# Another question for atheists



## Bill Mattocks (Aug 13, 2011)

Thought I'd start a new thread so as not to crap on the other one.  But it reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask.

I've got a friend on Twitter (and now FB) who is an atheist.   She's a good person and I like her just fine (despite her being liberal as well, hehehe).  But she's into this atheist thing and I find some of what she does somewhat mystifying.

For example, she belongs to an atheist group that has meetings on a regular basis.  I'm thinking to myself WHAT on earth do they talk about?  I can picture it now.

"Well, there's no God, I'm pretty sure of that."

"Yep, no God."

"Definitely!  Just say NO to God."

"Uh, OK, then.  What do we talk about for the next hour?"

I mean, once you've established what you don't believe, what else is there to talk about?

And she goes to atheist conventions? Really? What on earth for?  A whole bunch of people all in one place for a week or so, all saying "Yep, we sure don't believe in God.  Sure don't.  Nope, not at all....[crickets]..."

So tell me, atheists.  Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about?  Assuming it's not a secret, of course.

OK, maybe a side-question.  How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion?  I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 13, 2011)

I have to confess that that is something of a mystery to me, Bill viz that people can group together to do just what you humorously parodied above.  

Most people that I know, being English, do not think that there is a God, tho' by no means all feel that way; but altho' we may occasionally pass comment on something that people overly possessed by their religion have done or said in the news, that is about the size of it.  Other than that we just quietly get on with our secular and, strangely given that we don't think there is a God, moral lives.

I might wish that humanity would grow out of what Prof Dawkins so aptly termed the "God Delusion" but it's not going to happen any time soon, so I might as well just accept that many in the world worship something that, as I see it, does not exist and guide their lives by books written by those that seek to control the population through mass indoctrination.

I know that there are a lot of negative terms in what I just wrote but it is what I think.  I don't mean to capriciously offend those that do hold devout beliefs but neither am I not going to give my honest opinion when asked - for if I do I show no respect to myself or the person who has asked me.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Aug 13, 2011)

I imagine a few of them have planning degrees, and want to design a world chalk full of civil rights and what not.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 13, 2011)

Hehehe. Very funny post, Bill. 

Well I've never been to one of those things. I've always been an Atheist, but never identified myself as such since I never thought is an accurate portrayal of my worldview. But it seems to be the term that everyone is adopting so whatever. I wish it was something like 'Secular Humanist' or 'Rationalist' instead. 

I was at a 4th of July parade in CT, and there were about 4 people representing an Atheist group in CT, like the one you speak of. I actually think I heard a lot of 'boos' and stuff from the crowd. Hahaha. I couldn't believe it. I think I'll march with them next year. 

I know that in very religious areas 'closet atheists' don't have many friends to talk to, so it's nice that they have these groups in such places. Some people are actually 'disowned' by their family and stuff because of it. Crazy. 

Regarding 'what would they possibly have to talk about?'

I think it's more just a 'club', like any other. They will talk about politics, sports, science ( and make fun of religions, of course   ). Occasionally organize events, like hiking, parades etc. Also, many people still have a strange view of "Atheists". The word still has negative connotations with it. "Aren't you people like 'mean' or something?"........."Are you a devil worshiper?"  hahahahaha ummmmmm No. 

But simply, if someone asks you if you believe in gods and you say "No" or "I don't know", than you're an Atheist. That's all. Also, many groups are often doing things for the community, like how churches do. 


> OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion? I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.


