# What exactly is atheism? (offshoot of same sex thread)



## Monkey Turned Wolf

This seems to be deterring the other thread a bit, and while I'm declining to post in it , would rather not see atheism hijack the thread (but I also want to see/possibly participate in an atheism thread). However, as I am a lutheran and while I have an atheist brother, and know a bit about their philosophy/belief, it would be better for someone else to explain it all. So hopefully someone picks this up to explain the belief, and the thread doesn't die before it begins.
EDIT: sorry if this is in the wrong place, was not entirely sure where it would fit.


----------



## granfire

defense mechanism of religion damaged people....

At least it seems to me that a lot of people who claim to be atheists have suffered greatly from over zealous 'spiritual' guidance. 

Of course, there is a less cynical explanation, I am sure.


----------



## jezr74

Well for me, I don't believe in any of the gods. 

None of it makes sense to me, and I can't logically convince myself they are real. I have never found any credible evidence of anything divine.

I generally don't associate labels with it, but is easy to say atheist. So for me, it's not a philosophy, it's not a belief, it just how I am.


----------



## Carol

Disbelief in the ethereal.


----------



## Monkey Turned Wolf

jezr74 said:


> Well for me, I don't believe in any of the gods.
> 
> None of it makes sense to me, and I can't logically convince myself they are real. I have never found any credible evidence of anything divine.
> 
> I generally don't associate labels with it, but is easy to say atheist. So for me, it's not a philosophy, it's not a belief, it just how I am.


This may be the labeling you're referring to, but they're the easiest way to understand these things..wouldn't that be closer to being agnostic than atheist?


----------



## jezr74

kempodisciple said:


> This may be the labeling you're referring to, but they're the easiest way to understand these things..wouldn't that be closer to being agnostic than atheist?



When I was younger I guess I was agnostic, but definitely not for a long time now. You have to consider too that its not a way of life, for Christians, your in a lifestyle. 

I don't really think about it other than when it comes up in conversation, it doesn't make me behave a certain way or have judgments or any rules to stick by.

I have human values and morals like anyone else.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Carol

What is common to atheists I think is a disbelief in a deity, but what is not necessarily common is an agreement whether the existence of a deity is a condition that is always false.  I think this  has less to do with the a variability in personal beliefs and more to do with the complications of an unconditional negative proof.

Apologies to all if I sound a bit terse...just a bit tired tonight.


----------



## jezr74

Carol said:


> What is common to atheists I think is a disbelief in a deity, but what is not necessarily common is an agreement whether the existence of a deity is a condition that is always false.  I think this  has less to do with the a variability in personal beliefs and more to do with the complications of an unconditional negative proof.



That might better be described as agnostic in my opinion

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Drasken

The truth is that Atheist is a term that means a lot of things, depending on who you ask. The only thing that one must have when identifying themselves as an Atheist (as per modern definition) is lack of belief in God, Godess, or any plurals and or combination of the Deities.

A great website to look at is Religioustolerance.org as they have a team made up of followers of many faiths, they even have Atheists, that work to define and provide information to the general public reguarding any and all belief structures that they can. The information is pretty good and for many entries there are numerous links to find more information.

Now keep in mind, not everyone will agree on definitions and heated debates usually spring up from religious topics. I hope this link helps.


----------



## jezr74

Drasken said:


> The truth is that Atheist is a term that means a lot of things, depending on who you ask. The only thing that one must have when identifying themselves as an Atheist (as per modern definition) is lack of belief in God, Godess, or any plurals and or combination of the Deities.
> 
> A great website to look at is Religioustolerance.org as they have a team made up of followers of many faiths, they even have Atheists, that work to define and provide information to the general public reguarding any and all belief structures that they can. The information is pretty good and for many entries there are numerous links to find more information.
> 
> Now keep in mind, not everyone will agree on definitions and heated debates usually spring up from religious topics. I hope this link helps.



To be honest, to me there are no gods, deity etc. I have nothing to debate on it, end of story. I have no problem with religious constitutions, I've met some <Insert any faith based religion here> people in my life time that disgust me, and equally that delight me. I believe people's actions speak louder than words. Sometimes people stand behind a religion to pass judgement and justify their own ends. The exact same goes for non-religious people. Some humans are just #%holes, Its irrelevant background is it can be a priest, it can be a CEO a soldier a cleaner, anyone. And again the exact same can be reversed, people are capable for extraordinary acts of kindness, compassion and understanding.

Religious people need to tread lightly though, since as humans they are prone to mistakes and hypocrisy just as much as anyone. (But Job 28:28 is a good example of where I think a lot of people fail)

Your correct in previous posts, I am skeptical of claims made by religious groups that put forth fantasy ideas that can and are proven by science. I don't know why they try to cross the boundaries or try to include faith in science. Things like, 10,000 year old earth, creationism vs intelligent design the list goes on, but they are generally fringe groups. 

It sounds like the Atheists on your website are more of the type that granfire mentioned, have been wronged in the past and now are struggling with their internal demons. So I would question if they are really Atheist but more Agnostic (they just can't admit it), religious doctrine is very hard for some one to completely loose. Otherwise, why would they bother having to justify it or argue the point if not that they have doubt in their own resolve.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Atheism



> Atheism is, in a broad sense, the rejection of belief in the existence of deities.[1][2] In a narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.[3][4][5] Most inclusively, atheism is simply the absence of belief that any deities exist.[4][5][6][7] Atheism is contrasted with theism,[8][9] which in its most general form is the belief that at least one deity exists.



Agnosticism




> Agnosticism is the belief that the existence or non-existence of any deity is unknown and possibly unknowable. More specifically, agnosticism is the view that the truth values of certain claimsespecially claims about the existence or non-existence of any deity, as well as other religious and metaphysical claimsare unknown and (so far as can be judged) unknowable. Agnosticism can be defined in various ways, and is sometimes used to indicate doubt or a skeptical approach to questions. In some senses, agnosticism is a stance about the difference between belief and knowledge, rather than about any specific claim or belief. In the popular sense, an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities, whereas a theist and an atheist believe and disbelieve, respectively.[2] In the strict sense, however, agnosticism is the view that humanity does not currently possess the requisite knowledge and/or reason to provide sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God". 

Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists. 

I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God".
> 
> Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists.
> 
> I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.




I'm trying to figure out if this is a bit of satire poking fun at the martyr complex so many religious people have, or if you really have run in to a few 'ugly' atheists.


----------



## Xue Sheng

celtic_crippler said:


> Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God".
> 
> Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists.
> 
> I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.



A good friend of mine is an atheist but he does not say much about any religion, he did say that after being raised Catholic and reading the Bible a few times that there were questions he had that no one, not even the priests he talked to, could answer and that as well as a few other inconsistencies between what the bible said and what the church did lead him to atheism

What is very interesting is he was a LEO and he saw a lot of young adults brought in that had no religious affiliation what-so-ever and many had the answer of I dont know when asked what religion they were. He (the atheist) felt that a big issue with crime and younger people had to do with a lack of religion and a lack of some sort of ultimate punishment. 

Although he was not religions, did not believe in a deity of any sort he did feel that if there were a stronger religious attachment for some of those he arrested that they likely would not have been arrested at all. However that did not apply to all he arrested


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> I'm trying to figure out if this is a bit of satire poking fun at the martyr complex so many religious people have, or if you really have run in to a few 'ugly' atheists.



A little of both perhaps? LOL But don't "self professed atheists" who wear the title like a badge of honor participating in a form of martyrdom?

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/good-without-god-atheist-subway-ads-proclaim/

It's become a religion in and of itself.



Xue Sheng said:


> A good friend of mine is an atheist but he does not say much about any religion, he did say that after being raised Catholic and reading the Bible a few times that there were questions he had that no one, not even the priests he talked to, could answer and that as well as a few other inconsistencies between what the bible said and what the church did lead him to atheism
> 
> What is very interesting is he was a LEO and he saw a lot of young adults brought in that had no religious affiliation what-so-ever and many had the answer of &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; when asked what religion they were. He (the atheist) felt that a big issue with crime and younger people had to do with a lack of religion and a lack of some sort of ultimate punishment.
> 
> Although he was not religions, did not believe in a deity of any sort he did feel that if there were a stronger religious attachment for some of those he arrested that they likely would not have been arrested at all. However that did not apply to all he arrested



I think that points to the fact that some form of religious upbringing involves developing a set of values. When this is absent in one's childhood and the child is left to learn ethics by watching "Survivor"... they don't particularly grow up with any.

That being said, an argument can be made that certain suppressive religions can lead to deviant behavior; i.e.: the Catholic Schoolgirl Syndrome. LOL


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God".
> 
> Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists.
> 
> I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.



I think your mixing things with skeptics, which many atheists may be. As I said before, anyone can be a jerk, and from any background.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Nope. I'm talking about "self-professed atheists" who parade the title around every opportunity they get in an effort to appear superior. Personally, I think it makes them look just as asinine as bible-thumpers so perhaps we&#8217;re on the same page concerning the &#8220;jerk&#8221; thing.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> I think that points to the fact that some form of religious upbringing involves developing a set of values. When this is absent in one's childhood and the child is left to learn ethics by watching "Survivor"... they don't particularly grow up with any.
> 
> That being said, an argument can be made that certain suppressive religions can lead to deviant behavior; i.e.: the Catholic Schoolgirl Syndrome. LOL



Yeah, people try this one a lot. Straw-man.


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Yeah, people try this one a lot. Straw-man.



Which argument? There are two there. LOL


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> A little of both perhaps? LOL But don't "self professed atheists" who wear the title like a badge of honor participating in a form of martyrdom?
> 
> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/good-without-god-atheist-subway-ads-proclaim/



What martyrdom is there in simply being good?  If that's their martyrdom, they are failing at it.  lol


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Nope. I'm talking about "self-professed atheists" who parade the title around every opportunity they get in an effort to appear superior. Personally, I think it makes them look just as asinine as bible-thumpers so perhaps we&#8217;re on the same page concerning the &#8220;jerk&#8221; thing.



Yep, agree totally.


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> What martyrdom is there in simply being good? If that's their martyrdom, they are failing at it. lol



How is that remotely related or pertinent to anything I've posted?

Well&#8230; Oh yeah? Bacon!


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> How is that remotely related or pertinent to anything I've posted?
> 
> Well&#8230; Oh yeah? Bacon!



It was a while ago, but you posted the following where it appeared you attempted to connect martyrdom with the 'good without god' ads.



> A little of both perhaps? LOL But don't "self professed atheists" who  wear the title like a badge of honor participating in a form of  martyrdom?
> http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/10/19/good-without-god-atheist-subway-ads-proclaim/


----------



## jezr74

kempodisciple said:


> This seems to be deterring the other thread a bit, and while I'm declining to post in it , would rather not see atheism hijack the thread (but I also want to see/possibly participate in an atheism thread). However, as I am a lutheran and while I have an atheist brother, and know a bit about their philosophy/belief, it would be better for someone else to explain it all. So hopefully someone picks this up to explain the belief, and the thread doesn't die before it begins.
> EDIT: sorry if this is in the wrong place, was not entirely sure where it would fit.



You seem interested in this topic, what are your thoughts? What is your background if you don't mind me asking?


----------



## Carol

celtic_crippler said:


> Well&#8230; Oh yeah? Bacon!



Caution!  Bacon!!
View attachment $226819_10151346373341225_1659316565_n.jpg


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> It was a while ago, but you posted the following where it appeared you attempted to connect martyrdom with the 'good without god' ads.



Ah... the point was that people of religion aren&#8217;t the only one&#8217;s good at playing the martyr. Many self professed atheists would sooner die than change their beliefs and now they have formed a union (a church) with which to share their message with the world. LOL

I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favor of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.

Either that or they have a political agenda which is dangerous.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

kempodisciple said:


> This seems to be deterring the other thread a bit, and while I'm declining to post in it , would rather not see atheism hijack the thread (but I also want to see/possibly participate in an atheism thread). However, as I am a lutheran and while I have an atheist brother, and know a bit about their philosophy/belief, it would be better for someone else to explain it all. So hopefully someone picks this up to explain the belief, and the thread doesn't die before it begins.
> EDIT: sorry if this is in the wrong place, was not entirely sure where it would fit.



It's fairly simple.  We're really not that different from you.  You know how, as a Lutheran, you don't believe in Odin, Isis, Demeter, Ganesh, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or hundreds of other deities?  We just disbelieve in one more deity than you do.  Statistically speaking, we only disbelieve about .01% more than you do. 

That's about all the commonality you'll find among atheists.  Some atheists are former believers, some are not.  Some feel that religion has something to offer on questions of morality, some do not.  A small minority are actively opposed to religion, but for most it just isn't something that we see any particular reason to believe in, any more than we have reason to believe in purple unicorns who live on Mars.


----------



## Sukerkin

*CC* said: "I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favour of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.*"

*I concur.  I have no problem with anyone having spiritual beliefs that, in the end for most faiths, boil down to "Be nice to each other".  When it gets to "Except for those over there because they don't believe the same as us" I have a problem but for most ordinary people that is not the situation that ever arises.  My objections lie in the actions of the hierarchies in control of the power of organised religions rather than with the individuals who hold faith.

For decades I was an agnostic, willing to be swayed either way on the God(s) Question if a good argument or, lord above {}, some proof came along.  These days I classify myself as atheist, having had enough of the origin of the universe and of life explained rationally for *me* not to require a 'God of the Gaps' to fill in where reason and experimentation have not yet reached.  Similarly, again with the "for *me*" proviso, I do not have a need for a religion or a deity to encourage and enforce my innate drive to be morally 'good' rather than 'evil'.

So, what I 'believe in' as an atheist would not be all that distinguishable from what some other (hopefully) essentially good person believes who also happens to believe in a creator deity.  Mankind is capable of both great compassion and great vileness, great creativity and great destruction, nobility and baseness are within most of us simultaneously and which holds sway over a person is a matter of conscience, empathy and self-awareness.


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> Ah... the point was that people of religion aren&#8217;t the only one&#8217;s good at playing the martyr. Many self professed atheists would sooner die than change their beliefs and now they have formed a union (a church) with which to share their message with the world. LOL
> 
> I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favor of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.
> 
> Either that or they have a political agenda which is dangerous.




Where do you keep running in to these fringe atheists that are nothing like the ones I know?  All the ones I know change their understanding of the world based on the changing evidence available.  Seems more much more rational and less dangerous than relying on mystical writings or behaving in ways demanded of Zeus or any other equivalents.


----------



## Tony Dismukes

celtic_crippler said:


> Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God".
> 
> Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists.
> 
> I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.



You seem to have confused atheists with evangelical crusaders against religion.  As a guess, I'd say no more than 1 in 1000 of the former fall into the latter category.  

BTW - if you know someone who is blaming God for something that happened to them, then they aren't an atheist.  How can you blame someone who you don't believe exists?  Getting angry at God for ones tribulations is the province of believers.  (Some atheists may blame the human representatives of a religion for their words and actions, but that is a very different thing.)


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tony Dismukes said:


> You seem to have confused atheists with evangelical crusaders against religion. As a guess, I'd say no more than 1 in 1000 of the former fall into the latter category.



actually I think it would be an Anti-evangelical crusaders against religion becasue I think an evangelical crusaders against religion would be an awfully confused person


----------



## punisher73

For me the easiest way I have defined them is...

