Atheism

[MinDonner]

I'm seeing it more as a backlash, possibly driven by the almost-theocracy that America has been suffering under for the last 8 years. The Christian Right over there is actively taking an interest in the affairs of godless Europe, and there seems to be a lot more strident religiousness around, which is countered by the strident atheism of eg. Richard Dawkins, which then brings the whole debate out into the open (where it previously really wasn't). Religion is a lot more on the defensive now and is making noises in areas where previously it just assumed its existing privileges would suffice.

[Crazydog7]

As Atheism goes I don't have a problem with it as a school of thought my issue with atheism is as I have always said a matter of perspectives I am a believer and theretofore atheism is the outside group bent on mayhem and destruction. If I were an atheist I would have to say that religion is one of the two R's that collectively hold us back as a species.

Of course I see it that way it does not mean that it is an accurate point of view. I also have my own problems with religion and therefore not as religious as I probably should be but if God does exist and he is merciful he should understand that some of his children have questions.

Should priests/preachers be exempt from taxes? I don't think they should. Should they be excused from any act of corruption that occurs weather it is fraud, pedophilia or clandestine gay sex because "the devil made me do it" or "God forgave me" bullshit you back peddling asshole you let power get the best of you.

Should religious institutions donate to political causes and candidates? No the business of the clergy is sin and winning souls for the lord it disgusts and maddens me that the right (and the left is getting more like this all the time) is to some extents "in bed" with religiosity

The line from the departed i've always like is at the beginning when Jack Nikleson says "we had the church but that was just another way of saying we had each other"

Anyway point is that until atheists and atheism become organized to become a more vocal and positive force in society religion is always going to have the upper hand.

Religion can offer people hope even if it is ultimately a false hope whist the main atheist argument seems to be stop fooling yourself. Pardon the term but you guys aren't going to convert many people with that logic. Dialog at some point has to be archived between both groups or we are going to continue to have sardonic posts that don't add anything to the conversation in some way shape or form.

[Red Sun]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1673298' date='Feb 4 2009, 10.29']Should priests/preachers be exempt from taxes? I don't think they should. Should they be excused from any act of corruption that occurs weather it is fraud, pedophilia or clandestine gay sex because "the devil made me do it" or "God forgave me" bullshit you back peddling asshole you let power get the best of you.[/quote]

I have to ask: Are priests/preachers exempt from taxes in the U.S.? That would really give them a different position vis-à-vis the rest of the population. In Germany, even though, religions organisations have some financial benefits, individuals who recieve paychecks from them, including priests/pastors etc., pay taxes like everybody else. And I think, it's similary in many other countries.

[Stubby]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1673308' date='Feb 4 2009, 19.08']I have to ask: Are priests/preachers exempt from taxes in the U.S.? That would really give them a different position vis-à-vis the rest of the population. In Germany, even though, religions organisations have some financial benefits, individuals who recieve paychecks from them, including priests/pastors etc., pay taxes like everybody else. And I think, it's similary in many other countries.[/quote]

Same here. Priests are taxed, but not certified religious institutions, unless they are a business owned by the church IIRC.

[Happy Ent]

About bigotry and sexism:
[quote name='Dornish' post='1673100' date='Feb 4 2009, 05.35']You're correct about the world throughout time, but in the US today I'd say the Abrahamic faiths deserve 99% of the blame.[/quote]
Be careful what you wish for. I think the case [i]for[/i] bigotry and sexism is [i]much easier[/i] to make “from evolution” than “from intelligent and caring creation”.

Evolutionary, homosexuals are a puzzle at best, a mistake at worst. Evolutionary, the best place for women is barefooted and pregnant. So if you follow the is->ought fallacy then a narrow evolutionary reading of the purpose of human life would align you well with political and ideological viewpoints that you may not be prepared to share.

On the other hand, [i]God[/i] created everyone equal. (Nature for sure didn’t. She’s a heartless bitch.) So arguments [i]for equality[/i] are at least as easy to make from religion.