We don't have problems with 'people', like I said earlier. Unless those people are violent or hateful ( Bin laden, Fred Phelps, etc ). Religious stuff in public is fine and protected by free speech. Things just get messy because no one is very clear on the laws about it and stuff. Like when I heard the 'under god' part at my kids' school. I was gonna say something, BUT I found out that it hasn't been banned yet where I live, so it would be dumb raise a fuss about it to the school ( although it needs to go. That's a no brainer). The laws are all kinda foggy, and no one can see where the line is.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 13, 2011)

My wife's job brings her into contact with many terminally ill people. Talking to her the other day about some of the threads on MT pertaining to religion and such, she made a comment that while talking to people with months and even weeks to live, *all*, are looking for some bit of comfort while faced with dying, and the unknown. No matter what background they come from, when faced with this end game, all are afraid, and looking for something to make sense of life. Most turn to prayer and the feeling that there is something beyond. It's called hope, hope that there is something, *none* are professing and expecting there to be nothing. Not to get off the OP, but I feel this is pertinent.


----------



## Rich Parsons (Aug 14, 2011)

Most of those groups also have Humanism or Humanistic in their names as well. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism


----------



## Razor (Aug 14, 2011)

I've never been to such an event, but I imagine it's similar to why most other like-minded people group together. Just a way of exchanging ideas on a common theme, much like why people have associations for all sorts of things.

I am broadly anti-religious, because I think that religion can and does cause more problems than it solves. Note this does not mean I'm mean to or don't like religious people, it's the organisation and idea of it I dislike, not the people.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

Razor said:


> I've never been to such an event, but I imagine it's similar to why most other like-minded people group together. Just a way of exchanging ideas on a common theme, much like why people have associations for all sorts of things.
> 
> I am broadly anti-religious, because I think that religion can and does cause more problems than it solves. Note this does not mean I'm mean to or don't like religious people, it's the organisation and idea of it I dislike, not the people.




I think you are possibly mistaken in believing 'religion' causes the problem, as with political systems they are inert institutions, it is people who cause the problems and they will do so whether they have a religion or not. Religion is used as an excuse by both those who make the problems and those who are the victims but the motives that drive people to cause wars, persecutions etc are always the same, it's power, wealth, jealousy and the need to be in control that drives people. Take away religions and you will have exactly the same problems just under different 'names'.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are possibly mistaken in believing 'religion' causes the problem, as with political systems they are inert institutions, it is people who cause the problems and they will do so whether they have a religion or not. Religion is used as an excuse by both those who make the problems and those who are the victims but the motives that drive people to cause wars, persecutions etc are always the same, it's power, wealth, jealousy and the need to be in control that drives people. Take away religions and you will have exactly the same problems just under different 'names'.


There are many instances where 'beliefs' are the *direct root* of negative behavior. The anti-gay sentiment in Uganda or the killings of Albino people in pretty much every country in Africa, because people 'believe' that Albino skin, hair etc, has _magical_ properties. If this belief didn't exist the Albinos will not be sought out and murdered. Like here in the USA for example. I can safely say that an overwhelming majority of Americans *do not* believe that Albinos have magical skin/hair, so as a direct result, Albinos are not getting murdered here. And why do we not believe that Albinos' skin/hair have magical properties?  Most of us are familiar with the term _Melanin,_ and that Albino people lack this pigment and that this trait is the product of recessive genes. Science education FTW. 
Of course, humans will find other things to fight about, but it would be nice if this kinda stuff were not in the equation.


----------



## Omar B (Aug 14, 2011)

Why the hell would I meet with other Atheists?  I don't hang out with people simply because I like orange juice or think Superman is cool.

I am an Objectivist so I do go to some of those events, but there again, it's usually about literature or art.


----------



## Razor (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I think you are possibly mistaken in believing 'religion' causes the problem, as with political systems they are inert institutions, it is people who cause the problems and they will do so whether they have a religion or not. Religion is used as an excuse by both those who make the problems and those who are the victims but the motives that drive people to cause wars, persecutions etc are always the same, it's power, wealth, jealousy and the need to be in control that drives people. Take away religions and you will have exactly the same problems just under different 'names'.