Religion/Spiritual:  There is something eternal about us and where we came from
Agnostic: There MAY be something eternal about us and where we came from, we just don't know
Atheist:  There is nothing eternal about us or where we came from, we are a biological product and will end as such

Like ALL beliefs, you will have some that come through the choice by different roads; whether through their own introspection and study or through a bad experience and will take the opposite belief as a defense mechanism of sorts.  You will also have some that keep their beliefs to themselves or share when asked and you will have those that think that EVERYONE must think the same way that they do.  You can't really label the _behavior _of the belief system in these cases.


----------



## jezr74

punisher73 said:


> For me the easiest way I have defined them is...
> 
> Religion/Spiritual:  There is something eternal about us and where we came from
> Agnostic: There MAY be something eternal about us and where we came from, we just don't know
> Atheist:  There is nothing eternal about us or where we came from, we are a biological product and will end as such
> 
> Like ALL beliefs, you will have some that come through the choice by different roads; whether through their own introspection and study or through a bad experience and will take the opposite belief as a defense mechanism of sorts.  You will also have some that keep their beliefs to themselves or share when asked and you will have those that think that EVERYONE must think the same way that they do.  You can't really label the _behavior _of the belief system in these cases.



Atheism isn't a belief. :ultracool


----------



## Blindside

I'm an athiest.  When I was in college I was a lot more vocal about it than I am now, nowadays it is pretty much live and let live, unless I see harm from the practice, and most of the time I don't.  My mother-in-law is a now-retired Episcopalian minister, we get along just fine.

My parents weren't particularly religious, my mom was raised Shinto-Buddhist but pretty much dropped it when she came to the States, my dad was a "bad" Jew, and played pool rather than going to Hebrew school so never got a bar-mitzvah.  Both are incredibly moral people.  They raised me on morals not based on a specific religous guideline, but rather very much by the Golden Rule, you know something like "therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".  They never told me to believe in a god or not to, they even sent me to some Christian denominations Sunday school and church so I could get the experience.

I raise my kids the same way, my wife isn't very religious, but I think she enjoys the community of the Church, so she still participates and my son goes to Church with my mother-in-law.  My son has been making some pretty funny comparisons between God and superheroes, I have sort of struggled on how to respond to that.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favor of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.



Can you elaborate on this? From what I've read in your posts here on MT, you are fairly judgmental. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, I like having differing opinion to the people around me. But you also seem to like the confrontational side of things as well, so what you type is not necessarily what your thinking.

Your belief is internal based?



(MT is a good forum for discussion, it gets heated, but people don't generally troll, or get offended.)


----------



## jezr74

Blindside said:


> I'm an athiest.  When I was in college I was a lot more vocal about it than I am now, nowadays it is pretty much live and let live, unless I see harm from the practice, and most of the time I don't.  My mother-in-law is a now-retired Episcopalian minister, we get along just fine.
> 
> My parents weren't particularly religious, my mom was raised Shinto-Buddhist but pretty much dropped it when she came to the States, my dad was a "bad" Jew, and played pool rather than going to Hebrew school so never got a bar-mitzvah.  Both are incredibly moral people.  They raised me on morals not based on a specific religous guideline, but rather very much by the Golden Rule, you know something like "therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them".  They never told me to believe in a god or not to, they even sent me to some Christian denominations Sunday school and church so I could get the experience.
> 
> I raise my kids the same way, my wife isn't very religious, but I think she enjoys the community of the Church, so she still participates and my son goes to Church with my mother-in-law.  My son has been making some pretty funny comparisons between God and superheroes, I have sort of struggled on how to respond to that.



Nice, my older son plays with children from Jewish, Christian and Buddhist background at school. (International School, and "non-believers")

He comes home and asks many questions about the gods, the kids between them really like the idea of living through re-incarnation, hanukkah, Christmas and living in nirvana. I tell him about what I know of the faiths, and he tells me a lot. When he asks me if I believe in god I tell him. But I also tell him to think for himself and find whats right for him.


----------



## Tez3

Blindside said:


> I'm an athiest. When I was in college I was a lot more vocal about it than I am now, nowadays it is pretty much live and let live, unless I see harm from the practice, and most of the time I don't. My mother-in-law is a now-retired Episcopalian minister, we get along just fine.
> 
> My parents weren't particularly religious, my mom was raised Shinto-Buddhist but pretty much dropped it when she came to the States, my dad was a "bad" Jew, and played pool rather than going to Hebrew school so never got a bar-mitzvah. Both are incredibly moral people. They raised me on morals not based on a specific religous guideline, but rather very much by the Golden Rule, you know something like "therefore all things whatsoever would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them". They never told me to believe in a god or not to, they even sent me to some Christian denominations Sunday school and church so I could get the experience.
> 
> I raise my kids the same way, my wife isn't very religious, but I think she enjoys the community of the Church, so she still participates and my son goes to Church with my mother-in-law. My son has been making some pretty funny comparisons between God and superheroes, I have sort of struggled on how to respond to that.



Being Jewish complicates things as you can have athiest jews, agnostic Jews and even Catholic, Buddhist or any other religious Jews,all of which I've known of. Being Jewish is also a racial grouping, legally recognised in many countries including mine. We just like to complicate things.

On a personal note, Jews get their Bar Mitzvah when they reach 13, there isn't any requirement for a ceremony (many people like one), the rights and obligations are automatically conferred on reaching 13. However if your father felt he wanted a ceremony he still can. A Bar Mitzvah isn't the point of what you called Hebrew school, it's not a graduation or anything like that.


----------



## Blindside

Tez3 said:


> Being Jewish complicates things as you can have athiest jews, agnostic Jews and even Catholic, Buddhist or any other religious Jews,all of which I've known of. Being Jewish is also a racial grouping, legally recognised in many countries including mine. We just like to complicate things.
> 
> On a personal note, Jews get their Bar Mitzvah when they reach 13, there isn't any requirement for a ceremony (many people like one), the rights and obligations are automatically conferred on reaching 13. However if your father felt he wanted a ceremony he still can. A Bar Mitzvah isn't the point of what you called Hebrew school, it's not a graduation or anything like that.



At this point I don't think he really cares.  Actually in talking with my grandmother (his mother), it is apparent that her education on the Jewish faith wasn't exactly thorough either.  Her explanation of the Passover was sort of hilarious as was her explanation of why potato pancakes were a traditional Hannukah food.  

I didn't realize that the Bar Mitzvah happened without the ceremony, mostly I associate the parties that accompanied my (several) friend's Bar Mitzvahs with the first several times I danced with a girl and all the confusion that that brings.


----------



## crushing

[yt]CWlqpowKkBY[/yt]


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Can you elaborate on this? From what I've read in your posts here on MT, you are fairly judgmental. Not that I think there is anything wrong with that, I like having differing opinion to the people around me. But you also seem to like the confrontational side of things as well, so what you type is not necessarily what your thinking.
> 
> Your belief is internal based?
> 
> (MT is a good forum for discussion, it gets heated, but people don't generally troll, or get offended.)



I'm definately opinionated. I've never denied that.    

One can not prove or disprove the existance of God at this point in time. Therefore, it requires faith. Either faith that there is a higher intelligence or faith that there is not. 

Many people have doubts; therefore, they seek justification for their beliefs. Often by seeking others with simlar beliefs or by attempting to convert others to their particular belief system.  

Understand?


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> I'm definately opinionated. I've never denied that.
> 
> One can not prove or disprove the existance of God at this point in time. Therefore, it requires faith. Either faith that there is a higher intelligence or faith that there is not.
> 
> Many people have doubts; therefore, they seek justification for their beliefs. Often by seeking others with simlar beliefs or by attempting to convert others to their particular belief system.
> 
> Understand?



lol no, you have a few false dichotomies in there.


----------



## crushing

How do you go about disproving the existence of unicorns?


----------



## Tez3

Blindside said:


> At this point I don't think he really cares. Actually in talking with my grandmother (his mother), it is apparent that her education on the Jewish faith wasn't exactly thorough either. Her explanation of the Passover was sort of hilarious as was her explanation of why potato pancakes were a traditional Hannukah food.
> 
> I didn't realize that the Bar Mitzvah happened without the ceremony, mostly I associate the parties that accompanied my (several) friend's Bar Mitzvahs with the first several times I danced with a girl and all the confusion that that brings.



Bar Mitzvah parties and ceremonies are a relatively recent thing, probably to make an adolescent boy's life just that bit harder lol. Why not have them, with breaking voice up in Shul reciting and then have to dance with girls, be kissed by ladies with moustaches etc etc, still there are the presents! As for Judaism being a faith, well it's not so much that as a racial, ethnic, way of life thing, your grandmother is completely Jewish (as long as her mother was) with or without 'education', whether it matters that she knows what Passover is properly or not has little bearing on the fact she's Jewish, whether she cares or whether she converts even or becomes an atheist she's still Jewish, can't avoid it.


----------



## punisher73

jezr74 said:


> Atheism isn't a belief. :ultracool



Sure it is. Here is the definition of "belief"


> Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction.



Now how isn't atheism a belief?


----------



## oftheherd1

celtic_crippler said:


> ...
> 
> I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favor of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.
> 
> Either that or they have a political agenda which is dangerous.



To say that those who try to push their religious agenda are attempting to justify their beliefs seems a little of a strange way to put it. Especially since some religions read their holy texts as requiring them to tell others about their religion. And some feel so happily sure about what their religion provides them they would think themselves remiss not to tell others how to achieve the same feelings of happiness.



Sukerkin said:


> ...
> 
> My objections lie in the actions of the hierarchies in control of the power of organised religions rather than with the individuals who hold faith.



That for some people is very true. Those hierarchies are often judged to fail to follow the tennants of their faith as expressed in their own holy texts.



Sukerkin said:


> ...
> 
> For decades I was an agnostic, willing to be swayed either way on the God(s) Question if a good argument or, lord above {}, some proof came along. These days I classify myself as atheist, having had enough of the origin of the universe and of life explained rationally for *me* not to require a 'God of the Gaps' to fill in where reason and experimentation have not yet reached. Similarly, again with the "for *me*" proviso, I do not have a need for a religion or a deity to encourage and enforce my innate drive to be morally 'good' rather than 'evil'.



I find people who say these things very interesting. Maybe not you, but many disagree and sometimes put down those who believe in a God, based on faith. (For the record, I do believe in God based on faith). Yet they believe in scientific 'proof' of the origin of the universe, and can only do so based on faith, since science has a lot of proposals for the origin of the universe, but no real proofs. The same applies to the origin of life.



celtic_crippler said:


> I'm definately opinionated. I've never denied that.
> 
> One can not prove or disprove the existance of God at this point in time. Therefore, it requires faith. Either faith that there is a higher intelligence or faith that there is not.
> 
> Many people have doubts; therefore, they seek justification for their beliefs. Often by seeking others with simlar beliefs or by attempting to convert others to their particular belief system.
> 
> Understand?



No. Just for curiosity, do you attempt to convert others only to justify your belief system? 

Do you not attempt to convert others to your belief system? 

Do you believe in God, or simply a higher intelligence?


----------



## Xue Sheng

crushing said:


> How do you go about disproving the existence of unicorns?




I don't :EG:


----------



## Tony Dismukes

celtic_crippler said:


> One can not prove or disprove the existance of God at this point in time. Therefore, it requires faith. Either faith that there is a higher intelligence or faith that there is not.





			
				offtheherd1 said:
			
		

> Maybe not you, but many disagree and sometimes put down those who believe in a God, based on faith. (For the record, I do believe in God based on faith). Yet they believe in scientific 'proof' of the origin of the universe, and can only do so based on faith, since science has a lot of proposals for the origin of the universe, but no real proofs. The same applies to the origin of life.



I think both of you are stretching the meaning of "faith" to be so broad that it starts to lack meaning.  You seem to define "faith" to mean anything you believe or else anything you believe that cannot be 100% proven to someone who is disinclined to share your belief.  By this sort of definition, you not only have faith in your religious beliefs, but you have "faith" that there is no invisible leprechaun on your shoulder.  You have "faith" that the mailman will come today.  You have 
"faith" that I am not an android built by space aliens.  You have "faith" that the world wasn't created in 1910.  You have "faith" that your mother is not a Russian sleeper agent.  (You can't prove any of those things.)

A more meaningful definition of faith is "belief in the absence of evidence."  I can't "prove" that there is no God, any more than I can "prove" that there is no invisible leprechaun on your shoulder.  However, until you present me with some evidence for either one then I see no particular reason to believe in either.

oftheherd1 - scientists don't claim to have anything resembling ultimate answers regarding the origins of life or the universe.  They have some ideas which are based on the best evidence available to us at this time.  As more evidence accumulates, those ideas will doubtless change.

That is where the false equivalence you guys are trying to establish falls down.  Saying "I believe x for now because it best matches the available evidence and not y because there is no evidence for it" is not the same as saying "I believe y, regardless of the evidence."


----------



## oftheherd1

I will let CC speak for himself, since I don't know his mind.



Tony Dismukes said:


> I think both of you are stretching the meaning of "faith" to be so broad that it starts to lack meaning. You seem to define "faith" to mean anything you believe or else anything you believe that cannot be 100% proven to someone who is disinclined to share your belief. By this sort of definition, you not only have faith in your religious beliefs, but you have "faith" that there is no invisible leprechaun on your shoulder. You have "faith" that the mailman will come today. You have
> "faith" that I am not an android built by space aliens. You have "faith" that the world wasn't created in 1910. You have "faith" that your mother is not a Russian sleeper agent. (You can't prove any of those things.)



My preferred definition of faith is from Hebrews 11:1, which says: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

_You seem to define "faith" to mean anything you believe or else anything you believe that cannot be 100% proven to someone who is disinclined to share your belief. By this sort of definition, you not only have faith in your religious beliefs, but you have "faith" ...
_
You statements are a little ridiculous, and I think you meant them to be. But let me ask you then, do you believe I have a leprechaun on my shoulder? Can you prove I don't? If you don't believe I do without proof, to what do you ascribe your belief?



Tony Dismukes said:


> A more meaningful definition of faith is "belief in the absence of evidence." I can't "prove" that there is no God, any more than I can "prove" that there is no invisible leprechaun on your shoulder. However, until you present me with some evidence for either one then I see no particular reason to believe in either.



You have given an either or; I have a leprechaun on my shoulder, or I don't. If you can't prove it either way, and choose not to believe in either supposed fact, how is that useful for an illustration, unless you wish to 'believe in the abscense of evidence;' that is, by faith?



Tony Dismukes said:


> oftheherd1 - scientists don't claim to have anything resembling ultimate answers regarding the origins of life or the universe. They have some ideas which are based on the best evidence available to us at this time. As more evidence accumulates, those ideas will doubtless change.



Well, I think many of them do. The big bang theory is accepted to be proven by the background noise discovered by Robert Wilson and arno Penzias in 1964. But they can't really prove that. The believe that must have been the cause, as they can't believe anything else could have produced that. Then they have a problem proving what cause the big bang itself, but they believe there was some sort of singularity that exploded (the big bang) but they don't know if that was so or not. And many people accept that 'scientific' proof as well, to promote their own beliefs.

