Atheism

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674412' date='Feb 4 2009, 19.22']I don't know where you read those. In the very conception of Christianity they felt the compulsion to save your soul by telling to convert, wanting you to and soon forcing you to. Once it became popular they wouldn't even kill you if you were a heretic, you had to admit you were wrong and/or accept Jesus as your savior....then they killed you. I have seldom read of a time, where the mass of Christians (Muslims were tolerant for a bit but jumped back in the intolerance business soon as they were down) were just fine and dandy punishing people by damning their souls, usually they liked a little blood first. And they were especially intolerant during Christianity's beginning.[/quote]

We're talking about Christianity pre-adoption by the Roman Empire. They were in no position to force conversations at that point. Hell, in its earliest days it was an open question whether to even extend it to the gentiles. Christians didn't control the reigns of power yet and were much more likely to be persecuted themselves than to violently persecute others.

[quote][b]don't make moronic statements like physical violence was never used. [/b]Physical violence has become an art form thanks to them, starting then.[/quote]

He didn't make that statement. He didn't make anything remotely close to that statement. Shit like this is the reason people don't like bothering to engage you in threads. You are excessively confrontational, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but it makes it pretty clear that you're trying to pick a fight. You are directly insulting to others when there's absolutely no call for it. Matrim has probably been the most thoughtful and polite poster in this thread. He doesn't deserve this kind of shit. And you deliberately misrepresent what others say (or have limited reading comprehension) in order to violently rail against some hyperbolic strawman that's apparently easier tackle than their actual argument.

[Meili]

And let me add that my Scientology, Amish etc. examples was not a strawman throwout. You said [b]religion[/b] correct? I am sorry if there are other crazy ones too but just because yours has the majority in some places doesn't mean that those don't and can't elsewhere. So.... I'll ask again what services would they provide in neat little bundles? Or are you saying [b]your[/b] religion is the only one that does all the providing in one? You'de going to have to be clearer, maybe I am dense but it seems most of your questions are already answered and most of your answers so vague, I don't know the questions.

[Crazydog7]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674040' date='Feb 4 2009, 15.44']No problem. You stated that 'we won't convert people to our side' with yada yada. I am stating there is no '[b]we[/b]', there is nothing to '[b]convert[/b]' to and there is no '[b]side[/b]' here. There is no we because atheism isn't a group of likeminded people. There is nothing to convert to because there is nothing you need to believe in. Rationalists don't walk around trying to win people over with some main argument. School and an education should do that. A non-believer simply says 'I don't believe because ....' and religious people intrepit that as trying to win people over. Why? Because they see and practice that tactic every day and can only imagine others do the same.[/quote]


But aren't these threads about winning people over by argument or at least getting them to understand your point of view? Because if there not then why are we all here? You either debate in a rational civilized manner or you take cheap shots at the other guy.

You also make a base assumption about religious people #1 That all religious people are creationists I do not consider myself a creationist if what you mean by creationist is creationist in the strictest terms. #2 That we all preach and push our views on people ALL the time. I'm a religious secularist yes I believe in god but I also got an education and I have read books other then the bible.

I understand that ultimately the goal of atheism isn't the destruction of religion it is simply the right to express an alternative viewpoint. I'm in favor of that I live in South Carolina in this state and about 6 others atheists cannot even technically can't hold public office. I think that is a crock of shit belief or non belief has no effect on a person's ability to run things in a public sphere.

I think many of your problems stem from a legitimate point of view but also because of problems you have had with religious people in general not religion as a concept.

[Meili]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1674525' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.19']He didn't make that statement. He didn't make anything remotely close to that statement. Shit like this is the reason people don't like bothering to engage you in threads. You are excessively confrontational, which isn't a bad thing on its own, but it makes it pretty clear that you're trying to pick a fight. You are directly insulting to others when there's absolutely no call for it. Matrim has probably been the most thoughtful and polite poster in this thread. He doesn't deserve this kind of shit. And you deliberately misrepresent what others say (or have limited reading comprehension) in order to violently rail against some hyperbolic strawman that's apparently easier tackle than their actual argument.[/quote]
I'll take back the moronic statement part, he said 'rarely' and I misconstrued it. I would hardly say I am intentionally misrepresenting anything in order to continue on the 'violent acts' count. I would rather that entire point go away personally. I came off too strong on that point, my apologies. Though if you are trying to convey to a person that politeness is needed, being insulting while doing so is probably not the best way.