I understand what you are saying, but I don't think I make that mistake. True, religion can be used as an excuse for almost anything, and some people do this, but religion also is the direct cause of some issues. We don't know whether the world would be better or worse without religion, but I think some problems would not exist, or would at least decrease. Also I think a related problem is ignorance+religion. People who are poorly educated etc will take religious ideas as (possibly literal) facts which leads to fundamentalism, whereas better educated religious people will not.



fangjian said:


> There are many instances where 'beliefs' are the *direct root* of negative behavior. The anti-gay sentiment in Uganda or the killings of Albino people in pretty much every country in Africa, because people 'believe' that Albino skin, hair etc, has _magical_ properties. If this belief didn't exist the Albinos will not be sought out and murdered. Like here in the USA for example. I can safely say that an overwhelming majority of Americans *do not* believe that Albinos have magical skin/hair, so as a direct result, Albinos are not getting murdered here. And why do we not believe that Albinos' skin/hair have magical properties?  Most of us are familiar with the term _Melanin,_ and that Albino people lack this pigment and that this trait is the product of recessive genes. Science education FTW.
> Of course, humans will find other things to fight about, but it would be nice if this kinda stuff were not in the equation.



Indeed. I think it would reduce some problems, as it would further rationality over religious ideas or other superstitious beliefs.


----------



## aedrasteia (Aug 14, 2011)

seasoned said:


> My wife's job brings her into contact with many terminally ill people. Talking to her the other day about some of the threads on MT pertaining to religion and such, she made a comment that while talking to people with months and even weeks to live, *all*, are looking for some bit of comfort while faced with dying, and the unknown. No matter what background they come from, when faced with this end game, all are afraid, and looking for something to make sense of life. Most turn to prayer and the feeling that there is something beyond. It's called hope, hope that there is something, *none* are professing and expecting there to be nothing. Not to get off the OP, but I feel this is pertinent.



thanks. Its the most pertinent comment so far. What does your wife do in those situations?

What we do - to, with and for - other people as well as ourselves  is what reveals us all. Professions of theory, beliefs, arguments, debates...all shrink to noise . I look and consider what people actually _do_ in the face of the "joys, sorrows and troubles of life". 

Comfort, care, laugh, lift the spirit, feed, clothe, figure out how to help and then do it. Expand our reach to more people, speak with compassion, hold back (and eventually dissolve) cruel words and cynicism, keep silent and stay close when words fail. Wash the floors that need washing, do the unglamorous, do what is close to hand.

Allow your heart to break open. tell the dying (which means each of us) what is true in that moment, the truths which seem to be all we need to hear  - I'm here, you're not alone. I care for you... and show them, with touch and presence. Do the laundry, hold the hand. Stay when the process is long or hard or ugly. Forgive yourself, forgive others, step back into the confusion and take the next step.

Atheisist, believer, unknown - all have done it. and others have failed. The surface noise seems to be less connected to the deep sources. I've seen no reliable connection between what people profess and what they actually do.

I don't care what 'theory' or 'belief' underlies.  My interest in those beliefs and theories has mostly eroded in the face of reality. and what people do - or don't.  

My 'belief'?  No matter what set of words are professed on the surface, the true, silent source of generosity, kindness, compassion, generosity, strong heart... *that's the presence of 'god-ness'.*  I want to recognize and honor it whenever I wake up enough to see it and find any ways that help to grow it in myself.  

the *real* thing, not fake, not twisted, not noisy, not 'appearance', not sneering or snarky or judgemental or disapproving or smug or cheap or weak or superficial. 

Any step which helps me build that real heart...thats what i call god.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

It seems quite often though it is the better educated that are the fundamentalists not the less educated. I doubt that the world's problems would decrease if religions ceased to exist tbh, you don't really think the Middle East conflicts are about religions or that Northern Ireland's Troubles are actually about religious differences do you? That India's problems are just about Muslims versus Hindus? Look deeper into the problems and you will see the real cause, land, power and earth. The Crusades weren't about 'saving' Jerusalem from the Infidels, nor the Protestant v Catholic arguments about faith, it was power between sovereigns and the Popes. Look to human nature rather than the meaningless word 'religion' for the answers to the world's problems.