The same thing happens with stating where life comes from. Many scientists and laymen accept evolution as 'proof' the Bible is wrong, and therefore, God's existence cannot be proven, and by some beliefs, is disproven. (Well, I agree God's existence cannot be 'proven.' For my part, they could save themselves a lot of argument.) But if we don't accept that God created life, then where did it come from? Finding organic matter in comets doesn't prove they brought life to earth. They can believe that, but they have no proof and therefor must accept it on faith. The same for other origins of life.

Granted there are some scientists honest enough to say they can't prove those things.



Tony Dismukes said:


> That is where the false equivalence you guys are trying to establish falls down. Saying "I believe x for now because it best matches the available evidence and not y because there is no evidence for it" is not the same as saying "I believe y, regardless of the evidence."



I don't accept my faith based belief as a false equivalence. Nor do I understand your statement above. I mean I understand the words, but not your meaning. I never said I believe x or y based on evidence. I said I believed in God based on faith. So I agree believing in x or y on evidence, versus believing in y without (not regarless of) evidence would be faith.

I did not say what you are saying I said.

Sorry if anything above seems jumbled. If so, point it out and I will try to clarify. I am at work, and there are brief periods when I am caught up, and other periods when I must respond to requests. I may have lost a train of thought, or thought myself to have stated something I haven't.

I hope you now understand my definition of faith. Of course, neither you nor anyone else is required to believe as I do.


----------



## SuperFLY

celtic_crippler said:


> Atheism is the religion of bashing other religions. Ironically, they seem to talk about "God" more than anyone else. A "true" atheist would have no cause to discuss religion at all, any more than they would crusade against the Easter Bunny, but they take out ads and dedicate their time to bashing "God".
> 
> Personaly, I think many of them became "atheists" because something bad happened to them at some point in their life and they "blamed" God for it. So now, they lash out agasint "God" the same way a child lashes out at a parent when they don't get their way. At least that's what I've observed from self-professed atheists.
> 
> I doubt very seriously you'd hear much from a "true" atheist and would likely not even know they were an atheist unless you asked.



bull.

if i had to label myself id say im atheist.

i dont believe there's a god/alah/budda/magical sky fairy up there that created everything.

being an atheist isnt a religion or 'movement' as you seem to insinuate it is. just because i dont believe in a god doesnt mean i dont think others should. believe what you like; i dont care.

i decided i didnt believe at a very young age (perhaps 6 or 7). i went to a christian primary school and it proved quite difficult for me. i respected what they believed but stopped saying the prayers in assembly. i just bowed my head and stayed quiet. i was told to say them anyway but i wouldnt.. surely it would be more dis-respectful to pay lip service to something i dont believe in?

so no, i didnt have anything 'happen' to me, i just made my own mind up on the subject.

as mentioned above the simple definition of an atheist is that they dont believe in a deity. well.. thats all it is with me.

i respect whatever religion people are. just dont try forcing it on me.


----------



## jezr74

crushing said:


> How do you go about disproving the existence of unicorns?



Easy, the same way we determine the existence of any other lifeforms that has been on earth. Like the dino's, bones left behind etc.

Maybe probability is best used when used in the context of mythical beings? 

ie. Existence of unicorns has a .000001% probability 
based on what we know of current hereditary lines of horses, no reside left behind like bones or matter.
no current lines of breed have protruding bones from the forehead etc.
Ancient text cross referenced with others etc etc

That's layman terms. I'm sure specialists in have been detail. Just use probability combined with evidence based information.


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Atheism isn't a belief.



It's a belief that there is no "God" or higher intelligence, so yeah... it's a belief. LOL



oftheherd1 said:


> Just for curiosity, do you attempt to convert others only to justify your belief system?
> 
> Do you not attempt to convert others to your belief system?
> 
> Do you believe in God, or simply a higher intelligence?



I don't believe I stated what I believe either way. I've only made observations.

There are men of science on both sides of the coin that cite theory on the existence of or against a "supreme intelligence".

For example: astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote in his 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe" that the odds of our DNA forming randomly to create human beings had a probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000. His infamous "Tornado Analogy" stated that it was more likely for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and randomly assemble a functioning 747 jet than for cellular life to from into intelligent life as we know it; basically arguing for the existence of some higher power.

Since then, others have postulated otherwise and their theories can be easily looked up by googling "Hoyles Fallacy."

So even the most intellectual of intellectuals can not agree.

Interestingly enough, and something else to consider, is the fact that people of all faiths (including former atheists) have all reported near-death experiences. They all have common threads as well, regardless of who or what they believe in. In the cases of atheists who previously believed in nothing, they started believing, but I digress... they all share similar experiences in regards to "seeing" dead family members and/or their religious icons who all gave them life-changing advice. 

That being said, there are professed atheists who also claim to have been near-death or clinically dead and had no experience what-so-ever.

Simply a result of altered brain chemistry brought about by the death process?


Perhaps it will be as it is in Piers Anthonys Incarnations of Immortality series where the believers soul gets judged and goes to the appropriate afterlife while the atheists soul simply crumples to dust and their done existing on any plane. 

Id wager the debate is probably the oldest in human history. Its been debated by philosophers and scientists alike; some for and some against. 

Atheists maintain that there is insufficient reason or evidence to believe while those who believe cite that God is not amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone. 

Descartes said the existence of God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful.  

Epicurus is recognized as the first to bring up the problem of evil presenting the argument that if God exists and is omnipotent then why would He allow evil to exist? 

Its actually a very complicated matter and there are logical and accepted arguments from both sides which is why, as I stated earlier, that the existence of God can not necessarily be proved or disproved. 

So, I again reiterate, that spirituality is something best left to the individual to decide for themselves. And, depending on how important it is to the individual will dictate how much time and effort they put into it. 

No one can refute the fact that we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body. LOL


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> It's a belief that there is no "God" or higher intelligence, so yeah... it's a belief. LOL
> 
> There are men of science on both sides of the coin that cite theory on the existence of or against a "supreme intelligence".



Ok, I'm going to leave the whole belief part aside for the moment, it's not that important and people use the context differently.

As far as you topics you pointed out in science. There is a fundamental flaw when you mix religion with science. Science always wins, when.... a scientific claim is made. No science is going to prove or dis-prove any fantastical idea, belief or hunch. When a fringe scientist, makes a claim. It is ONLY valid when it goes through correct scientific peer review, if it can stand up to un-biased review. Then it will be accepted by the majority of the Scientific community and then is accepted as fact until some new evidence is introduced and is then weighed again.

The reason you don't hear about a lot of these fringe "scientists" is that they are commonly wrong and publishing garbage with no backing. They have a hidden agenda, commonly money and includes people with religious background, and scientist trying to make a name for them selves. But it's science, part of science is the production of repeatable, testable results. So the truth comes out, it can take a while for some items, but it generally does.

I might add to that the term "Theory" is very different to the layman way you and I may use it. In true scientific terms, Theory is something that has been accepted for example. Gravity, The Big Bang, Relativity. Theory in the context of the layman, they think it means that it's philosophical or hasn't been proven yet. That is not correct, the scientific term of theory means it has enough evidence supporting it.


----------



## jezr74

Ok, question for people of faith.

Do you believe your God is there? Or do you know he is there?


----------



## Omar B

I'm an atheist.

- I don't belive in god or gods
- I don't belong to any atheist group or club or church.  It's always funny when you hear people railing against atheist, they speak of us as if we are a club who has meetings every Sunday.  I don't hang out with atheist and talk about atheist things like religious people do.  There is no overarching organization, no pope.  We are peopel as diverse as any, only that we share one opinion.


----------



## Xue Sheng

celtic_crippler said:


> It's a belief that there is no "God" or higher intelligence, so yeah... it's a belief. LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe I stated what I believe either way. I've only made observations.
> 
> There are men of science on both sides of the coin that cite theory on the existence of or against a "supreme intelligence".
> 
> For example: astronomer Fred Hoyle wrote in his 1983 book "The Intelligent Universe" that the odds of our DNA forming randomly to create human beings had a probability of 1 in 10 to the power of 40,000. His infamous "Tornado Analogy" stated that it was more likely for a tornado to rip through a junkyard and randomly assemble a functioning 747 jet than for cellular life to from into intelligent life as we know it; basically arguing for the existence of some higher power.
> 
> Since then, others have postulated otherwise and their theories can be easily looked up by googling "Hoyle&#8217;s Fallacy."
> 
> So even the most intellectual of intellectuals can not agree.
> 
> Interestingly enough, and something else to consider, is the fact that people of all faiths (including former atheists) have all reported near-death experiences. They all have common threads as well, regardless of who or what they believe in. In the cases of atheists who previously believed in nothing, they started believing, but I digress... they all share similar experiences in regards to "seeing" dead family members and/or their religious icons who all gave them life-changing advice.
> 
> That being said, there are professed atheists who also claim to have been near-death or clinically dead and had no experience what-so-ever.
> 
> Simply a result of altered brain chemistry brought about by the death process?
> 
> 
> Perhaps it will be as it is in Piers Anthony&#8217;s &#8220;Incarnations of Immortality&#8221; series where the &#8220;believer&#8217;s&#8221; soul gets judged and goes to the appropriate afterlife while the &#8220;atheists&#8217;&#8221; soul simply crumples to dust and their done existing on any plane.
> 
> I&#8217;d wager the debate is probably the oldest in human history. It&#8217;s been debated by philosophers and scientists alike; some for and some against.
> 
> Atheists maintain that there is insufficient reason or evidence to believe while those who believe cite that God is not amenable to demonstration or refutation, but rests on faith alone.
> 
> Descartes said the existence of God was logically necessary for the evidence of the senses to be meaningful.
> 
> Epicurus is recognized as the first to bring up the problem of evil presenting the argument that if God exists and is omnipotent then why would &#8220;He&#8221; allow evil to exist?
> 
> It&#8217;s actually a very complicated matter and there are logical and accepted arguments from both sides which is why, as I stated earlier, that the existence of God can not necessarily be proved or disproved.
> 
> So, I again reiterate, that spirituality is something best left to the individual to decide for themselves. And, depending on how important it is to the individual will dictate how much time and effort they put into it.
> 
> No one can refute the fact that we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body. LOL



Technically you are correct but many define atheism as a &#8220;Lack of Belief&#8221; based on the definition of atheism. However they are not taking into account the entire definition which is &#8220;the absence of belief in God&#8221; Although I will say that Atheism is not a religious beleif

Also based on what definition of belief you want to use..or omit



> belief
> 1. something believed; an opinion or conviction: a belief that the earth is flat.
> 2. confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof: a statement unworthy of belief.
> 3. confidence; faith; trust: a child's belief in his parents.
> 4. a religious tenet or tenets; religious creed or faith: the Christian belief.



If you omit the definition that say &#8220;something believed; an opinion or conviction&#8221; and go with the rests which are faith based you can say Atheism is not a belief. 

However there is the darned first part of the definition above, which actually does exist, which would then say an atheist believes there is no God so darn if you are not right back to a type of belief.


----------



## jezr74

Omar B said:


> I'm an atheist.
> 
> - I don't belive in god or gods
> - I don't belong to any atheist group or club or church.  It's always funny when you hear people railing against atheist, they speak of us as if we are a club who has meetings every Sunday.  I don't hang out with atheist and talk about atheist things like religious people do.  There is no overarching organization, no pope.  We are peopel as diverse as any, only that we share one opinion.



Yeah, I have wondered what these groups are myself.


----------



## Xue Sheng

jezr74 said:


> Ok, I'm going to leave the whole belief part aside for the moment, it's not that important and people use the context differently.
> 
> As far as you topics you pointed out in science. There is a fundamental flaw when you mix religion with science. Science always wins, when.... a scientific claim is made. No science is going to prove or dis-prove any fantastical idea, belief or hunch. When a fringe scientist, makes a claim. It is ONLY valid when it goes through correct scientific peer review, if it can stand up to un-biased review. Then it will be accepted by the majority of the Scientific community and then is accepted as fact until some new evidence is introduced and is then weighed again.
> 
> The reason you don't hear about a lot of these fringe "scientists" is that they are commonly wrong and publishing garbage with no backing. They have a hidden agenda, commonly money and includes people with religious background, and scientist trying to make a name for them selves. But it's science, part of science is the production of repeatable, testable results. So the truth comes out, it can take a while for some items, but it generally does.
> 
> I might add to that the term "Theory" is very different to the layman way you and I may use it. In true scientific terms, Theory is something that has been accepted for example. Gravity, The Big Bang, Relativity. Theory in the context of the layman, they think it means that it's philosophical or hasn't been proven yet. That is not correct, the scientific term of theory means it has enough evidence supporting it.



I am not sure that Galileo would completely agree with that but an argument could be made that the Church got involved and mucked things up. But I am not so sure Alfred Wegener would agree either because most scientists at the time thought he was a nut and on the fringe... but he was right and the scientists of the time were wrong.


----------



## punisher73

Xue Sheng said:


> Technically you are correct but many define atheism as a &#8220;Lack of Belief&#8221; based on the definition of atheism. However they are not taking into account the entire definition which is &#8220;the absence of belief in God&#8221; Although I will say that Atheism is not a religious beleif
> 
> Also based on what definition of belief you want to use..or omit
> 
> 
> 
> If you omit the definition that say &#8220;something believed; an opinion or conviction&#8221; and go with the rests which are faith based you can say Atheism is not a belief.
> 
> *However there is the darned first part of the definition above, which actually does exist, which would then say an atheist believes there is no God so darn if you are not right back to a type of belief*.



Agreed and requoted for truth.  I posted that earlier and no one talked about it.

Atheism is a "belief" unless we want to change the accepted definition of the word, or redefine it with caveats.


----------



## celtic_crippler

People are going to believe what they want to believe and seek ways to validate those beliefs. 

They will either accept the existence of a higher power or they will not. 

I don't care what anyone believes as long as they aren't trying to legislate it onto me and extend the same courtesy to them. 

I find that people will usually wind up hangin' with those who are like-minded regardless.

So, enjoy whatever it is you believe or don't believe in. 

As I stated and it has yet to be challenged: we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body.


----------



## Omar B

jezr74 said:


> Yeah, I have wondered what these groups are myself.



Anytime some atheist does something that some religious group does not agree with it becomes "those atheists."  As if we have meetings and stuff.  It's  christian way of painting us with one brush when really they are the huge monolith.  

Some guy puts up an anti-religion billboard, has nothing to do with me, I was not consulted, I wasn't at "church" in the meeting.  Usually I find some anti-religion thing funny because it becomes this huge finger pointing thing, except the finger doesn't point to the catholics or the anglicans, but an individual or a couple individuals trying to rustle the religionists jimmies (Stay rustled loosers!).  Personally I don't care.  If I were to take issue with everything religion related on a daily basis it would drive me crazy.  But then I'm not some busybody trying to convert anyone and shield people from differing opinions on an insignificant topic.


----------



## Xue Sheng

celtic_crippler said:


> As I stated and it has yet to be challenged: we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body.



      W. C. Fields, a lifetime agnostic, was discovered reading a Bible on his deathbed. ''I'm looking for a loop-hole',' was his explaination.


----------



## oftheherd1

celtic_crippler said:


> ...
> 
> As I stated and it has yet to be challenged: we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body.



Sorry, I thought is such a small part of your previous post, and for some reason thought you knew the below answer:

*1 Thessalonians 4:17* *The*n we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with *them* *in* *the* clouds, to *meet* *the* Lord *in* *the* *air*: and so shall we ever be with *the* Lord.

