insisting that things are being done "in the name of Nazi'ism" or "in the name of Pol Pot'ism" or "in the name of the White power movement". In these cases we just see that people are motivated by bad ideas. And if someone were to suggest that we should respect Nazi's because a person might have a more nuanced reading of Mein Kampf would be laughable.
Quote
Religious suffering is, at one and the same time, the expression of real suffering and a protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions.
The abolition of religion as the illusory happiness of the people is the demand for their real happiness. To call on them to give up their illusions about their condition is to call on them to give up a condition that requires illusions. The criticism of religion is, therefore, in embryo, the criticism of that vale of tears of which religion is the halo.
Criticism has plucked the imaginary flowers on the chain not in order that man shall continue to bear that chain without fantasy or consolation, but so that he shall throw off the chain and pluck the living flower. The criticism of religion disillusions man, so that he will think, act, and fashion his reality like a man who has discarded his illusions and regained his senses, so that he will move around himself as his own true Sun. . .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRDKf43o9tQ (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRDKf43o9tQ)
Quote from: jgiffin on November 21, 2014, 10:21:29 PM
Oh man, I dig me some Bertrand. Seriously. Greatest philosopher of the modern age. The philo-posers after him spouted infinite pools of irrelevancies. I'm looking at you, Lewis, Wittgenstein, and Derrida...
Russell was capable of great wisdom. But his views could be remarkably callous.
His position was that he saw no problem with the way that Europeans (to be Americans) eradicated the indigenous peoples.
Quote
By a "war of colonization" I mean a war whose purpose is to drive out the whole population of some territory and replace it by an invading population of a different race. Ancient wars were very largely of this kind, of which we have a good example in the Book of Joshua. In modern times the conflicts of Europeans with American-Indians, Maories, and other aborigines in temperate regions, have been of this kind. Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place. They have the merit, often quite fallaciously claimed for all wars, of leading in the main to the survival of the fittest, and it is chiefly through such wars that the civilized portion of the world has been extended from the neighborhood of the Mediterranean to the greater part of the earth?s surface. The eighteenth century, which liked to praise the virtues of the savage and contrast them with the gilded corruption of courts, nevertheless had no scruple in thrusting the noble savage out from his North American hunting grounds. And we cannot at this date bring ourselves to condemn the process by which the American continent has been acquired for European civilization. In order that such wars may be justified, it is necessary that there should be a very great and undeniable difference between the civilization of the colonizers and that of the dispossessed natives. It is necessary also that the climate should be one in which the invading race can flourish. When these conditions are satisfied the conquest becomes justified, though the actual fighting against the dispossessed inhabitants ought, of course, to be avoided as far as is compatible with colonizing. Many humane people will object in theory to the justification of this form of robbery, but I do not think that any practical or effective objection is likely to be made.
Quote from: Hominid on November 27, 2014, 10:22:55 PM
QuoteMore likely, they're motivated by another false idolatry
Pls expound on this.
Just that people are generally more motivated to act by what they believe in, not what they disbelieve. Take your pick of the -isms: socialism, relativism, capitalism, liberalism. I had a couple beverages. The false idolatry thing sounded good but the old testament connotation didn't come across as ironic as I had hoped. I'm also now thinking Hegel would say the positive/negative motivation is false. They define each other in a sense. I dunno, maybe it was a dead end.
I was just curious - it seemed like you were accusing atheists of lacking integrity, assuming their motivations are based on falsities. Maybe I took it out of context.
EDIT: This was meant for jgiffin.