[Meili]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1674532' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.25']But aren't these threads about winning people over by argument or at least getting them to understand your point of view? Because if there not then why are we all here? You either debate in a rational civilized manner or you take cheap shots at the other guy.[/quote]
Yes, but there is no 'winning' people over to a side. The only people who consider it maybe are people on the fence. And no cheap shots like I said above.

ETA - Just cranky because I just noticed the date for ADWD is now in Oct. and I feel dumb for not paying more attention :tantrum:

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1674532' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.25']You also make a base assumption about religious people #1 That all religious people are creationists I do not consider myself a creationist if what you mean by creationist is creationist in the strictest terms. #2 That we all preach and push our views on people ALL the time. I'm a religious secularist yes I believe in god but I also got an education and I have read books other then the bible.[/quote]
I never implied I thought #1 no do I think that and on #2, my point was a group providing services isn't promoting a single religious agenda then why group it as such? Why not just say the Christian guy in the Red Cross who helps to help.
[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1674532' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.25']I think many of your problems stem from a legitimate point of view but also because of problems you have had with religious people in general not religion as a concept.[/quote]
Okay. Once I stopped believing, I was shunned and treated badly by religious people, I'll admit it. But my non-belief is still for the same reasons and I would do it over again, even if it meant losing those people again except I wouldn't have tried so hard to make the relationships work and would've saved myself from some of those experiences.

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Meili' post='1674516' date='Feb 4 2009, 21.10']About Christianity and violence? You'll have to be more specific. It is hard to keep up.[/quote]

Yes it is indeed hard to keep up. Because your claims are bullshit. You take a particular aspect of Christian history (Inquisition), distort and exaggerate it, than apply it to all regions and eras of Christianity 'since it became popular'. The Inquisition didn't pop up til the 12th century. Before that torture and execution was rarely employed against heretics and certainly not in a consistent, systematic way. Even at its height the worst punishments were reserved for the repeat offenders and unrepentant heretics. So your claim that [i]"you had to admit you were wrong and/or accept Jesus as your savior....then they killed you."[/i] is likewise bullshit. The level, extent, and severity of Christian persecution of heretics varied from period to period, and location to location. The more popular forms that you seem to be highlighting (and misstating) did not occur regularly til well into the middle ages.

[quote]So then why is your little group needed? neat? hardly.[/quote]

His little group isn't needed. Nor did he or anyone else claim it is absolutely needed. Neither are most other little groups, secular or otherwise, needed. But a whole hell of alot of people find personal enrichment and a sense of belonging from it. And many of his 'little groups' do a wide variety of good works. If you're going to advocate for their elimination you'll need a better justification than 'Society won't collapse without it'. They have done and continue to do bad things as well. If your argument is that one clearly outweighs the other, than drop your strawmen, your gross generalizations, and actually make that argument.

[quote]I didn't know either each church in each community or each community with one church provides all the [b]needed[/b] functions. :rolleyes:[/quote]

Once again, he did not say this. Once again your are deliberately misrepresenting someone else's post. Read closer.

[quote]Though if you are trying to convey to a person that politeness is needed, being insulting while doing so is probably not the best way.[/quote]

I am not trying to convey that politeness is needed, though in most instances it is generally preferred. However there are cases when the opposite of politeness is called for, like when someone is being needlessly belligerent and insulting like you were. I take what I am given and respond in kind, if someone is behaving like an asshole, they can expect a similar response. You do seem to be missing the larger point. If you intend to have any serious discussion at all on the matter, than it behooves you to take a less belligerent and insulting stance especially when there's no provocation, to carefully read what other people post and to respond to what they actually posted, and to know your shit and not succumb ridiculously loaded questions, bogus generalizations, and outright bullshit.