So according to the Bible quote above, not all will die.  Again, in the Bible, two persons did not see death.

You may or may not believe what is in the Bible.  That is yours, or anyone elses choice.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Sorry, I thought is such a small part of your previous post, and for some reason thought you knew the below answer:
> 
> *1 Thessalonians 4:17* *The*n we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with *them* *in* *the* clouds, to *meet* *the* Lord *in* *the* *air*: and so shall we ever be with *the* Lord.
> 
> So according to the Bible quote above, not all will die. Again, in the Bible, two persons did not see death.
> 
> *You may or may not believe what is in the Bible.* That is yours, or anyone elses choice.



Are we going to have the argument about exactly what is in the 'Bible'? there is no one translation that actually manages to accurately say what was in the original. I suppose you could rephrase it to say what is in a Bible or even say which translation you use. So much trouble has been caused by people simplly not knowing what the original says....


----------



## oftheherd1

jezr74 said:


> Ok, question for people of faith.
> 
> Do you believe your God is there? Or do you know he is there?



I believe my God is omnipresent.  So wherever your 'there' is, yes I believe He is there.

As to believing or knowing He is there, that seems to me a whole different thread.  It really kind of depends on one's understanding of 'knowing' there is a God (based on one's belief), and that he is omnipresent.  

How do you see the difference, if any, between believing and knowing?


----------



## jezr74

Xue Sheng said:


> I am not sure that Galileo would completely agree with that but an argument could be made that the Church got involved and mucked things up. But I am not so sure Alfred Wegener would agree either because most scientists at the time thought he was a nut and on the fringe... but he was right and the scientists of the time were wrong.



That's right, but what is real sticks, what is garbage will be thrown out eventually and will not hold up over time.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> Are we going to have the argument about exactly what is in the 'Bible'? there is no one translation that actually manages to accurately say what was in the original. I suppose you could rephrase it to say what is in a Bible or even say which translation you use. *So much trouble has been caused by people simplly not knowing what the original says...*.



Wow, thanks for your accepting the Christian New Testament as in fact part of the Bible.  
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





  Please don't take humbrage, I'm just poking fun at what I see as not defining the Bible as what I know you mean it to be, when you are sort of smacking my chops.  :uhyeah:

You are correct there are many translations of the Bible for Christians.  I personally only accept the King James version, and that is what I quoted.  I believe in the Old and New Testaments as making up the entire Bible.  I am aware that is not your belief.  That is your choice.  You are free to believe in any translation you choose, or any version, such as what we call the Old Testament, only, as am I to believe in the King James and Old and New Testament.  So is anyone else free to believe as they want.  I am only stating what I believe.


----------



## jezr74

oftheherd1 said:


> I believe my God is omnipresent.  So wherever your 'there' is, yes I believe He is there. As to believing or knowing He is there, that seems to me a whole different thread.  It really kind of depends on one's understanding of 'knowing' there is a God (based on one's belief), and that he is omnipresent.
> 
> How do you see the difference, if any, between believing and knowing?



Attempting to discern if "belief" and "fact" (maybe evidence based is a better term) can be the same? Trying to point out the context I'm using when I say Atheism is not a belief.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> As I stated and it has yet to be challenged: we will all die eventually. At that time, any doubts or questions you had either way will definitely be laid to rest along with your body.



yes, but I don't have doubts I will return to the matter from which I came.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Wow, thanks for your accepting the Christian New Testament as in fact part of the Bible.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please don't take humbrage, I'm just poking fun at what I see as not defining the Bible as what I know you mean it to be, when you are sort of smacking my chops. :uhyeah:
> 
> You are correct there are many translations of the Bible for Christians. I personally only accept the King James version, and that is what I quoted. I believe in the Old and New Testaments as making up the entire Bible. I am aware that is not your belief. That is your choice. You are free to believe in any translation you choose, or any version, such as what we call the Old Testament, only, as am I to believe in the King James and Old and New Testament. So is anyone else free to believe as they want. I am only stating what I believe.



I put 'Bible' in inverted commas you may have noticed which doesn't imply any acceptance because as you know the 'Bible' is what you call it, I don't. 
Now the thing is, you seem confused about what we believe. What you call the 'Old Testament' is totally Jewish in origin, it starts and ends being Jewish writing so how you can think any translation including the King James can be correct I'm not sure. If you don't read it in the original language, it isn't correct. This is the writing of my people, that other non Jewish people choose to translate it and take it to mean whatever doesn't change the fact that the only version that is correct is the one in it's original form. What you call the 'New Testament' means nothing to me.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I put 'Bible' in inverted commas you may have noticed which doesn't imply any acceptance because as you know the 'Bible' is what you call it, I don't.
> Now the thing is, you seem confused about what we believe. What you call the 'Old Testament' is totally Jewish in origin, it starts and ends being Jewish writing so how you can think any translation including the King James can be correct I'm not sure. If you don't read it in the original language, it isn't correct. This is the writing of my people, that other non Jewish people choose to translate it and take it to mean whatever doesn't change the fact that the only version that is correct is the one in it's original form. What you call the 'New Testament' means nothing to me.



I think we have had this conversation before.  I accept what you say as your belief.  If I understand, you only believe as God's word, that which I would call the Old Testament, but for you, only that which is in the original language.  If that is your belief, and that is good for you so be it.

Since you ask, and since I don't speak Hebrew at all, much less fluently, I have to rely on a translation.  Things are translated from one language to another all the time, and have been in times past.  The problem obviously, is the accuracy of the translation.  My personal belief is that the King James is the most accurate translation into English.  

Those who believe as I do believe in fact, that the King James is a translation inspired by God, who guided those responsible for it, to be correct.  That is "...so how you can think any translation including the King James can be correct I'm not sure."  I understand you do not share my belief, nor do many others.

I also understand you don't believe in what I call the New Testament.  That is a decision you are free to make for yourself, as is my belief it is the the inspired word of God.  I don't use that as an excuse to put down your belief, nor would I hope you or anyone else would try to put down my belief.  We all have our beliefs, or as some in this thread, an apparent non-belief.  Discussing them can be fruitful, but to argue about them would not.

I would add just a couple of questions.  Do you believe what you call the Bible is exclusive property of the Jewish people, not to be used by any non-Jewish people?  Do speak the language of that Bible fluently, and if not, how do you know whoever translates it for you into English is translating correctly?  Do you believe it is impossible to correctly translate the language of that Bible into another language?  

Please be sure I am not trying to be confrontational, just to understand how you believe what you do.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> I think we have had this conversation before. I accept what you say as your belief. If I understand, you only believe as God's word, that which I would call the Old Testament, but for you, only that which is in the original language. If that is your belief, and that is good for you so be it.
> 
> Since you ask, and since I don't speak Hebrew at all, much less fluently, I have to rely on a translation. Things are translated from one language to another all the time, and have been in times past. The problem obviously, is the accuracy of the translation. My personal belief is that the King James is the most accurate translation into English.
> 
> Those who believe as I do believe in fact, that the King James is a translation inspired by God, who guided those responsible for it, to be correct. That is "...so how you can think any translation including the King James can be correct I'm not sure." I understand you do not share my belief, nor do many others.
> 
> I also understand you don't believe in what I call the New Testament. That is a decision you are free to make for yourself, as is my belief it is the the inspired word of God. I don't use that as an excuse to put down your belief, nor would I hope you or anyone else would try to put down my belief. We all have our beliefs, or as some in this thread, an apparent non-belief. Discussing them can be fruitful, but to argue about them would not.
> 
> I would add just a couple of questions. Do you believe what you call the Bible is exclusive property of the Jewish people, not to be used by any non-Jewish people? Do speak the language of that Bible fluently, and if not, how do you know whoever translates it for you into English is translating correctly? Do you believe it is impossible to correctly translate the language of that Bible into another language?
> 
> Please be sure I am not trying to be confrontational, just to understand how you believe what you do.




I don't know whether it makes any difference to you but the King James Bible is actually a Roman Catholic translation not a Protestant one. The first Bibles in America weren't the King James ones but the Geneva copies. Purely understand English history means I doubt this translation, it's nothing to do with what I beleve in faithwise. It's nothing to do with religion more to do with the man King James was.
http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/

As to the 'Old Testament', this I believe was written by Jews, about Jews and for Jews. It's Jewish history, Jewish law and customs. I don't honestly see why non Jews take it, mess around with it and proclaim it as theirs. It's not relevant to non Jews unless they convert and even then it's still not their history.  I haven't 'decided' not to believe in the New Testament it simply has no relevance to me in the same way as a scuba diving manual has no relevance to me.
Non Jews using the Old Testament is akin to people of one country taking another's history and customs as their own, why would they? America fought a war with GB to gain it's independence why would they then slavishly copy everything English? They don't so why use the 'Old Testament' as if it were yours? why do you think things that happened in lands so far away so many thousands of years ago is relevant to your life? That's a serious question not an accusation. it's not that I think non Jews shouldn't use our writings it's just I don't see how relevant it can be to them when they aren't Jews. Again it's like reading and believing everything a scuba diving manual says when you live in the desert and even if you didn't you have no intention of ever entering the water. If you aren't Jewish why would you take as your own something that is so inherently Jewish? it puzzles me quite often I must admit, mostly because of the feelings of many against the Jews of which Jesus was one, and he was very much a Jew. I don't think he intended his followers not to be Jewish even if they had to convert.

My copy of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs are in Hebrew and English as is my prayer book, I can read both, though that's where my Hebrew stops I'm afraid.


----------



## crushing

punisher73 said:


> Agreed and requoted for truth.  I posted that earlier and no one talked about it.
> 
> Atheism is a "belief" unless we want to change the accepted definition of the word, or redefine it with caveats.



Belief


An *acceptance* that a statement is true or that something exists.
Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held *opinion or conviction*.

The accepted definitions of belief suggest that beliefs are formed on emotions, feelings, and/or unsubstantiated opinions rather than by critical science based investigations.  For example, a child (or an adult for that matter) may _believe_ in Santa Claus, ghosts, or other supernatural or imaginary creatures.  To try to equate the belief in such fairy tales with reasoned thinking loosens the definition of the word belief to the point where it become a useless word, other than to use it in an attempt to give ignorance equal footing and credibility with empirical knowledge.


----------



## Xue Sheng

crushing said:


> Belief
> 
> 
> An *acceptance* that a statement is true or that something exists.
> Something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held *opinion or conviction*.
> 
> The accepted definitions of belief suggest that beliefs are formed on emotions, feelings, and/or unsubstantiated opinions rather than by critical science based investigations. For example, a child (or an adult for that matter) may _believe_ in Santa Claus, ghosts, or other supernatural or imaginary creatures. To try to equate the belief in such fairy tales with reasoned thinking loosens the definition of the word belief to the point where it become a useless word, other than to use it in an attempt to give ignorance equal footing and credibility with empirical knowledge.



Or a scientists accepts the theory of plate tectonics and accepts the fact that the earths crust is not solid....he/she came to this conclusion based on testing and study. there for believes the theory of plate tectonics is correct  there no emotion involved.

I have to tell all in this thread this is beginning to feel like a meeting I walked out of a few years back once it degraded into a discussion/slash argument about the political correctness of the use of the word "is" on a webpage I maintained.....


----------



## Tez3

Why do people worry so much about what others believe? As long as they don't force their beliefs on you nor cause harm elsewhere why care what people believe in? In this day and age surely we can accept that we all have different thoughts and ideas on the how, what, where and when of our existance.
Am I wrong to believe what I do, perhaps, perhaps not but it suits me. You can't ask more than that surely!


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> Why do people worry so much about what others believe? As long as they don't force their beliefs on you nor cause harm elsewhere why care what people believe in? In this day and age surely we can accept that we all have different thoughts and ideas on the how, what, where and when of our existance.
> Am I wrong to believe what I do, perhaps, perhaps not but it suits me. You can't ask more than that surely!



Well, of course you are wrong, that is unless you cleared it through me first... But you must take into account that I am a deluded, controlling, and a megalomaniac with an incredibly high opinion of my importance as to all things everything and, although I don't agree...and I'm never wrong... and it has also been said that I have delusions of grandeur... although, agian, I am fairly sure that is not true..


----------



## arnisador

Tez3 said:


> Why do people worry so much about what others believe? As long as they don't force their beliefs on you nor cause harm elsewhere



There you go. The battle to keep creationism out of school science classes continues in many places here; religious attempts to restrict basic human rights (abortion, birth-control, marriage equality) are a constant battle; and so on. And that's without the explicit violence, such as killings of cartoonists drawing Muhammad. That's why people care. No one is concerned that some Buddhist is meditating in a cave somewhere--knock yourself out with that one.


----------



## Tez3

arnisador said:


> There you go. The battle to keep creationism out of school science classes continues in many places here; religious attempts to restrict basic human rights (abortion, birth-control, marriage equality) are a constant battle; and so on. And that's without the explicit violence, such as killings of cartoonists drawing Muhammad. That's why people care. No one is concerned that some Buddhist is meditating in a cave somewhere--knock yourself out with that one.



As I said on another thread, isn't America turning into a facist state?

The interference is one sided for the most part, only one religion feels the need to impose so much on anyone else. The Muslims take umbrage of course when they feel threatened but to be honest they've had to put up with as much as we have from the same religious fervour. Only the Christians care about who isn't a Christian and if they are what brand they are. 
There are very few Christian sects who don't feel the need to shove their beliefs on us, possibly only the Quakers and the Amish don't preach at us and urge us to convert. If Christians could stop trying to convert the rest of the world to their beliefs, it would be a much more comfortable world. I'm sure they mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.


----------



## crushing

Xue Sheng said:


> Or a scientists accepts the theory of plate tectonics and accepts the fact that the earths crust is not solid....he/she came to this conclusion based on testing and study. there for believes the theory of plate tectonics is correct  there no emotion involved.
> 
> I have to tell all in this thread this is beginning to feel like a meeting I walked out of a few years back once it degraded into a discussion/slash argument about the political correctness of the use of the word "is" on a webpage I maintained.....



Exactly!  This is a good example of the limitation of the word belief.  A belief in the Easter Bunny becomes equal with the further understanding of plate tectonics.  Is there a different word to use than "belief" when it comes to evidence based knowledge of what is?  Because they really aren't the same thing.


----------



## crushing

Anybody else getting the Vineyard Church context sensitive Google ad at the top of the page of a Darwin fish with legs kissing a Jesus fish?  I couldn't help but smile when I saw it.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> I don't know whether it makes any difference to you but the King James Bible is actually a Roman Catholic translation not a Protestant one. The first Bibles in America weren't the King James ones but the Geneva copies. Purely understand English history means I doubt this translation, it's nothing to do with what I beleve in faithwise. It's nothing to do with religion more to do with the man King James was.
> http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/



Wow, I don't know where you get your information, but it is incorrect.  The first Catholic translation into English was the Douay-Rheims published in 1582.  The Catholic church had been trying desperately to prevent the publishing of a Bible, but when they found that wasn't working, they published the Douay-Rheims.  Prior to that, they had killed anyone they could get their hands on, if they were trying to publish an English translation of the Bible. The Catholic English translations are very different from the King James Bible in the theology they support.