I understand your point. I know you think that I am just saying that because I don't end it there, but it isn't the effect of scripture, as I see it, it is not about scripture alone all words have power. And religion can make good men do bad things not because it is religion but because of the power of belief, and belief is not singularly held by the religious, but by all. You want good people to do bad things then you manipulate their beliefs. You become a distinguished member of their community and give them half truths feed them only the parts that justify their bad behaviors vindicating them of their guilt so they can go home happy. So when you say scrutinize and question I am on board. It is written in the scriptures as well(not just Christian) and even if it wasn't, for a seeker of wisdom and truth to stop and say "well heck it says so right in this one book right here no need to go further." proves them a fool in disguise. I would rather apologize to God or man for not taking them at their word than be the man I detest most. And if anyone ever feels as if I am crotchety then they should know that it is not a crotchetiness because of them but myself because I can picture myself becoming the monsters I hate and that completely bites. Which is why I will take knowledge from where ever I can find it be it the Bible, Koran, Vedic text, Zen, Buddha, Ghandi, Mother Theresa, Ghengis Khan, Roman Empire, Scientific America, Atheist, Polytheist, Monotheist, Shakespeare, Sherlock Holmes, James Bond, Naruto, G.I. Joe, Heman, Voltron, etc.... No need to go further you can see were this is going. Knowledge is everywhere you just need to look.
Quote from: BikerDude on November 28, 2014, 12:35:38 PM
Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place.
BD: Sure, it's callous position but not irrational or unfounded. I'd maybe quibble at calling what happened with the american indians, at least on the whole, a "war" but the outcome was the same. That excerpt from Russell does sort of condone a soft social Darwinism. I'm okay with that.
Hom: I'm sure some atheists lack integrity; but probably no more than any other group. I'm somewhere between an atheist and an anti-theist, myself.
Amo: Yeah, religion is no different than other belief structures that way. We're seeing a lot of it on the political and social science scenes now.
jg the common denominator to them all is people. People who abuse knowledge, the people who support those people which is a mixture of personality types, and people who have an idea and want their ideology to be correct so badly because no one wants to be the one who was so blinded by the certainty of their beliefs only to be proven wrong. Which is why I am always right ha,ha,... Just kidding. I am a there are more things in heaven and earth kind of guy.
Quote from: jgiffin on November 28, 2014, 11:29:29 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on November 28, 2014, 12:35:38 PM
Such wars are totally devoid of technical justification, and are apt to be mor ruthless than any other war. Nevertheless, if we are to judge by results, we cannot regret that such wars have taken place.
BD: Sure, it's callous position but not irrational or unfounded. I'd maybe quibble at calling what happened with the american indians, at least on the whole, a "war" but the outcome was the same. That excerpt from Russell does sort of condone a soft social Darwinism. I'm okay with that.
Hom: I'm sure some atheists lack integrity; but probably no more than any other group. I'm somewhere between an atheist and an anti-theist, myself.
Amo: Yeah, religion is no different than other belief structures that way. We're seeing a lot of it on the political and social science scenes now.
I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!
As far as integrity. I think as a group the atheists by definition are less likely to be credulous.
If a person is duped into something for completely cynical purposes does that mean that they lack integrity or they are fools?
Functionally the effect is the same.
In my experience when people decide that they care whether or not their beliefs are capital "T" true is when they become atheists. The very act of becoming an atheist is usually a statement on the person's views of beliefs being true or not.
Beyond that in my own personal experience (other's may vary) when I think of the most dishonest people I've had the displeasure of knowing they were also religious. At least they claimed to be. And I believe they truly believed it themselves. But I think the very concept of "truth" is a bit hazy in that realm. And when I say dishonest I don't mean unintentionally dishonest. Hypocritical. I mean open their mouth and move their lips and say things that they know are untrue for purely personal reasons.
Quote from: BikerDude on December 01, 2014, 02:56:57 PM
I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!
We can disagree on this one, BD, and I'll concede it's not exactly a dude-like position. But Russell had other thoughts that were certainly dude-ish. Take, for example, his essay "In Praise of Idleness."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I)
(I couldn't find one in Russell's voice - you can skip the 30 second Star Trek scene at the start but I kinda like it). It's a persuasive, if incomplete, criticism of the ways in which work, reward, civilization, and morality have interacted (or, if you prefer, been manipulated) over thousands of years resulting in the current distinctly inequitable, distasteful, and less than optimum state. He ends up somewhat close to a position RevGM has taken on this forum (at least they're similar to my ear). I ultimately disagree with both Russell and Rev, though, because neither have quite explained how all this excess productive capacity and/or time will be fairly apportioned. It seems likely to result in more work for the most qualified members of society and more leisure time for the remainder.