(There’s no mystery, of course. The case against bigotry is not a factual claim that humans are biologically indistinguishable, or that your reproductive success is the only yardstick by which your worth should be measured. But many people disagree with that and insist on basing their (laudable) beliefs about how society works on (questionable) claims about [i]reality[/i], claims that are ultimately religious, even though they don’t refer to a deity’s agency.)

[Guest Other-in-law]

[quote name='Red Sun' post='1673308' date='Feb 4 2009, 05.08']I have to ask: Are priests/preachers exempt from taxes in the U.S.?[/quote]
This subject came up at Christmastime (one of my family's guests was a nun). For the most part, yes, US clergy have to pay personal income taxes, social security, etc, like everyone else. There's a small exception for members of religious orders whose members have taken a vow of poverty, and receive no wages (instead their material needs are provided by their orders, which are generally tax-exempt organisations).

Some of them would have had the option of electing to have wages and be taxed, but the decisions would have varied with the order and chapter. Our guest did, but she was an exception for those affiliated with the Rochester diocese which had elected against it as a body; she had moved from New Jersey and had already declared differently before her transfer. The downside of not being taxed is that you can't draw any social security benefits after retiring, so you'd hope the order is still capable of providing for you....increasingly in doubt as the average age goes higher and the number of vocations continues to drop.

Non-profit religious properties are generally exempt from real estate taxes, though sometimes churches that are overly active in politics lose that status.

[JGP]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1673226' date='Feb 4 2009, 00.23']Peace?[/quote]

Peace.

Absolutely. :)

[Meili]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1673298' date='Feb 4 2009, 03.29']Anyway point is that until atheists and atheism become organized to become a more vocal and positive force in society religion is always going to have the upper hand.[/quote]

Then common sense would be made into another institution just like religion not to mention that since none of us are alike and we don't share any beliefs, it's a bit hard to form a group.

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1673298' date='Feb 4 2009, 03.29']Religion can offer people hope even if it is ultimately a false hope whist the main atheist argument seems to be stop fooling yourself. Pardon the term but you guys aren't going to convert many people with that logic. Dialog at some point has to be archived between both groups or we are going to continue to have sardonic posts that don't add anything to the conversation in some way shape or form.[/quote]
It's not [b]'you guys'[/b] and if you believe a woman was made from a man's rib, try not to state that you think religion 'converts' people logically. And that's not the main argument (non-belief is the [b]only[/b]thing that descibes rationalists) and it's not a conversion to stop believing in god. You didn't 'convert' as a person when you stopped believing in Santa did you?

[El-ahrairah]

What do you think of the A.D./B.C. dating system? Does it lend support to the Christian religion? Ought it to be replaced with the entirely meaningless BCE/ACE system? Or do the Humanist crusaders wish to drop the whole calander and count years from Darwin's birth?

[Meili]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1673578' date='Feb 4 2009, 09.46']What do you think of the A.D./B.C. dating system? Does it lend support to the Christian religion? Ought it to be replaced with the entirely meaningless BCE/ACE system? Or do the Humanist crusaders wish to drop the whole calander and count years from Darwin's birth?[/quote]

I think we keep it and I have never heard different. Why would someone celebrate Darwin's birthday or base our system we count years on Darwin? That's ridiculous.

[IheartTesla]

I am perfectly fine with AD/BC or whatever. Or using Norse gods for days of the week. There is nothing wrong with accknowledging the impact of religion on society over the ages. Of course that doesnt imply any endorsement of the underlying message of the religion the names or dates are grokked from. It is just a convenient shorthand.

I would also say in everyday conversation "Let's go to the Starbucks by the church for a coffee" rather than "Why dont we meet at the quaint drinking establishment with overpriced legal drugs by the funny shaped building with the steeple and portraits of bearded folk within". Doesnt mean I agree with what the priests are saying within the building.