----------



## Razor (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> It seems quite often though it is the better educated that are the fundamentalists not the less educated. I doubt that the world's problems would decrease if religions ceased to exist tbh, you don't really think the Middle East conflicts are about religions or that Northern Ireland's Troubles are actually about religious differences do you? That India's problems are just about Muslims versus Hindus? Look deeper into the problems and you will see the real cause, land, power and earth. The Crusades weren't about 'saving' Jerusalem from the Infidels, nor the Protestant v Catholic arguments about faith, it was power between sovereigns and the Popes. Look to human nature rather than the meaningless word 'religion' for the answers to the world's problems.



Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.

Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.


----------



## Big Don (Aug 14, 2011)

Razor said:


> . Also I think a related problem is ignorance+religion.


You don't have to add anything to ignorance to be dangerous.


----------



## Razor (Aug 14, 2011)

Big Don said:


> You don't have to add anything to ignorance to be dangerous.



Very true! I think extras can make things worse in certain combinations though.


----------



## seasoned (Aug 14, 2011)

aedrasteia said:


> thanks. Its the most pertinent comment so far. What does your wife do in those situations?


She listens, not with an open heart, but, from the heart. There are no pat answers, and each is dealt with in the moment. Her interaction is but an opportunity in the whole process, and she feels blessed to be a part of it.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

Razor said:


> Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.
> 
> Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.



I assume nothing having studied the causes of wars at Staff College, so show me any conflict that is about religion alone.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I assume nothing having studied the causes of wars at Staff College, so show me any conflict that is about religion alone.


Obviously you can't. There are always other variables, and you can say that about anything. Show me a war that was fought about land alone. Or money, alone.


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> Obviously you can't. There are always other variables, and you can say that about anything. Show me a war that was fought about land alone. Or money, alone.



How long have you got? I can show you plenty of wars purely about land, wealth ( not necessaroty money btw) and power. The world has a long history of such wars, what do you think the Roman empire was about?


----------



## fangjian (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> How long have you got? I can show you plenty of wars purely about land, wealth ( not necessaroty money btw) and power. The world has a long history of such wars, what do you think the Roman empire was about?


My areas of study would be martial arts and a few sciences. I will not pretend that I know exactly what Rome was all about. Let's say that "there are wars fought solely about land". Ok. So you think that wars or conflicts haven't occurred because of conflicting religious views?


----------



## Razor (Aug 14, 2011)

Tez3 said:


> I assume nothing having studied the causes of wars at Staff College, so show me any conflict that is about religion alone.



You do however seem to be assuming that I think the only bad thing that has come of religion is conflict. So, what have you to say about fundamentalist terrorism? Maybe they want money or power instead, or don't really believe in religion?


----------



## Tez3 (Aug 14, 2011)

fangjian said:


> My areas of study would be martial arts and a few sciences. I will not pretend that I know exactly what Rome was all about. Let's say that "there are wars fought solely about land". Ok. So you think that wars or conflicts haven't occurred because of conflicting religious views?



It's a convenient title to ensure that ones followers, follow. The war isn't likely to be about the religion per se but about grabbing land etc but you aren't going to get many to support your invading your neighbour is you say that so turn it into a 'Holy' war and there you go, people fighting for righteousness.
the Roman Empire was solely about land, wealth and power, not religion, they didn't convert anyone to theirs, just invaded, took over and became rish and powerful.

Show me a war that is about religion then and I'll show you the real motives behind it.
What makes you think fundamentalists are immune to power and wealth?


----------



## Sukerkin (Aug 14, 2011)

From a historical perspective, it is nigh impossible (if not actually impossible) to separate out the various elements that caused a war to  begin.  

What has been seen is that it is very much easier to evince the support of the population if there is a way to 'demonise' the opposition.  Historically, this has been most easily done by the use of religion as a 'lever of difference'.  It should be noted that this has not always been at the behest of the holders of religious authority but almost without exception it has been with their complicity (very often with a baggage of most un-spiritual goals).