Quote from: jgiffin on December 02, 2014, 09:43:45 PM
Quote from: BikerDude on December 01, 2014, 02:56:57 PM
I guess it's a personal choice. I'm sort of amazed that anyone would take the position that Russell's comments about the treatment of Indigenous people in any way justified. But well Wow!
We can disagree on this one, BD, and I'll concede it's not exactly a dude-like position. But Russell had other thoughts that were certainly dude-ish. Take, for example, his essay "In Praise of Idleness."
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Lfb8mlIe9I)
(I couldn't find one in Russell's voice - you can skip the 30 second Star Trek scene at the start but I kinda like it). It's a persuasive, if incomplete, criticism of the ways in which work, reward, civilization, and morality have interacted (or, if you prefer, been manipulated) over thousands of years resulting in the current distinctly inequitable, distasteful, and less than optimum state. He ends up somewhat close to a position RevGM has taken on this forum (at least they're similar to my ear). I ultimately disagree with both Russell and Rev, though, because neither have quite explained how all this excess productive capacity and/or time will be fairly apportioned. It seems likely to result in more work for the most qualified members of society and more leisure time for the remainder.
He's a complicated person for sure. Difficult to pin down. For instance his earlier quotes about the treatment of the American Indians seems to be at odds with his statements about Palestinian Refugees.
He also said something to the effect that "if killing all the Jews in Europe would bring lasting peace then by all means kill all the jews."
Of course he was making the very point that killing Jews would not bring peace. But he was uniquely capable of dropping nuclear bomb type controversial statements.
Quote
Lord Bertrand Russell addressing an international conference in 1970, wrote the following:
"The tragedy of the people of Palestine is that their country was ?given? by a foreign power to another people for the creation of a new state. The result was that many hundreds of thousands of innocent people were made permanently homeless. With every new conflict their numbers increased. How much longer is the world willing to endure this spectacle of wanton cruelty? It is abundantly clear that the refugees have every right to the homeland from which they were driven, and the denial of this right is at the heart of the continuing conflict. No people anywhere in the world would accept being expelled en masse from their country; how can anyone require the people of Palestine to accept a punishment which nobody else would tolerate? A permanent just settlement of the refugees in their homeland is an essential ingredient of any genuine settlement in the Middle East".
"Message from Bertrand Russell to the International Conference of Parlimentarians in Cairo, February 1970." Reprinted in The New York Times, Feb. 23, 1970.
He's multifaceted for sure.
Quote from: amogorilla77 on November 28, 2014, 02:21:31 PM
You want good people to do bad things then you manipulate their beliefs.
Unless the beliefs don't require any manipulation and are on face value "bad" or "evil".
That is in my opinion one of the ways that religion "makes good people do bad things" or capable of doing bad things.
By loading all the sugar coated stuff up into the same dumpster with the fire and brimstone and insisting that it all is the "word of God" you define belief to include things that don't need to be manipulated at all in order to motivate really bad things.
I'm sure that for instance in "moderate" Muslim countries people are 99% motivated by just the "good stuff".
But when you poll them on the nasty "death to the infidel" type things, a majority still show support. In a country like Egypt which was generally viewed as semi moderate religiously you still get like 60 or 70 percent of people saying that the penalty for leaving the faith should be death. The packaging of the good with the bad seems to be a cunning strategy of carrot and stick type thing. Most people get their commitment from one part but end up feeling obliged to support all the nasty stuff as a result of their commitment. Most don't act on it but the effect is still in service of the Fundamentalist evil fucks. If it weren't for the stepping stone of a moderate version of the faith the average person couldn't be radicalized. Moderates don't talk about the difficult nasty stuff on a day to day basis but when pressed they feel duty bound to support even the worst parts. That is the ticking bomb that religion presents. In good times it's all rosy but when things go bad look out. The means to an end are right there under the surface waiting to come out. Don't forget Hitler's first training and his earliest ambition was to be a priest. He and even Stalin (who was an Atheist but also trained to a priest) knew how to push those buttons. And IMO the buttons are built in for the very purpose. If you only teach the nice stuff what do you do when you need an army?
Never waste a chance to post a video.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgwN2ZvzBSk (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgwN2ZvzBSk)