 The history of the King James comes from John Wycliffe (a Catholic priest), through William Tyndale (another Catholic priest), Myles Coverdale, John Rogers, and the Geneva (first translated by a committee), and then the King James Authorized Bible translation in 1611.  King James was not a Catholic.  The committee translating the King James used primarily the Textus Receptus, and Tyndale's prior translations.  The Catholic church has used the Vaticanus and the Sinaiaticus in their English translations, as have some of the 'modern' English translations.



Tez3 said:


> As to the 'Old Testament', this I believe was written by Jews, about Jews and for Jews. It's Jewish history, Jewish law and customs. I don't honestly see why non Jews take it, mess around with it and proclaim it as theirs. It's not relevant to non Jews unless they convert and even then it's still not their history.  I haven't 'decided' not to believe in the New Testament it simply has no relevance to me in the same way as a scuba diving manual has no relevance to me.



Well, personally, I consider it the word of God.  Therefore, I couldn't discount or ignore it.  I don't think anyone has a lock on the 'word of God.'  Therefore neither you nor I can own it.  Now as to mess with it, I don't understand that.  It has simply been translated into English.  If that offends you I am sorry for you.  But as I said, I believe it to be the word of God to instruct those who believe in Him, and choose to follow His word.  I know there is history in the Old Testament, but it is instructional history.  Do you only see it as history, law, and customs for Jews, with no inspired words from God for you and others who believe in Him to live by?



Tez3 said:


> Non Jews using the Old Testament is akin to people of one country taking another's history and customs as their own, why would they? America fought a war with GB to gain it's independence why would they then slavishly copy everything English? They don't so why use the 'Old Testament' as if it were yours? why do you think things that happened in lands so far away so many thousands of years ago is relevant to your life? That's a serious question not an accusation.  t's not that I think non Jews shouldn't use our writings it's just I  don't see how relevant it can be to them when they aren't Jews. Again  it's like reading and believing everything a scuba diving manual says  when you live in the desert and even if you didn't you have no intention  of ever entering the water. If you aren't Jewish why would you take as  your own something that is so inherently Jewish?



My belief is that the Old Testament is the basis for all that is taught in the New Testament.  As you know, I believe in Jesus Christ as God and man, and the messiah.  Jesus himself often referred to the Old Testament and taught from it.  He also said he did not come to do away with the Old Testament, but to fulfil it.  I am not trying to steal the Old Testament, but accept it as God's word just as much as the New Testament.  I believe it is God's word that I must read, understand, and take to heart just as much as the New Testament.

I understand you don't believe in the New Testament.  That is your choice.



Tez3 said:


> it puzzles me quite often I must admit, mostly because of the feelings of many against the Jews of which Jesus was one, and he was very much a Jew. I don't think he intended his followers not to be Jewish even if they had to convert.



I have read how many have persecuted the Jews.  I am not one of them.  I don't agree with it.  I don't blame all Jews past or present for killing Jesus, any more than I blame all Romans past and present.  It is my belief that Jesus came to die and shed His blood so I and others could be saved.  Who killed Him has little impact on my faith in my belief.  But I am happy in my belief that Jesus died and she His blood so I could be saved.



Tez3 said:


> My copy of the Pentateuch and Haftorahs are in Hebrew and English as is my prayer book, I can read both, though that's where my Hebrew stops I'm afraid.



Why is it also in English?

Edit:  It occurs to me this may be a bit of a move away from the question of the OP.  I only intend to answer Tez3 or any others as to my belief, which isn't atheism.


----------



## granfire

Tez did not say the King James version was the earliest. She said it was Catholic in nature.
and not french....


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> As I said on another thread, isn't America turning into a facist state?
> 
> The interference is one sided for the most part, only one religion feels the need to impose so much on anyone else. The Muslims take umbrage of course when they feel threatened but to be honest they've had to put up with as much as we have from the same religious fervour. Only the Christians care about who isn't a Christian and if they are what brand they are.
> There are very few Christian sects who don't feel the need to shove their beliefs on us, possibly only the Quakers and the Amish don't preach at us and urge us to convert. If Christians could stop trying to convert the rest of the world to their beliefs, it would be a much more comfortable world. I'm sure they mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.



All I can tell you is that yes, true Christians do care about  who isn't a Christian.  However, a true Christian will never try to force someone to believe as they do.   It goes against Christianity.  If you have only met 'cults' rather than caring Christians, I am sorry.  Caring Christians will indeed tell you about their belief, many at any opportunity.  But they will never try to force you to their belief, nor will most take it to the point of turning you off, if they realize they may be doing so.


----------



## granfire

oftheherd1 said:


> All I can tell you is that yes, true Christians do care about  who isn't a Christian.  However, a true Christian will never try to force someone to believe as they do.   It goes against Christianity.  If you have only met 'cults' rather than caring Christians, I am sorry.  Caring Christians will indeed tell you about their belief, many at any opportunity.  But they will never try to force you to their belief, nor will most take it to the point of turning you off, if they realize they may be doing so.



:lfao:

That would be nice. But I guess my mileage varies from yours.


----------



## Touch Of Death

granfire said:


> defense mechanism of religion damaged people....
> 
> At least it seems to me that a lot of people who claim to be atheists have suffered greatly from over zealous 'spiritual' guidance.
> 
> Of course, there is a less cynical explanation, I am sure.


I have read that of satanists as well. I had a friend in the Army that was getting into it, and it had to be rooted in his militant Catholic school upbringing; because, I couldn't see where else it was coming from. As for atheism, I have a friend who is an atheist and the blame is on her parents, whom may or may not have had a strong religious upbringing. I'm guessing they did. 
Sean


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> Tez did not say the King James version was the earliest. She said it was Catholic in nature.
> and not french....



Yes, I got that.  I didn't think my answer implied anything else.  But to clear any misunderstanding up, the King James Bible was not a Catholic Bible.  It was not the first Bible in English; that was Wycliff's English translation.


----------



## oftheherd1

granfire said:


> :lfao:
> 
> That would be nice. But I guess my mileage varies from yours.



I've no doubt that it may be.  I'm sorry it is so.  

Maybe you need to broaden you contacts.  :uhyeah:


----------



## jezr74

oftheherd1 said:


> All I can tell you is that yes, true Christians do care about  who isn't a Christian.  However, a true Christian will never try to force someone to believe as they do.   It goes against Christianity.  If you have only met 'cults' rather than caring Christians, I am sorry.  Caring Christians will indeed tell you about their belief, many at any opportunity.  But they will never try to force you to their belief, nor will most take it to the point of turning you off, if they realize they may be doing so.



Isn't there scripture that says go forth and spread the word, and another indicating all true Christians are meant to be an evangelist. I can't remember the verses, was a long time ago I read the bible.


----------



## Tez3

oftheherd1 said:


> Yes, I got that. I didn't think my answer implied anything else. But to clear any misunderstanding up, the King James Bible was not a Catholic Bible. It was not the first Bible in English; that was Wycliff's English translation.




I didn't say it was the first Bible in English.
Methinks you didn't read my link and don't know as much as English history as you think. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
_"The Anglican Church&#8217;s King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Church&#8217;s Geneva Bible. *One of the greatest ironies of* *history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the &#8220;only&#8221; legitimate English language translation*&#8230; *yet it is not even a Protestant translation!* It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants&#8230; and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500&#8217;s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600&#8217;s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian history&#8217;s greatest books, Pilgrim&#8217;s Progress. Throughout the 1600&#8217;s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the King&#8217;s Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible._
_Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). "


_If you believe in the 'Old Testament' you will know that Jesus wasn't the messiah..... you can't have it both ways.


----------



## arnisador

oftheherd1 said:


> All I can tell you is that yes, true Christians do care about  who isn't a Christian



...and what those people are doing with their bodies, and who they marry, and...


----------



## Tez3

arnisador said:


> ...and what those people are doing with their bodies, and who they marry, and...



Exactly!


----------



## Xue Sheng

oftheherd1 said:


> All I can tell you is that yes, true Christians do care about who isn't a Christian. However, a true Christian will never try to force someone to believe as they do. It goes against Christianity. If you have only met 'cults' rather than caring Christians, I am sorry. Caring Christians will indeed tell you about their belief, many at any opportunity. But they will never try to force you to their belief, nor will most take it to the point of turning you off, if they realize they may be doing so.




Ever here of a little thing called the Crusades? There were a long time ago, but there was more than one, but I suppose you could have missed them


----------



## celtic_crippler

Religion has been used as a political tool from day one. "Belief" is very powerful.

I know atheists who keep it to themselves as well as people of faith. But even "atheists" believe in something... and those beliefs are exploited. For example, a very good childhood friend of mine is atheist and because of that he jumped right on the Obamacare bandwagon of wanting to force Christian based organizations to provide coverage for abortion.

Even though he's also homosexual and feels it's not right to legislate who someone can marry, he didn't hesitate to support legislation that would force somebody else to do something contrary to their beliefs. Eventually, he saw the irony in it and capitulated... but the point is, his "beliefs" were used to garner support from a political power, in both cases actually.


----------



## Tez3

Xue Sheng said:


> Ever here of a little thing called the Crusades? There were a long time ago, but there was more than one, but I suppose you could have missed them



And the Inquisition.    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html

And the Pogroms

And the terrorism and forced conversions...in the present day  http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.indian/2007-11/msg00125.html

sSome very strong accusations  about Christian groups http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4f.htm

However I've heard from many Nepalese that the Christian groups are very aggressive and are trying to rid the country of both Buddhists and Hindus. so much of this I know is true.
http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4h.htm#Nepal


----------



## jezr74

These are my beliefs\non-beliefs (what ever you want to call it). These are my opinions. Everyone will be different.

*Religion*: Dogma, I believe the church is a business alongside any other company. And prone to greed, corruption, and unscrupulous acts along side any other corporate entity. Both also capable of fantastic, innovative and selfless acts. As personal experience to testament to this, I have work many years with youth, homeless and mentally unstable people on a volunteer basis, and a professionally with-in IT scopes. And have seen things that absolutely repulsed me, with certain organisations that should not behave that way.

*Spiritual*: It's non-denominational to me, and it sums up what I think of people with "faith". It's the person I believe in, not the doctrine. But to profess to be a person of faith, I automatically expect you to behave the way your doctrine is expecting you too. (within reason of course). But I dislike the hypocrisy sometimes especially people who are examples of their faith and are just weekend evangelists. These are people of all walks, some are good some are bad. If you claim to have a spiritual side and are attached to a religious order, I'll hold you to that and weigh it in judgement of you. I've met and known people of all denominations, some are close friends others in passing through my life. I don't care if you have beliefs, just practice what you preach. Even then I don't really care, if we get along we get along. In my years I've met Christians (mostly), witches\warlocks, Buddhists, Muslims, Satanist, bohemianism and other denominations, including agnostics and atheists. Some are more righteous than others, but we are all human and prone to mistakes, acts of cruelty and compassion. None more or less capable than the other, and everyone has different sets of morals and codes of conduct. Although, self-righteousness and judgmental, ignorant attitude are more intrinsic to some than others.

*Atheism*: The reason I'm an atheist, because religion means nothing to me personally, I have interest in it, because my peers and friends do. I like to understand their mind set. I like some of the traditions and the history, it is interesting and has shaped some parts of culture and the world in different ways. Do I personally buy into it? No. Will I ever? Probability is unlikely, since I've been involved with churches\faith organisations, spiritual people at differing stages of my life, have also tried to and resulted in non-belief, but not from lack of friends trying to instill it in me.

*Skepticism: *I am a skeptical person, I have a lot of interest in science. I only bang my chest at Spiritual people when they make claims that can be tested and actually proven. Like hollow earth, young creationists, intelligent design etc.

I like hearing about different ways of life, we have moved into a strong Jewish suburb. I've had very little to non-existent exposure to this culture back in Australia. So I've been making the most of it, my neighbor is a Jewish family, and they make me what I'm told is traditional Jewish food and drop it over some times. Our kids come home from school singing songs and have home work of different ways, they are teaching me about the different traditions.

I'm not at the familiarity with them yet to start asking questions, and they have done nothing to force any views. They don't hide it, and I don't get the impression they will care if I'm a non-believer. I've also started to take an interest in Zen Buddhism, because of the influence on karate. So I'll hopefully start looking at that as well.

That's *my* story, that's what being an Atheist is to me, if you think it's called something else that's fine.


----------



## Tez3

jezr74 said:


> These are my beliefs\non-beliefs (what ever you want to call it). These are my opinions. Everyone will be different.
> 
> *Religion*: Dogma, I believe the church is a business alongside any other company. And prone to greed, corruption, and unscrupulous acts along side any other corporate entity. Both also capable of fantastic, innovative and selfless acts. As personal experience to testament to this, I have work many years with youth, homeless and mentally unstable people on a volunteer basis, and a professionally with-in IT scopes. And have seen things that absolutely repulsed me, with certain organisations that should not behave that way.
> 
> *Spiritual*: It's non-denominational to me, and it sums up what I think of people with "faith". It's the person I believe in, not the doctrine. But to profess to be a person of faith, I automatically expect you to behave the way your doctrine is expecting you too. (within reason of course). But I dislike the hypocrisy sometimes especially people who are examples of their faith and are just weekend evangelists. These are people of all walks, some are good some are bad. If you claim to have a spiritual side and are attached to a religious order, I'll hold you to that and weigh it in judgement of you. I've met and known people of all denominations, some are close friends others in passing through my life. I don't care if you have beliefs, just practice what you preach. Even then I don't really care, if we get along we get along. In my years I've met Christians (mostly), witches\warlocks, Buddhists, Muslims, Satanist, bohemianism and other denominations, including agnostics and atheists. Some are more righteous than others, but we are all human and prone to mistakes, acts of cruelty and compassion. None more or less capable than the other, and everyone has different sets of morals and codes of conduct. Although, self-righteousness and judgmental, ignorant attitude are more intrinsic to some than others.
> 
> *Atheism*: The reason I'm an atheist, because religion means nothing to me personally, I have interest in it, because my peers and friends do. I like to understand their mind set. I like some of the traditions and the history, it is interesting and has shaped some parts of culture and the world in different ways. Do I personally buy into it? No. Will I ever? Probability is unlikely, since I've been involved with churches\faith organisations, spiritual people at differing stages of my life, have also tried to and resulted in non-belief, but not from lack of friends trying to instill it in me.
> 
> *Skepticism: *I am a skeptical person, I have a lot of interest in science. I only bang my chest at Spiritual people when they make claims that can be tested and actually proven. Like hollow earth, young creationists, intelligent design etc.
> 
> I like hearing about different ways of life, we have moved into a strong Jewish suburb. I've had very little to non-existent exposure to this culture back in Australia. So I've been making the most of it, my neighbor is a Jewish family, and they make me what I'm told is traditional Jewish food and drop it over some times. Our kids come home from school singing songs and have home work of different ways, they are teaching me about the different traditions.
> 
> I'm not at the familiarity with them yet to start asking questions, and they have done nothing to force any views. They don't hide it, and I don't get the impression they will care if I'm a non-believer. I've also started to take an interest in Zen Buddhism, because of the influence on karate. So I'll hopefully start looking at that as well.
> 
> That's *my* story, that's what being an Atheist is to me, if you think it's called something else that's fine.