With the rise of nationalism it has become possible to replace an 'appeal to God' with an 'appeal to country' but in our current crop of conflicts, it is seem that, once again, it is the religion of the enemy that is the drum that is beaten.


----------



## Blade96 (Aug 14, 2011)

I'm agnostic. And as my fb profile says if I ever need a religion I'll worship tetley tea. 

That said no i do not get together with other agnoztics. I talk to anyone who's nice. people of all beliefs about anything.


----------



## David43515 (Aug 14, 2011)

Only had time to read Bill`s origin post so far (fear not, I plan to read it all after lunch because it sounds like an interesting topic and I honestly want to hear what people think) but the first thing I thought of was the Gentlemen`s Club (no, not stripjoint) that was run by Sherlock Holmes brother, Mycroft, ran in some stories. It was a club for people who didn`t like clubs....the members were free to use all the facilities as long as they didn`t speak to each other.


----------



## Balrog (Aug 14, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> OK, maybe a side-question.  How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion?


I'm agnostic, not atheistic.  I am, however, strongly anti-religion.  I found out quite some time ago that religion is a lie from start to finish.


----------



## cdunn (Aug 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So tell me, atheists. Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about? Assuming it's not a secret, of course.
> 
> OK, maybe a side-question. How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion? I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.



I haven't gotten my *** out to the "local" meetings, mostly cause of how far away they are, but mostly, the meetings tend to, as I understand it, generally be social hour, with a bit more science talk than you'd get at your local bar. Individuals may or may not gripe about the religious. 

If you look at the convention schedules, they tend to bring in speakers to talk science, especially evolution, ethics, philosophy, and yes, arguments against religion. There are discussions of personal experiences. There is the general community mixing, which can be worthwhile on its own - It's good to socialize, and it feels good to socialize with those who generally share portions of your background. People are tribal. 

I'm not much of one for religion, personally. I think it's irrational, but, aside from making sure that people understand that, hey, it's okay not to believe, I would be happy to live and let live. However, I find that the responses of organized religion to various social ills tends to make extremely, extremely poor public policy, and then you read the personal horror stories.


----------



## CoryKS (Aug 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> I mean, once you've established what you don't believe, what else is there to talk about?



I don't know, maybe they could talk about politics.  You know, like we do on a forum devoted to martial arts.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Aug 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> Thought I'd start a new thread so as not to crap on the other one. But it reminded me of a question I have been meaning to ask.
> 
> I've got a friend on Twitter (and now FB) who is an atheist. She's a good person and I like her just fine (despite her being liberal as well, hehehe). But she's into this atheist thing and I find some of what she does somewhat mystifying.
> 
> ...



I have to say the whole bit about "atheist group that has meetings on a regular basis" is currently making as much sense to me as an Anarchist convention 



CoryKS said:


> I don't know, maybe they could talk about politics. You know, like we do on a forum devoted to martial arts.



Stop being so damn logical... :uhyeah:


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2011)

I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious.  I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time.  As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers.  I enjoy learning about religions.  I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories.  I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.  

Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion.  For example, efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group.  The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics.  That sort of thing.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 15, 2011)

stevebjj said:


> I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious.  I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time.  As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers.  I enjoy learning about religions.  I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories.  I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.
> 
> Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion.  For example, *efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group.  The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. * That sort of thing.


  Big time!


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 15, 2011)

Razor said:


> Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.
> 
> Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.



I don't think religion is usually the main or even partial cause of war. As other posters have mentioned, things are done in the name of religion, and people can be convinced to buy into religion as a reason for conflict. However, most religions teach some form of love for fellow man, which normally precludes war as a means of solving problems. As a Christian, I deplor the use of the term Christian describing one side in a conflict for just that reason. I don't think a true Christian can buy into killing others only because they are not Christian. 