[Meili]

I am just going to stay out of religion threads I think. Debating this topic is much to big for me to type without coming across like an ass. It is also the topic I feel the most passionate about so it's probably best to just lurk or not enter at all. See ya in politics :leaving: I kid

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

EHK has addressed most of what you wrote already, so I'll just expand the portion below.

[quote name='Meili' post='1674516' date='Feb 4 2009, 22.10']I assumed your argument hinged on more than a 'better a devil we know then a devil we don't' outlook. So your argument is because no mass non-believer organization has risen to take the reins of social programs from the church, we should keep the church on by default? And that makes the religion good how? If your entire point from the first post on was just to try and get someone to say there are currently no gigantic atheist groups to provide these all services singlehanded, fine. You win. Everything else the church does, can be and is being done just fine.[/quote]Let me take a step back. I do not think one should even call it a "non-believer organization," as I do not think that a simple organization of non-belief can suffice in any long-term viability. It has to be positive, though not positive in the sense of being uplifting or optimistic, but it needs to make a positive philosophical claim about the nature of the universe and humanity. Call it a philosophical or philanthropic organization if you will, it ultimately doesn't matter. But humanism is a positive belief system that makes a claim about a naturalistic universe and the development of human ethics. Now there are humanist organizations and societies that are beginning to mimic what one would call "church functions" but from what I can tell, it is a slow and cumbersome process. One of the ways in which I think that humanist societies and organizations (we'll just call them HOs) could possibly win more "converts" (i.e. the church silent atheist or "believers in exile") is to actually extend a hand to working hand-in-hand with religious organizations. That may sound counterintuitive, but as that cliche goes, you attract more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. I believe that HOs should look at their ethical and mission goals and compare them with other religious organizations, institutions, congregations, etc. and see where they match up. In those places, both HOs and ROs should try to work together towards those goals. It is through this process that dialogue can occur between the two that amounts to more than, "We believe in God and you are going to Hell" and "We do not believe in God and you are superstitious idiots." But this would provide a potential means to showcase to the church silent atheists that HOs can replicate the services of ROs.

I do not think that religion should be kept around simply for these services, but I do believe that it is a valuable quality present in religion that also provides for some (but not all) people a psychologically positive experience that is not easily replicated outside of congregations. I also think that it is these qualities that form a part of cultural confessional communities that perhaps make people subconsciously resistant to abandoning belief in God. I realize that there are many other reasons (genetics, economics, education, intelligence, demographics, etc.), but I think this is at least an aspect which I currently focusing.

ETA: That said, I do agree with TerraPrime that Christianity and other religions will adapt and continue to adapt themselves to culture and survive long into the future.

[IheartTesla]

[url="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/02/godless_watch_continued.cfm"]And now for something completely different[/url]:

[quote]READERS are going to start thinking I'm obsessed, but I think the final proof that Barack Obama plans once and for all to elevate respect for Americans who don't practice a religion came at this morning's National Prayer Breakfast:

There is no doubt that the very nature of faith means that some of our beliefs will never be the same. We read from different texts. We follow different edicts. We subscribe to different accounts of how we came to be here and where we’re going next – and some subscribe to no faith at all...[/quote]

I think this Administration will at the very least pay lip service to agnostics, atheists, secularists and "humanists. The remarks above were at the National Prayer Breakfast, something I am obviously not a big fan of.

[potsherds]

[quote name='cyrano' post='1675317' date='Feb 5 2009, 21.10'][url="http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2009/02/godless_watch_continued.cfm"]And now for something completely different[/url]:



I think this Administration will at the very least pay lip service to agnostics, atheists, secularists and "humanists. The remarks above were at the National Prayer Breakfast, something I am obviously not a big fan of.[/quote]
Wow. That whole article makes me hope. What an unusual feeling. :unsure:

[El-ahrairah]

Yes, some atheists can be good people. The excellent authors Asimov and Clarke created much, though they did not consciously acknowledge their own Creator. But how much greater they can be if they do!