I see you have found the mainstay of Judaism...food! Jews don't preach or try to convert people, quite the opposite if you expressed interest we'd be shouting, no, no! We don't have a institutional 'church' either, there isn't an overall governing body. Rabbis aren't priests they are teachers. If you express interest your neighbours will tell you about Judaism, well their version lol, probably not quite the same as mine, they will not expect you to believe anything, certainly not what they believe. Personally I'd be happier in the company of athiests and agnostics than committed Christians, (sorry but it's true)


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Religion has been used as a political tool from day one. "Belief" is very powerful.
> 
> I know atheists who keep it to themselves as well as people of faith. But even "atheists" believe in something... and those beliefs are exploited. For example, a very good childhood friend of mine is atheist and because of that he jumped right on the Obamacare bandwagon of wanting to force Christian based organizations to provide coverage for abortion.
> 
> Even though he's also homosexual and feels it's not right to legislate who someone can marry, he didn't hesitate to support legislation that would force somebody else to do something contrary to their beliefs. Eventually, he saw the irony in it and capitulated... but the point is, his "beliefs" were used to garner support from a political power, in both cases actually.




A guy a work who is a christian told me one weekend, he didn't actually believe in god, it's just the way he's been raised. Think he wanted to get it off his chest. I don't use him as my Christian example. Don't know if he's homosexual or what political party he follows, wasn't relevant to the discussion. Just told him to hang in there and work it out, what ever he's been doing is ok, he's a good guy. And if he's happy who cares.


----------



## jezr74

Tez3 said:


> I see you have found the mainstay of Judaism...food!



I do love food, we have that in common.


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> A guy a work who is a christian told me one weekend, he didn't actually believe in god, it's just the way he's been raised. Think he wanted to get it off his chest. I don't use him as my Christian example. Don't know if he's homosexual or what political party he follows, wasn't relevant to the discussion. Just told him to hang in there and work it out, what ever he's been doing is ok, he's a good guy. And if he's happy who cares.



Bacon.


----------



## Xue Sheng

Tez3 said:


> And the Inquisition. http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
> 
> And the Pogroms
> 
> And the terrorism and forced conversions...in the present day http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.indian/2007-11/msg00125.html
> 
> sSome very strong accusations about Christian groups http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4f.htm
> 
> However I've heard from many Nepalese that the Christian groups are very aggressive and are trying to rid the country of both Buddhists and Hindus. so much of this I know is true.
> http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4h.htm#Nepal



DARN IT!!!! I can't believe I forgot to mention Torquemada and the boys... I ALWAYS throw that one out along with the Crusades in conversations like this.

Thanks for adding it

As for the rest, sadly it does not surprise me at all.


----------



## Tez3

The Gurkhas here are targeted by our local 'born again Christians', they go around to their houses to try and convert them, Gurkhas of course in the tradtional ways of Nepal invite them in and offer them food and drink ( as they will all visitors), the 'missionaries' ( how they style themselves) take advantage of this hospitality and presume on the Nepalese way of being polite to visitors to harangue their hosts into becoming Christian. A lot of the church groups in Nepal itself are funded by Americans who use withholding medical care and schooling to blackmail the Nepalese into converting. If you aren't a Christian you can't use the medical facilities or schools funded by these groups.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jul/24/evangelical-christians-homophobia-africa

http://www.alternet.org/story/153543/the_christmas_war_on_atheism%3A_what's_the_religious_right_whining_about_when_it's_really_non-believers_who_are_under_attack

http://buddhism.about.com/b/2008/05/30/buddhists-v-christians-in-sri-lanka.htm

http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2640084.ece

I think Christians need to see what is being done in their religions name.


----------



## Big Don




----------



## Tez3

I've never had an atheist mock my beliefs, nor taunt me, nor throw stones at me nor try to convert me. Perhaps if there were a few more atheists around we might have a better world.
Atheists don't send missionaries around the world, don't go on crusades, have Inquistions nor pogroms. they make think that those of us who have a belief are daft which is fine at least they don't kill us for our beliefs.


----------



## jezr74

Big Don said:


>



lol, written by someone who knew nothing.


----------



## jezr74

A very good series to watch is Wonders of the Universe, by a favorite physicist of mine Brian Cox. He explains things very simply and is well worth a watch.


----------



## oftheherd1

Tez3 said:


> As I said on another thread, isn't America turning into a facist state?
> 
> The interference is one sided for the most part, only one religion feels the need to impose so much on anyone else. The Muslims take umbrage of course when they feel threatened but to be honest they've had to put up with as much as we have from the same religious fervour. Only the Christians care about who isn't a Christian and if they are what brand they are.
> There are very few Christian sects who don't feel the need to shove their beliefs on us, possibly only the Quakers and the Amish don't preach at us and urge us to convert. If Christians could stop trying to convert the rest of the world to their beliefs, it would be a much more comfortable world. I'm sure they mean well but the road to hell is paved with good intentions.



I think you have a lot of hate for Christians.  But of course your definition of a Christian and my definition of a Christian are probably quite different.



jezr74 said:


> Isn't there scripture that says go forth and spread the word, and another indicating all true Christians are meant to be an evangelist. I can't remember the verses, was a long time ago I read the bible.



Of course there is.  But it does not say go out and force anyone to be a believer in Jesus Christ.



Tez3 said:


> I didn't say it was the first Bible in English.
> Methinks you didn't read my link and don't know as much as English history as you think. http://www.greatsite.com/timeline-english-bible-history/
> _"The Anglican Churchs King James Bible took decades to overcome the more popular Protestant Churchs Geneva Bible. *One of the greatest ironies of* *history, is that many Protestant Christian churches today embrace the King James Bible exclusively as the only legitimate English language translation* *yet it is not even a Protestant translation!* It was printed to compete with the Protestant Geneva Bible, by authorities who throughout most of history were hostile to Protestants and killed them. While many Protestants are quick to assign the full blame of persecution to the Roman Catholic Church, it should be noted that even after England broke from Roman Catholicism in the 1500s, the Church of England (The Anglican Church) continued to persecute Protestants throughout the 1600s. One famous example of this is John Bunyan, who while in prison for the crime of preaching the Gospel, wrote one of Christian historys greatest books, Pilgrims Progress. Throughout the 1600s, as the Puritans and the Pilgrims fled the religious persecution of England to cross the Atlantic and start a new free nation in America, they took with them their precious Geneva Bible, and rejected the Kings Bible. America was founded upon the Geneva Bible, not the King James Bible._
> _Protestants today are largely unaware of their own history, and unaware of the Geneva Bible (which is textually 95% the same as the King James Version, but 50 years older than the King James Version, and not influenced by the Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament that the King James translators admittedly took into consideration). "
> 
> 
> _If you believe in the 'Old Testament' you will know that Jesus wasn't the messiah..... you can't have it both ways.



Well, I can have it any way my belief leads me after reading the Old and New Testaments.  Evidently you and I understand the Old Testament differently.  So be it.

Sadly, too many 'protestant' churches no longer follow the King James Bible, but one of the newer translations based on Hort and Wescott.

Apparently you are not aware that the translators of the King James relied mostly on the Textus Receptus, but also on Tynsdale's translations.  They were aware of the Catholic Bible, the Geneva Bible, and others, including the peshitta.



arnisador said:


> ...and what those people are doing with their bodies, and who they marry, and...



What Christians have you known?



Xue Sheng said:


> Ever here of a little thing called the Crusades? There were a long time ago, but there was more than one, but I suppose you could have missed them



I am aware of them.  Who raised the crusaders and dispatched them?



Tez3 said:


> And the Inquisition.    http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/History/Inquisition.html
> 
> And the Pogroms
> 
> And the terrorism and forced conversions...in the present day  http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.indian/2007-11/msg00125.html
> 
> sSome very strong accusations  about Christian groups http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4f.htm
> 
> However I've heard from many Nepalese that the Christian groups are very aggressive and are trying to rid the country of both Buddhists and Hindus. so much of this I know is true.
> http://freetruth.50webs.org/D4h.htm#Nepal



If they are doing it in a way that does not comport with the teachings of Christ, they would be wrong.



Xue Sheng said:


> DARN IT!!!! I can't believe I forgot to mention Torquemada and the boys... I ALWAYS throw that one out along with the Crusades in conversations like this.
> 
> Thanks for adding it
> 
> As for the rest, sadly it does not surprise me at all.



The main reason I lumped all these together is just to show what seems to happen in these threads.  No one wants to define what a Christian is, but rather to lump all people who call themselves Christians together.  That leaves no room to show that some who call themselves Christian, are not acting like Christians as shown in the Bible. Rather, everyone wants to say that anyone who calls themselves Christian but doesn't live according to the Bible, is representative of all Christians.

Hey if you all are correct in what you believe, wonderful for you.  I don't see that I will have any good or bad things different from you.  However, if I am correct wonderful for me, but not for you.  We all have choices.

I am not how you wish to portray me.  You don't know my lifestyle, you don't know if I live by what the Bible teaches or not.  And if not, how far I stray or how closely I get to it.  Yet you seem to want to show all Christians as monsters, and by association, me and any other person who strives to follow the teachings of Christ as shown in the Bible.

What is a sad to me, is that apparently you have not met anyone who really tries to live by what the Bible teaches.  That is a shame.

Go for it guys.  I am done with this.


----------



## jezr74

oftheherd1 said:


> I think you have a lot of hate for Christians.  But of course your definition of a Christian and my definition of a Christian are probably quite different.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course there is.  But it does not say go out and force anyone to be a believer in Jesus Christ.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I can have it any way my belief leads me after reading the Old and New Testaments.  Evidently you and I understand the Old Testament differently.  So be it.
> 
> Sadly, too many 'protestant' churches no longer follow the King James Bible, but one of the newer translations based on Hort and Wescott.
> 
> Apparently you are not aware that the translators of the King James relied mostly on the Textus Receptus, but also on Tynsdale's translations.  They were aware of the Catholic Bible, the Geneva Bible, and others, including the peshitta.
> 
> 
> 
> What Christians have you known?
> 
> 
> 
> I am aware of them.  Who raised the crusaders and dispatched them?
> 
> 
> 
> If they are doing it in a way that does not comport with the teachings of Christ, they would be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> The main reason I lumped all these together is just to show what seems to happen in these threads.  No one wants to define what a Christian is, but rather to lump all people who call themselves Christians together.  That leaves no room to show that some who call themselves Christian are not acting like Christians as shown in the Bible.  Then everyone wants to say that anyone who calls themselves Christian but doesn't live according to the Bible, is representative of all Christians.
> 
> Hey if you all are correct in what you believe, wonderful for you.  I don't see that I will have any good or bad things different from you.  However, if I am correct wonderful for me, but not for you.  We all have choices.
> 
> I am not how you wish to portray me.  You don't know my lifestyle, you don't know f I live by what the Bible teaches or not.  And if not, how far I stray or how closely I get to it.  Yet you seem to want to show all Christians as monsters, and by association, me and any other person who strives to follow the teachings of Christ as shown in the Bible.
> 
> Go for it guys.  I am done with this.



My post back a few was in agreement. People are what I believe in, not the constitution. That's up to the individual. 

You'll find that there had been a few of us sharing honestly in this thread, and some just dropping in one liners to incite.

The comment about evangelicalism wasn't a dig, I was curious if people are taught to go out and spread the word, a phrase commonly used. Or is it only some groups that do it.





I think there had been some 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Bacon.



I'm not sure what the bacon means?



celtic_crippler said:


> _Religion has been used as a political tool from day one. "Belief" is very powerful._
> 
> _I know atheists who keep it to themselves as well as people of faith. But even "atheists" believe in something... and those beliefs are exploited. For example, a very good childhood friend of mine is atheist and because of that he jumped right on the Obamacare bandwagon of wanting to force Christian based organizations to provide coverage for abortion._
> 
> _Even though he's also homosexual and feels it's not right to legislate who someone can marry, he didn't hesitate to support legislation that would force somebody else to do something contrary to their beliefs. Eventually, he saw the irony in it and capitulated... but the point is, his "beliefs" were used to garner support from a political power, in both cases actually._



What I should have asked here is, what does being an atheist have to do with Obamacare, abortion, homosexuality and politics?


----------



## jezr74

oftheherd1 said:


> What is a sad to me, is that apparently you have not met anyone who really tries to live by what the Bible teaches. That is a shame.



Well I have met many good people that were Christians. I think when posting, it's hard to express in typed words, and text can be messy. Unfortunately, when people are trying to make a point, we all tend to use the most extream or shocking end of the spectrum to get the desired reaction across. I have much respect for spiritual people of faith who have strong resolve. I once worked with a team of Christians (the reason I single out Christians is because it was a Christian organisation) who went in to save\assist women from violent domestic relationships, they would physically put themselves on the line to protect mothers and their children. I was amazed at their bravery and ability to handle situations many times. They told me it was their faith in god to protect them, I never doubted it.

Maybe I don't balance things out as much as I think I do when writing things up.


----------



## arnisador

jezr74 said:


> What I should have asked here is, what does being an atheist have to do with Obamacare, abortion, homosexuality and politics?



All measures of intelligence correlate positively with both atheism and liberalism.


----------



## arnisador

jezr74 said:


> Well I have met many good people that were Christians.



It does mean ignoring the more hateful teachings of their alleged religion, of course.


----------



## celtic_crippler

arnisador said:


> All measures of intelligence correlate positively with both atheism and liberalism.



Because you're atehist and a liberal, right? ROFL



arnisador said:


> It does mean ignoring the more hateful teachings of their alleged religion, of course.



Okay. Please cite a passage from the New Testament that "teaches" hate.


----------



## Tez3

I don't hate 'Christians' at all, so please don't patronise me. 

The Old Testament is Jewish,* it's written as I've said by Jews, about Jews and for Jews,* that someone chooses to see it as being something else I can't help but they are wrong. It's like me insisting that the American Constitution is something specifically Danish, nothing to do with America and that you've read it all wrong anyway but I'm correct. It simply isn't true. Especially when you pick and choose which bits of it you will believe.

When you talk about the King James Bible I think you forget that it's not specially a Christian thing, it's about British history so it's something, having studied it, I actually know about. However like the Old Testament it's ingrained in you to believe you are right about it. You won't believe anything I can cite as you can't bring yourself to believe what I say about the Old Testament.  

As for the definition of Christians we can only go on what people tell us about themselves, if they say they are Christians are we to challenge them because it isn't how you say it should be? I don't see all Christians as being the same but I do see ones that are causing damage to not just non Christians but to other Christians as well.


As for the Crusades, it is actually relevant to today as many Muslims still hold Christianity and with it the West for the appalling bloodshed of their people. You may think it's just history but it laid the foundations for what was to come, the Inqusition, the Holocaust and the hatred of non Christians. America is a modern country, it moves quickly into the future, it's people look forward not back, in the Old World, time moves slower, even in my part of the world the Vikings could come back and find not so much changed, the country is eternal and so it is with history handed down from generation to generation so the Crusades don't seem so far away to us as maybe you think they are.

Some Christians have thought about the Crusades and their legacy though.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_cru1.htm


----------



## crushing

arnisador said:


> All measures of intelligence correlate positively with both atheism and liberalism.



By liberalism, the researchers meant classical liberalism, not the much more authoritarian version in America's faux left, correct?


----------



## Tez3

crushing said:


> By liberalism, the researchers meant classical liberalism, not the much more authoritarian version in America's faux left, correct?