[MinDonner]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1673578' date='Feb 4 2009, 15.46']What do you think of the A.D./B.C. dating system? Does it lend support to the Christian religion? Ought it to be replaced with the entirely meaningless BCE/ACE system? Or do the Humanist crusaders wish to drop the whole calander and count years from Darwin's birth?[/quote]

:rofl:

Yeah, you've got us bang to rights. :rolleyes: The most significant event in the history of the West was definitely the birth of Darwin, as far as we atheists are concerned, nothing else comes close. WTF is it with Christians thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist messiah?


Also:
How is BCE/ACE "entirely meaningless" when it means exactly the same thing as BC/AD? Did you mean "redundant" instead? Personally, I have no problem with either system; simply referring to a year as Anno Domini does not mean that I believe in the Dominus in question. Given a choice, I think I'd still rather change to BCE/ACE, just cos language is important, but it's not something I care that much about.

[HT Reddy]

If anyone is interested in the history of atheism over the last 200 years or so, Alister MacGrath's book, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. It's pretty interesting.

[El-ahrairah]

BCE/ACE is meaningless because the said "Common Era" does not refer to anything secular, but to the supposed birth date of a certain Judean carpenter.

As for Darwin, I agree it is somewhat arbitrary, but what else would be chosen? 1917, for the glorious Revolution? 1945, for the start of our happy nuclear age?

[Slick Mongoose]

[quote name='HT Reddy' post='1673616' date='Feb 4 2009, 16.14']If anyone is interested in the history of atheism over the last 200 years or so, Alister MacGrath's book, The Twilight of Atheism: The Rise and Fall of Disbelief in the Modern World. It's pretty interesting.[/quote]

The title is not promising. Atheism seems more popular that it's ever been.

[Guest Raidne]

[quote name='slick mongoose' post='1673637' date='Feb 4 2009, 11.27']The title is not promising. Atheism seems more popular that it's ever been.[/quote]

The author treats atheism as a movement that is in decline since so-called atheists governments - like the Soviet Union - have collapsed. And he notes that atheism as a movement has led to very bad things, like fascism. I, for one, think it's pointless to talk about what governments who purport to be religious or atheists have brought about - there's plenty of mud to be slung on both sides.

I do there's something interesting there about the notion of having a secular government as opposed to an atheist government, and how atheist governments have been just as destructive to fee thought as religious governments have.

[Dornish]

[quote name='Raidne' post='1673652' date='Feb 4 2009, 11.34']I do there's something interesting there about the notion of having a secular government as opposed to an atheist government, and how atheist governments have been just as destructive to fee thought as religious governments have.[/quote]There's the potential for repression in any government. It is worth noting that the world has yet to see a truly atheistic government that wasn't tainted by authoritarian communism.

[Meili]

[quote name='MinDonner' post='1673605' date='Feb 4 2009, 10.06']:rofl:

Yeah, you've got us bang to rights. :rolleyes: The most significant event in the history of the West was definitely the birth of Darwin, as far as we atheists are concerned, nothing else comes close. WTF is it with Christians thinking that Darwin is some kind of atheist messiah?[/quote]

Exactly. Darwin doesn't even have anything to do with non-belief. He is just one of the many scientists who provided an answer to one of the numerous things religion had previously used their 'god did it' answer on. Should we celebrate Voltaire's birthday and other philosopher's as well as the scientists? What about writers like Mark Twain and Ernest Hemmingway? The list goes on and still, they have nothing to do with non-belief.

And thank you for pointing that out Dornish. The world has not had an Atheistic country yet and probably never will. People who are in charge, sure, but the country..never. And the Soviet Union example is ridiculous as well. They simply replaced worship of good with worship of the state and that the state was another form of god. Still worship either And even then, the majority of the country still believed in a diety of some sort despite the policies of the government.way.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Kat' post='1673188' date='Feb 4 2009, 06.24']Do I have to like humans? :unsure:[/quote]
:lol:

[Galactus]

To be honest I prefer BCE/CE mainly because it's consistent: You don't have to switch the space of the era-name.

There is also the annoying factor that BC/AD are in two different languages.

On the other hand, it's probably not particularly accurate where Jesus' actual birthdate is concerned, so...