[Matrim Fox Cauthon]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1675364' date='Feb 5 2009, 15.50']Yes, some atheists can be good people. The excellent authors Asimov and Clarke created much, though they did not consciously acknowledge their own Creator. But how much greater they can be if they do![/quote]*sigh* *facepalm*

[potsherds]

[quote name='El-ahrairah' post='1675364' date='Feb 5 2009, 21.50']Yes, some atheists can be good people. The excellent authors Asimov and Clarke created much, though they did not consciously acknowledge their own Creator. But how much greater they can be if they do![/quote]
:rofl:
You're lucky you're so young, you're antics are simply cute instead of annoying. :P

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='potsherds' post='1675404' date='Feb 5 2009, 15.15']:rofl:
You're lucky you're so young, you're antics are simply cute instead of annoying. :P[/quote]

Speak for yourself.

He's young. There are plenty of much older people with equally perverted views of reality who suggest or imply that lack of faith = lack of character, express their astonishment that not all atheists are baby eating pedophiles, than wonder why atheists tend to get a bit pissed off by that mentality. He is young, but he's also part of that problem. And when he grows up, there's a good chance that he'll continue to be.

[El-ahrairah]

As it happens I am quite comfortable in my perverted view of reality. (One of the reasons I read fantasy.)

And Potsherds - thanks for calling me cute.

____________________________________

My 333rd post! A most auspicious number, as long as you don't double it...

[Crazydog7]

So atheists feel that they are marginalized by both major parties too? Oh my God we have so much in common. Well at least Christians get ip service around election time.

[Kat]

I wonder if there has ever been an atheism discussion on the entire internet that does not involve:

1. 1+ atheists looking down on religious people for being deluded and/or irrational, if not the source of all the world's problems.
2. 1+ religious people admitting that atheists can be good people too, but it's such a shame they don't see the one true light.
3. A heated discussion on the speed at which natural selection occurs.
4. A heated discussion on the vicious nature of God of the Old Testament and what a bastard he was.


Someone should make a bingo card. :P

ETA: It appears someone has made one for [url="http://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/08/id_bingo_card_2.jpg"]ID debates[/url].

[EHK for Darwin]

[quote name='Crazydog7' post='1675451' date='Feb 5 2009, 15.47']So atheists feel that they are marginalized by both major parties too? Oh my God we have so much in common. Well at least Christians get ip service around election time.[/quote]

Marginalized implies at least 'marginal' representation, right? Yeah, I think you're grossly overstating the kind of consideration atheists get from any of the parties. Christians have all but co-opted one of them and gets lip service from the other, what do they have to whine about?

[potsherds]

[quote name='EHK for a True GOP' post='1675432' date='Feb 5 2009, 22.33']Speak for yourself.

He's young. There are plenty of much older people with equally perverted views of reality who suggest or imply that lack of faith = lack of character, express their astonishment that not all atheists are baby eating pedophiles, than wonder why atheists tend to get a bit pissed off by that mentality. He is young, but he's also part of that problem. And when he grows up, there's a good chance that he'll continue to be.[/quote]
Yes, and if and when that happens, I'll have nothing but scorn for him and his views.



Crazydog, I'd rather that no religions at all were pandered to as part of the function of president, nor required for getting electing to any national office, but since quite obviously Christianity at the least is pandered to on a regular basis, it shouldn't be so surprising that the non-religious feel marginalized by all the religious trappings in the government.

[potsherds]

[quote name='Kat' post='1675464' date='Feb 5 2009, 22.51']I wonder if there has ever been an atheism discussion on the entire internet that does not involve:

1. 1+ atheists looking down on religious people for being deluded and/or irrational, if not the source of all the world's problems.
2. 1+ religious people admitting that atheists can be good people too, but it's such a shame they don't see the one true light.
3. A heated discussion on the speed at which natural selection occurs.
4. A heated discussion on the vicious nature of God of the Old Testament and what a bastard he was.


Someone should make a bingo card. :P

ETA: It appears someone has made one for [url="http://skeptico.blogs.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/09/08/id_bingo_card_2.jpg"]ID debates[/url].[/quote]
Brilliant! Someone needs to get on this, asap.