I would think so certainly.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Because you're atehist and a liberal, right? ROFL



Ok, my problem is I don't get all the reference to political posturing. When I ask what has it got to do with it, its because I have no idea what your talking about, or the relevance.


----------



## Big Don

In short atheism is a religion of people who, by and large, think they are smarter than anyone and everyone who is religious.
They have their evangelists, Michael Newdow, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette, of the four, only Jillette is honest enough to state plainly why he will never attack Islam the way he does other religions, i.e., 





> we haven&#8217;t tacked Islam because we have families.


The zealous fervor that they hate religions and those who practice them is no less ugly than the Nazis killing Jews by the numbers during WWII.


----------



## jezr74

Big Don said:


> In short atheism is a religion of people who, by and large, think they are smarter than anyone and everyone who is religious.
> They have their evangelists, Michael Newdow, Bill Maher, Richard Dawkins, Penn Jillette, of the four, only Jillette is honest enough to state plainly why he will never attack Islam the way he does other religions, i.e.,
> The zealous fervor that they hate religions and those who practice them is no less ugly than the Nazis killing Jews by the numbers during WWII.



You should be learning from these smart people. But you can only lead a horse to water.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Ok, my problem is I don't get all the reference to political posturing. When I ask what has it got to do with it, its because I have no idea what your talking about, or the relevance.




Okay, buddy... what don't you understand?

Let's go with the basics until you present a specific question.

It's not always the case, but in general Christians tend to be conservative and align themselves with Repbublicans or more recently the Tea Party. If you understand the Christian concept of being a "good steward of one's money" this makes absolute sense. They see themselves as moral which makes them *correct* because they are on the side of "Right".

It's not always the case, but in general Atheists tend to be liberal (modern definition) and align themselves with Democrats. They tend to see themselves as intellectuals which gives them justification for being *correct *because they are on the side of "Science."

History is rife with examples of tyrants using "beliefs" to their advantage to garner support and bring numbers to "their side." Even today, people's beliefs are exploited for political gain. So, you see... you can not separate "religion" from "politics".

As for me and mine? Libertarians don't give a rat's patoot what you believe in as long as you don't try to legislate it onto others. Perhaps that's why we number the fewest. We aren't trying to force anything down anyone's throat.


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> You should be learning from these smart people. But you can only lead a horse to water.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



Now who's being judgemental?


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Okay, buddy... what don't you understand?
> 
> Let's go with the basics until you present a specific question.
> 
> It's not always the case, but in general Christians tend to be conservative and align themselves with Repbublicans or more recently the Tea Party. If you understand the Christian concept of being a "good steward of one's money" this makes absolute sense. They see themselves as moral which makes them *correct* because they are on the side of "Right".
> 
> It's not always the case, but in general Atheists tend to be liberal (modern definition) and align themselves with Democrats. They tend to see themselves as intellectuals which gives them justification for being *correct *because they are on the side of "Science."
> 
> History is rife with examples of tyrants using "beliefs" to their advantage to garner support and bring numbers to "their side." Even today, people's beliefs are exploited for political gain. So, you see... you can not separate "religion" from "politics".
> 
> As for me and mine? Libertarians don't give a rat's patoot what you believe in as long as you don't try to legislate it onto others. Perhaps that's why we number the fewest. We aren't trying to force anything down anyone's throat.



Ok, thanks for clarification. Is this your opinion, or is this common knowledge?

Well generally science is based on facts and evidence. People have a hard time accepting these things if they are trying to sell you snake oil. But is skeptical in nature, don't think atheism is science driven.

I just get lost in comments that turn to politics and miss the significance.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Now who's being judgemental?



Just a tounge in cheek comment. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Ok, thanks for clarification. Is this your opinion, or is this common knowledge?
> 
> Well generally science is based on facts and evidence. People have a hard time accepting these things if they are trying to sell you snake oil. But is skeptical in nature, don't think atheism is science driven.
> 
> I just get lost in comments that turn to politics and miss the significance.
> 
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



It's pretty much accepted and backed up by "fact". 

I don't suppose you saw my earlier post skimming over how old this debate is and citing rational arguments both for and against? 

The issue is more complicated than you give credit for and evidence has been presented both for and against by some pretty legitimate folks throughout history. 

Again, at the end of the day, it's something you must decide for yourself. It's a personal journey and anything else, IMHO, is an effort to either validate one's beliefs due to doubt or for political gain.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> I don't suppose you saw my earlier post skimming over how old this debate is and citing rational arguments both for and against?
> 
> The issue is more complicated than you give credit for and evidence has been presented both for and against by some pretty legitimate folks throughout history.



I did read these comments, but it looks to me that you are mixing Atheism and Skepticism somewhat.

Don posted a picture about Atheism, talking abut the big bang. The sentences in the image were actually nonsense. Along side not really having anything to do with Atheism. It's the skeptic that generally understands science.

The reason I laugh at those types of posts, is that it's a trap. A person of religion can never let it go and entertain things like the big bang and evolution. Because they feel if they do "someone" wins because some scripture is around creation and the begging of life. They should adapt, the bible was written in parables and metaphors, maybe they should reassess and update their view of Adam and Eve based on what they know today, change with the times.

Was listening on a local channel here that a christian group is starting to teach priests and pastors about science so when they are asked question by their congregation, it doesn't confuse people. I thought, what a great idea and about time. If I can dig find and article or something about it, I'll post it. That would shut up skeptics and religious factions once and for all if they had no ammo to disagree on.


----------



## arnisador

Big Don said:


> In short atheism is a religion of people who, by and large, think they are smarter than anyone and everyone who is religious.



Statistically speaking, they are.



> The zealous fervor that they hate religions and those who practice them is no less ugly than the Nazis killing Jews by the numbers during WWII.



Wow. Hey, why is there no [GODWIN] tag on this site?


----------



## Carol

jezr74 said:


> The reason I laugh at those types of posts, is that it's a trap. A person of religion can never let it go and entertain things like the big bang and evolution. Because they feel if they do "someone" wins because some scripture is around creation and the begging of life. They should adapt, the bible was written in parables and metaphors, maybe they should reassess and update their view of Adam and Eve based on what they know today, change with the times.



I think that's too pandemic of a statement.  Many religious people have no dog in that hunt, so to speak.  Sikhism has no creation story, neither does Buddhism.  The Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang and Evolution, and the Jesuits head up several academically rigorous institutions -- including those with world-class science programs such as Boston College and Georgetown University.


----------



## jezr74

Carol said:


> I think that's too pandemic of a statement.  Many religious people have no dog in that hunt, so to speak.  Sikhism has no creation story, neither does Buddhism.  The Catholic Church accepts the Big Bang and Evolution, and the Jesuits head up several academically rigorous institutions -- including those with world-class science programs such as Boston College and Georgetown University.



The slogan was full of naive and nonsense comments. Claiming it mocks beliefs, my response was more keeping in that context of what ever group it was meant to be coming from.

Interesting, I didn't know that about the Catholic church, was it a statement in an article, or proclaimed by the pope, not sure what makes something official? 

It's good to hear about the science programs.


----------



## celtic_crippler

There are "Christians" out there that accept that an omnipotent being would engineer things like "evolution" into the plan. 

"Laughing" at any idea or theory is not a reflection of intelligence, to the contrary it is a reflection of close-mindedness as an intelligient person is capable of entertaining concepts and ideas they might not immediately agreee with. It is the sign of intelligence to be able to entertain such ideas without simply accepting them. 

This is a quality many lack, on both sides of the fence.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> There are "Christians" out there that accept that an omnipotent being would engineer things like "evolution" into the plan.
> 
> "Laughing" at any idea or theory is not a reflection of intelligence, to the contrary it is a reflection of close-mindedness as an intelligient person is capable of entertaining concepts and ideas they might not immediately agreee with. It is the sign of intelligence to be able to entertain such ideas without simply accepting them.
> 
> This is a quality many lack, on both sides of the fence.



Re-read the picture thing, and highlight the intelligent lines for me.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Re-read the picture thing, and highlight the intelligent lines for me.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



Ummm... No. Do it yourself. 

I'm not gonna hold your hand and guide you to any sort of enlightenment. You need to research things for yourself and determine what's right for you. How much "effort" you put into it shall reflect how important it is to you. I've done my homework and am quite comfortable with my personal spirituality. You need to do the same.


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Ummm... No. Do it yourself.
> 
> I'm not gonna hold your hand and guide you to any sort of enlightenment. You need to research things for yourself and determine what's right for you. How much "effort" you put into it shall reflect how important it is to you. I've done my homework and am quite comfortable with my personal spirituality. You need to do the same.



How can you find enlightenment in it? Its mumbo jumbo.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> How can you find enlightenment in it? Its mumbo jumbo.
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



Refer to previous posts. 

And... BTW... Bacon!


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Refer to previous posts.
> 
> And... BTW... Bacon!



LOL, if I get time in the morning ill try and explain what we do know. Then you should understand what I mean by if being a garbage statement. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## celtic_crippler

Those who have faith understand it. Those who dont, never will. 

Few things in life are simply black and white, but that is one thing that is. 

You will not find the path to spirituality in the outside world because it lies within each of us, individually. 

Outside influences play a key role in each individuals spiritual journey; however, the conclusion one reaches is there own. 

If youve convinced yourself there is nothing more, then in your world there will be nothing more. If youve convinced yourself there is something more, then in your world there will be something more.


----------



## Makalakumu

celtic_crippler said:


> Those who have faith understand it. Those who dont, never will.
> 
> Few things in life are simply black and white, but that is one thing that is.
> 
> You will not find the path to spirituality in the outside world because it lies within each of us, individually.
> 
> Outside influences play a key role in each individuals spiritual journey; however, the conclusion one reaches is there own.
> 
> If youve convinced yourself there is nothing more, then in your world there will be nothing more. If youve convinced yourself there is something more, then in your world there will be something more.



Don't we all live in the same universe with the same physical laws? I accept that spirituality is personal, but I think it is limited by the minds that accept it. Beyond that, the universe exists and all collective delusions do not play a role in governing it.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Makalakumu said:


> Don't we all live in the same universe with the same physical laws? I accept that spirituality is personal, but I think it is limited by the minds that accept it. Beyond that, the universe exists and all collective delusions do not play a role in governing it.



One man's delusion is another man's belief. I've addressed this ad nauseum previously in the thread.


----------



## Makalakumu

celtic_crippler said:


> One man's delusion is another man's belief. I've addressed this ad nauseum previously in the thread.



Beliefs are delusions, even those that are based in evidence. Even science is delusional to a degree.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Makalakumu said:


> Beliefs are delusions, even those that are based in evidence. Even science is delusional to a degree.



&#8220;Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.&#8221;  
&#8213;  Robert A. Heinlein


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Those who have faith understand it. Those who dont, never will.



Understand what?! My point is that the sentence is foolish and wrought with ignorance and false dichotomies. We *know* the big bang happened, we *know* where we came from, we *know* how the universe formed, we learn more each year. The argument from incredulity shows you have not actually read it properly or thought logically which you seem to accuse so many of. We even know what was before the big bang.



celtic_crippler said:


> Few things in life are simply black and white, but that is one thing that is.


When you have evidence and facts, yeah it can be. I still have no idea what your taking from that slogan or what you think it means. It feel like your arguing just for the sake of it.



celtic_crippler said:


> You will not find the path to spirituality in the outside world because it lies within each of us, individually.


I'm not looking for spirituality.



celtic_crippler said:


> Outside influences play a key role in each individuals spiritual journey; however, the conclusion one reaches is there own.
> If youve convinced yourself there is nothing more, then in your world there will be nothing more. If you've convinced yourself there is something more, then in your world there will be something more.


I'm not looking for spirituality.


----------



## Drasken

Actually I feel I must interrupt here to point out that saying we KNOW something is wrong when it comes to science. We have a pretty good idea, however a discovery tomorrow could prove this idea to be wrong. It happens all the time with science. After all, at one point we KNEW the earth was flat.


----------



## jezr74

Drasken said:


> Actually I feel I must interrupt here to point out that saying we KNOW something is wrong when it comes to science. We have a pretty good idea, however a discovery tomorrow could prove this idea to be wrong. It happens all the time with science. After all, at one point we KNEW the earth was flat.



That can happen, that's the beauty of science. What we know today, may not be what we know tomorrow. But I'm talking about what we know today. Generally what we know has gone through peer review, publish and repeatable for any one to test against or learn from, once something has been countered, or new evidence arrives. We then know something new, and hopefully it replaces the old.


----------



## Tez3

Drasken said:


> Actually I feel I must interrupt here to point out that saying we KNOW something is wrong when it comes to science. We have a pretty good idea, however a discovery tomorrow could prove this idea to be wrong. It happens all the time with science. After all, at one point we KNEW the earth was flat.



The flat earth thing is a a myth actually, mankind have been sailing boats for millenia and knew the earth wasn't flat.

http://bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm


----------



## Makalakumu

celtic_crippler said:


> Delusions are often functional. A mother's opinions about her children's beauty, intelligence, goodness, et cetera ad nauseam, keep her from drowning them at birth.
> &#8213;  Robert A. Heinlein



Fascinating point. Perhaps a delusional upgrade could be argued for because it would be more functional? Newtonian Physics was a useful delusion at the time, but it was given up for a more useful delusion eventually. 

The same point could be made for religion. Think about all of the damage that is done to society because people cling to their particular thousand year old delusions. I say jettison the whole religious mess and upgrade your delusions!


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> Understand what?! My point is that the sentence is foolish and wrought with ignorance and false dichotomies. We *know* the big bang happened, we *know* where we came from, we *know* how the universe formed, we learn more each year. The argument from incredulity shows you have not actually read it properly or thought logically which you seem to accuse so many of. We even know what was before the big bang.


 
You keep throwing around &#8220;false dichotomy&#8221;&#8230; I don&#8217;t think that means what you think it means. 

At no point have I made the assertion that anyone&#8217;s beliefs were outrageous. To the contrary, I&#8217;ve said more than once people are free to believe whatever they wish. The only time I take issue with another&#8217;s belief is when they attempt to force it upon me. 

You don&#8217;t understand &#8220;faith&#8221;&#8230; and it&#8217;s obvious; painfully so. So much so that it&#8217;s apparently the source of much frustration for you. So when you post this:



jezr74 said:


> I'm not looking for spirituality.


 
I have to wonder&#8230; 

If you&#8217;re really an atheist, and don&#8217;t believe in faith of any sort, then why are you getting so upset? 

Are those doubts we&#8217;re seeing bubbling to the surface? Are you seeking validation for your belief or non-belief as it were? 




jezr74 said:


> When you have evidence and facts, yeah it can be. I still have no idea what your taking from that slogan or what you think it means. It feel like your arguing just for the sake of it.


 
You claim intellectual superiority here, but it&#8217;s apparent you haven&#8217;t done much homework on the matter. 

I at least, have posted legitimate opinions from accepted legitimate sources citing arguments both for and against; therefore, through my actions, have proven that I am at least capable of entertaining more than one point of view regardless of what I believe. 

What have you posted? 