Razor said:


> You do however seem to be assuming that I think the only bad thing that has come of religion is conflict. So, what have you to say about fundamentalist terrorism? Maybe they want money or power instead, or don't really believe in religion?



My personal belief is that most who hide behind religion to engage in criminal activity are in fact criminals seeking cover for their crime sprees. Murder is murder, theft is theft. Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.

EDIT:  Razor - I meant to ask, what is your definition of a fundamentalist?  I ask that since I am a fundamentalist, but I don't fit in the "fundamentalist terrorism" category.  When applied to religion, based on my belief that most fundamentalist terrorists are hiding behind religion, I almost think religious fundamentalist terrorism is an oxymoron.


----------



## oftheherd1 (Aug 15, 2011)

Razor said:


> Perhaps, but not generally. Last research I looked at showed a mild negative relationship between levels of fundamentalism and education. That was from a while ago though, it would be interesting to see if and how it has changed.
> 
> Okay, well that's just a difference of opinion then isn't it. I think it is unfair to lump all of these conflicts together. You cannot just assume that land and power (or any causes) are the dominant factors in all conflicts. Religion can be another cause of friction between people, functioning as yet another dividing line which exacerbates existing problems.





stevebjj said:


> I'm not so much an atheist as I am areligious. I don't give religion much thought, nor do I give people who are religious a hard time. As far as I'm concerned, it's your thing. We're all making our own way in this world and no one has all the answers. I enjoy learning about religions. I like hearing the stories and philosophies and histories. I am not at all interested in discussions about whether they are factual or not.
> 
> Regarding what an atheist meeting might talk about, I would assume (but this is just a WAG) that they talk about issues related to religion. For example, *efforts by school districts to teach creationism as a science, or to teach evolution as a religious belief might be very concerning to an organized atheist group. The resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics. *That sort of thing.





fangjian said:


> Big time!



Interesting side topics:

If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?

If there is a "*resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics*" how do you define it as wrong? The founding fathers seem to have believed in religion having written it into some of our founding documents. And they only seem to have believed that the federal government should stay out of religion since they didn't prohibit the States from doing so; not prohibiting those States that had State religion.

Bill Mattocks - if you think that is derailing you thread let me know and I will delete this post and perhaps start another unless the mods object.


----------



## fangjian (Aug 15, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.


Many of the violent among the religious populations, are simply only doing what the gods commanded from the beginning. The only reason the mainstream don't 'kill unbelievers' or 'stone their children', is because their views are also influenced by the modern age. Extremists are just pure uncut religion. The bible and Quran say some of these things and they are doing as commanded. 


oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting side topics:
> 
> If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?


How is that?  Science as most define the topic, is the methodology of observation and experiments to verify hypotheses. Many religions deal with the exact same questions (how did the universe begin, how did life begin, why is life so diverse  ?  ), except they do not use the same rigorous methods. Like if a supposed miracle occurred, it is asserted that it occurred, and there are no experiments/observations done to find out was is true and what isn't.


----------



## Steve (Aug 15, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> Interesting side topics:
> 
> If you are an atheist, must not all religions then be based on science?


Not sure what you're suggesting.  Atheists don't disbelieve in religion.  Religions exist, whether there is a god or not.  





> If there is a "*resurgence of religious rhetoric in politics*" how do you define it as wrong? The founding fathers seem to have believed in religion having written it into some of our founding documents. And they only seem to have believed that the federal government should stay out of religion since they didn't prohibit the States from doing so; not prohibiting those States that had State religion.


Just to be clear, I don't attend atheist conventions, so I don't speak for them.   I was simply speculating at what they might talk about.  My thought is that an organized atheist group will have a political agenda that likely includes limiting the influence of religion in government.  We see now as we have in the past politicians using religion to influence voters.  The truth of the religious beliefs are irrelevant to the uses of religion to control and influence people.  I would think this would be concerning to a group of organized atheists.


----------



## Nomad (Aug 15, 2011)

Bill Mattocks said:


> So tell me, atheists.  Do you get together with other atheists on a regular basis (you know, kind of like religious folk go to services) and if so, what on earth do you talk about?  Assuming it's not a secret, of course.
> 
> OK, maybe a side-question.  How many of you are not religious, versus anti-religion?  I have noted that some atheists aren't just non-believers, they also seem to have a problem with people who are, either due to having been persecuted (in fact or imagination) or they think that they're being oppressed by living in a society that clearly celebrates religion in public with all the holidays and such.



In answer to your first question, nope.  I have better things to do with my time and money than attend such a conference.  I will have civil discussions with anyone of similar or opposing beliefs to mine, which I think help to clarify my own reasons for the beliefs I do hold and those that I simply don't buy into.  Often over a few drinks.  I don't try to "convert" anyone so much as explain my own world view; hopefully to foster acceptance of differing viewpoints with each other.

In response to your 2nd question; I have no difficulty with anyone else's faith.  I get very angry however when people use religious beliefs to push policy, foster hatred of others, or bully those who believe differently than they do, or who attempt to convert or "save" me.  Faith is fine; zealotry is abhorrent to me.  Disregarding the best information that modern science has on many of the fundamental questions (such as how we got here) in favor of folktales and parables written thousands of years ago to answer the same questions is both foolhardy and dangerous.


----------



## Razor (Aug 15, 2011)

oftheherd1 said:


> I don't think religion is usually the main or even partial cause of war. As other posters have mentioned, things are done in the name of religion, and people can be convinced to buy into religion as a reason for conflict. However, most religions teach some form of love for fellow man, which normally precludes war as a means of solving problems. As a Christian, I deplor the use of the term Christian describing one side in a conflict for just that reason. I don't think a true Christian can buy into killing others only because they are not Christian.



Doesn't seem to be the cause of many conflicts any more, but my point is, it's another dividing factor which causes social friction needlessly. Religion is generally inherently insular; although it may bring together people who have the religion in common, it de facto separates them from other groups, much like tribalism. In many ways this has declined greatly in modern countries (I don't think it makes much difference to people going about their daily lives), but it can still influence how people may interact at the individual and group levels. 




oftheherd1 said:


> My personal belief is that most who hide behind religion to engage in criminal activity are in fact criminals seeking cover for their crime sprees. Murder is murder, theft is theft. Hiding it behind false religious interpretations doesn't change that. I don't know of a major religion that truely advocates violating law as justifiable. If someone is a practioner of a religion that does, please correct me and show me in your sacred writings where that is true.



I've heard this one before many times before, many religious people are adamant than people who disagree with them and commit crimes are not a true part of the religion. I can understand why the upstanding majority would want to disown them, but I don't think that the argument is valid. Maybe they think that you are not the true believer. See my point? Also, many extremists really believe in what they are doing; they are not evil, just extremely faithful to whatever interpretation of religious texts they have.

On a lighter note, I believe Pastafarianism advocates piracy; I'm sure it's there somewhere in the Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti....



oftheherd1 said:


> EDIT:  Razor - I meant to ask, what is your definition of a fundamentalist?  I ask that since I am a fundamentalist, but I don't fit in the "fundamentalist terrorism" category.  When applied to religion, based on my belief that most fundamentalist terrorists are hiding behind religion, I almost think religious fundamentalist terrorism is an oxymoron.



A fundamentalist is somebody who believes in the literal interpretation of religious texts, doctrines, theologies etc. Of course, I'm sure many fundamentalists are not terrorists; the terms are not interchangeable. Many just believe that the Earth is 6000 years old, or that an intermediary fossil has to be half one thing, half another thing or perhaps that they should throw acid in the faces of females who dare to go to school. They could be at many points on the scale, but of course, fundamentalists don't necessarily do anything wrong.


----------