I&#8217;ll make it easy for you and bullet-point the observations I&#8217;ve made:


Spirituality is a uniquely individual thing
If you have faith you understand it. If not, you don&#8217;t (thanks for providing evidence of that by the way LOL)
Those attempting to force their views on others are typically either doing so for validation or political gain
Religious freedom means being able to believe whatever you like as long as you don&#8217;t cause harm or attempt to legislate your beliefs on others
Everyone dies; therefore, any questions or doubts anyone has about the subject will eventually be laid to rest along with their decaying body
This is quite possibly the oldest debate known to man. Noted &#8220;intellectuals&#8221; such as Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Averroes, Aquinas, Descartes, Immanuel Kant, David Hume, Nietzsche, Bertrand Russell, Albert Einstein, Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, Richard Swinburne, William Lane Craig, and Alvin Plantinga have all put considerable thought into the matter and some concluded there is proof while others concluded otherwise.
 
Atheist tend to see &#8220;God&#8221; as an invisible man, sitting up in the clouds, monitoring everything we do and therefore take Him no more seriously than they do the Easter Bunny. 

In all fairness, I&#8217;ve also met Christians that think of &#8220;God&#8221; as a fatherly, white-bearded old man who takes a personal interest in their lives. If we&#8217;re &#8220;good&#8221; then we get to go to heaven, but if we&#8217;re &#8220;bad&#8221; the deity that personifies love and kindness casts you into a pit of fire to burn forever. 

Here&#8217;s another observation for you: I see these views as hugely arrogant as they attempt to assign flawed human characteristics to something that one would not think a &#8220;being&#8221; or &#8220;intelligence&#8221; of such magnitude would possess. 

There are those that take the Bible quite literally, there are others that recognize the symbolism within it, and yet others who reject it altogether. No two people will take away the exact same interpretation after reading a passage. There&#8217;s no false dichotomy there, in fact that&#8217;s a lot of gray. You want proof? Just look at all the denominations that exist within the Christian community alone. And don&#8217;t forget, the Big 3 (Christianity, Judaism, and Islam) all began with Abraham. So, yeah&#8230; subject to interpretation. 

If you put &#8220;religion&#8221; aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, it&#8217;s hard to disagree that we wouldn&#8217;t be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question, &#8220;From where do atheists derive their moral character?&#8221; 

If you&#8217;re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions? Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do good works? Without something &#8220;spiritual&#8221; involved, from where do you derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else? 

But then to be fair, &#8220;spirituality&#8221; really lacks a definitive definition and you apparently don&#8217;t define it the way I do; not even close. 

By the way, in "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists finally discover the so-called _"theory of everything_" then they will have _seen into the mind of God_. Hawking is not the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be _like looking into the face of God_.

Atheists don&#8217;t believe in a God or supreme intelligence of any sort, so be careful who and what you cite to back up your position.


----------



## celtic_crippler

Edit: Duplicate Post


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> That can happen, that's the beauty of science. What we know today, may not be what we know tomorrow. But I'm talking about what we know today. Generally what we know has gone through peer review, publish and repeatable for any one to test against or learn from, once something has been countered, or new evidence arrives. We then know something new, and hopefully it replaces the old.



You mean like when we "knew" the world was flat? :lfao:


----------



## jezr74

Big Don said:


>



CC, you know I'm talking about this right?


----------



## celtic_crippler

jezr74 said:


> CC, you know I'm talking about this right?



If you say so. :drinkbeer


----------



## Makalakumu

jezr74 said:


> CC, you know I'm talking about this right?



Lol. That is the most metal description atheism ever. Someone call Dethklok.


----------



## crushing

It is truly scary to consider that what apparently keeps some people from stealing, murder, and rape is an external moral compass in the form of the threat of their religion's hell.

What we have labelled as morals developed long before mankind invented any religions (which, funny enough, may have also had evolutionary origins) as a means for the perpetuation of our genes.

http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> It is truly scary to consider that what apparently keeps some people from stealing, murder, and rape is an external moral compass in the form of the threat of their religion's hell.
> 
> What we have labelled as morals developed long before mankind invented any religions (which, funny enough, may have also had evolutionary origins) as a means for the perpetuation of our genes.
> 
> http://www.ted.com/talks/paul_zak_trust_morality_and_oxytocin.html



Your assertion is flawed. All "religions" don't have a "hell". 

I don't suppose you'd like to address this?



> If you put &#8220;religion&#8221; aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, it&#8217;s hard to disagree that we wouldn&#8217;t be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question, &#8220;From where do atheists derive their moral character?&#8221;
> 
> If you&#8217;re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions? Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do good works? Without something &#8220;spiritual&#8221; involved, from where do you derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else?



I understand it's much easier to post pithy comments than actually engage in meaningful and intellgent conversation, but I assure you the effort would be more appreciated than the former.


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> I understand it's much easier to post pithy comments than actually engage in meaningful and intellgent conversation, but I assure you the effort would be more appreciated than the former.



BACON!

Right?


----------



## jezr74

I can say my moral code comes from a natural sense of right and wrong. And a supportive family community.

I don't doubt that you couldn't get benefits from other sources like religion, martial arts, teachings of Buddha and the Dali Lama. But I think it compliments what we all have inside us already.


----------



## Makalakumu

celtic_crippler said:


> &#8220;From where do atheists derive their moral character?&#8221;



An atheist can derive their moral character from reason if they choose. There are plenty of secular ethical systems that lay out fully fleshed out descriptions of right and wrong. Philosophic Libertarianism is a good example of this. If people accept the Non-Aggression principle and Self Ownership, all of the good things described in religion will still be found as good...and all of the evil things that religions call good will be relabeled as evil. It's a delusional upgrade!



celtic_crippler said:


> By the way, in "A Brief History of Time", Stephen Hawking claimed that when physicists finally discover the so-called _"theory of everything_" then they will have _seen into the mind of God_. Hawking is not the only scientist who has associated God with the laws of physics. Nobel laureate Leon Lederman has made a link between God and a subatomic particle known as the Higgs boson. Lederman suggested that when physicists find this particle in their accelerators it will be _like looking into the face of God_.
> 
> Atheists don&#8217;t believe in a God or supreme intelligence of any sort, so be careful who and what you cite to back up your position.



I think you are reading too much into a metaphor. When these physicists refer to "god" they do not mean it in any contemporary religious sense.

It's a personal view of the universe. If people want to call this spirituality, that's fine by me. I guess that means I'm spiritual then. I have a view of the universe that helps me interpret the bigger picture and and can help alleviate some of the anxieties of human consciousness.  That doesn't mean that I'm not an atheist, IMO. I reject religions and am open to new, better, more rational views of the universe and my place in it. 

So, why bother to talk about religion at all? how does it matter to me what people believe? People need to be very careful with religion. The thousands of year old delusions were created by humans to manage their minds and enforce violent hierarchies. If society keeps tying itself to these beliefs, they open themselves up to control by any high priest who crooks a finger. Religion has always been a tool of power and an enemy of free humanity.

If people want to call their personal ethos Jesus, that might be okay, but there are backdoors that are built in that concept that clever human managers can use to insert mind control viruses. IMHO it's an outdated operating system that is prime for abuse.  I talk about religion for selfish reasons.  I talk about it in order to ensure that I can remain free and that my life is free from oppression.


----------



## crushing

> If you put &#8220;religion&#8221; aside and simply look at the teachings of people  like Jesus or Buddha, it&#8217;s hard to disagree that we wouldn&#8217;t be better  off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up  the question, &#8220;From where do atheists derive their moral character?&#8221;
> 
> If you&#8217;re not looking for spirituality, then what guides your decisions?  Are they completely selfish? If not, what motivation do you have to do  good works? Without something &#8220;spiritual&#8221; involved, from where do you  derive any pleasure in doing anything for anybody else?



Obviously, the world would be a better place if indecent people followed the teachings attributed to Jesus or Buddha, or the examples of any decent people independent of religion.  

What motivates people to basically be good?   Maybe that TED talk to which I linked helps explain it?


----------



## Drasken

Tez3 said:


> The flat earth thing is a a myth actually, mankind have been sailing boats for millenia and knew the earth wasn't flat.
> 
> http://bede.org.uk/flatearth.htm



This actually doesn't surprise me much. But while the example is flawed, my point stands. While I consider myself a fairly logical person and think scientific discovery to be extremely important, I think that in some cases, Scientific thinking is inherently as flawed as religious denial of scientific discovery.
People are so convinced of their own knowledge and discovery that they tend to think that they have figured it all out. They take current ideas and discoveries to be indisputable fact. Not everyone does this, but it is more common than people think. ( I believe a lot of this comes from a misunderstanding on all sides about the term scientific fact )
I also find it funny that most people try to deny possibilities of things that we can't understand as pure fantasy when they think scientifically. Now this isn't all scientific minds, and I respect those that say "we have no evidence of this, so I will neither confirm or deny its validity." Such a statement avoids pointless arguments. For most of these arguments it ends up being circular logic, sometimes on both ends, anyway.
Science isn't about disproving anything, or denying anything. It is about learning and understanding the things that we CAN.

Anyway, enough rambling from me.
My original point is that we should always look at scientific data as though we have some idea how things work. We shouldn't act as though we have things figured out and merely expand from there. Just because we agree, doesn't mean we aren't missing a variable that will turn our current "knowledge" completely upside down. When we think we have it all figured out, it proves only that we have much to learn.


----------



## Steve

I'm a PC.


----------



## Makalakumu

Steve said:


> I'm a PC.



Get a Mac!


----------



## Steve

Makalakumu said:


> Get a Mac!


I have a Mac, 2 iPads and 2 Apple TVs.  I also have a PC, 2 Windows laptops and a Samsung Galaxy SIII (that has an Apple sticker on the back).  I'm suffering from a profound crisis of faith.


----------



## Dirty Dog

I like UNIX...


----------



## jezr74

Drasken said:


> People are so convinced of their own knowledge and discovery that they tend to think that they have figured it all out. They take current ideas and discoveries to be indisputable fact.



If they are proven, correct peer review takes years. That's why some facts hold up longer than others. Scientific facts can be tested and retested, controls are taken and recorded. The burden of dis-proving something is on the person questioning it. All the evidence and testing is available for anyone to take a look at.



Drasken said:


> I also find it funny that most people try to deny possibilities of things that we can't understand as pure fantasy when they think scientifically.



Give an example. I will not try to "prove" something that is not tangible. If you make a statement that can be tested and is repeatable. You are up for scrutiny. It's very hard to prove or disprove fantasy. So is not considered science.




Drasken said:


> Science isn't about disproving anything, or denying anything. It is about learning and understanding the things that we CAN.



Kind of agree, but it can be used to disprove or change what we know. Because it can be tested and re-tested and studied.




Drasken said:


> My original point is that we should always look at scientific data as though we have some idea how things work.



Do you mean the results? The results normally mean something.


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> BACON!
> 
> Right?



Right.

I knew intelligent discourse was beyond you. Keep trying though... it's the effort that matters. Really. It is. But here's your gold star for trying :s123:



jezr74 said:


> I can say my moral code comes from a natural sense of right and wrong. And a supportive family community.
> 
> I don't doubt that you couldn't get benefits from other sources like religion, martial arts, teachings of Buddha and the Dali Lama. But I think it compliments what we all have inside us already.



So you believe we're born with an innate sense of right and wrong? Who or What put that there? Do you attribute that to brain chemistry? Through evolution those most fit for the current environment weren't ruthless schmucks, but rather those with a keen moral compass? Is that right?

Just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from.



Makalakumu said:


> An atheist can derive their moral character from reason if they choose. There are plenty of secular ethical systems that lay out fully fleshed out descriptions of right and wrong. Philosophic Libertarianism is a good example of this. If people accept the Non-Aggression principle and Self Ownership, all of the good things described in religion will still be found as good...and all of the evil things that religions call good will be relabeled as evil. It's a delusional upgrade!



Reason? Have you looked around you lately? How many people do you honestly think are capable of reason? I'll have to give you points on having a positive attitude at least LOL

But yes, all spiritual people do not necessarily follow a diety, as with Buddism. But they do have a "source" that supplied them with a "bar" to be strived for, no?





Makalakumu said:


> I think you are reading too much into a metaphor. When these physicists refer to "god" they do not mean it in any contemporary religious sense.



Quite the contrary. I'm not so arrogant to presume to think I could wrap my puny human mind around something so significant and profound. If you read my posts you would know that already.



Makalakumu said:


> It's a personal view of the universe. If people want to call this spirituality, that's fine by me. I guess that means I'm spiritual then. I have a view of the universe that helps me interpret the bigger picture and and can help alleviate some of the anxieties of human consciousness. That doesn't mean that I'm not an atheist, IMO. I reject religions and am open to new, better, more rational views of the universe and my place in it.



You really haven't bothered to read my posts have you? Respect is a two way street... if you're going to address me specifically at least read what I've posted.



Makalakumu said:


> So, why bother to talk about religion at all? how does it matter to me what people believe? People need to be very careful with religion. The thousands of year old delusions were created by humans to manage their minds and enforce violent hierarchies. If society keeps tying itself to these beliefs, they open themselves up to control by any high priest who crooks a finger. Religion has always been a tool of power and an enemy of free humanity.



You're getting warmer...



Makalakumu said:


> If people want to call their personal ethos Jesus, that might be okay, but there are backdoors that are built in that concept that clever human managers can use to insert mind control viruses. IMHO it's an outdated operating system that is prime for abuse. I talk about religion for selfish reasons. I talk about it in order to ensure that I can remain free and that my life is free from oppression.



Yup... oppression sucks. I much rather prefer "free will."


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> Right.
> 
> I knew intelligent discourse was beyond you. Keep trying though... it's the effort that matters. Really. It is. But here's your gold star for trying :s123:




You weren't flattered by my impersonation?   I'm glad you have recognized the "bacon" responses for what they were.


----------



## celtic_crippler

crushing said:


> you weren't flattered by my impersonation?   I'm glad you have recognized the "bacon" responses for what they were.



bacon!


----------



## celtic_crippler

Initially, this thread brought back fond memories of my "coffee shop days." 

While I find pseudo intellectuals and their un-researched theories often entertaining, I'm afraid this thread has become tiresome. 

I've become quite comfortable with my beliefs in my "old age". I hope that you too will someday be content with yours. 

I wish you all peace. I'm out! 

And never...ever... forget... BACON!


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> Initially, this thread brought back fond memories of my "coffee shop days."
> 
> While I find pseudo intellectuals and their un-researched theories often entertaining, I'm afraid this thread has become tiresome.
> 
> I've become quite comfortable with my beliefs in my "old age". I hope that you too will someday be content with yours.
> 
> I wish you all peace. I'm out!
> 
> And never...ever... forget... BACON!



The information is out there, you just can't wake someone who is pretending to be asleep.

Enjoy your beliefs, your only accountable to yourself. Who cares what what anyone else thinks. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jezr74

celtic_crippler said:


> So you believe we're born with an innate sense of right and wrong? Who or What put that there? Do you attribute that to brain chemistry? Through evolution those most fit for the current environment weren't ruthless schmucks, but rather those with a keen moral compass? Is that right?
> 
> Just want to make sure I understand where you're coming from



I know your frustrated with this thread, but for what is worth. I think we have an awareness when we are born that is shaped through or life experience. Maybe best described at an early age as instinct? But our environment would shape it I guess. Brought up in a cannibal pygmy tribe, I would have a different view on the value of human life. As opposed to say a loving family, who shelter homeless people until they are able to take care of themselves. Maybe brain chemistry influences how you process it as you are taught or observe.

Along with compassion, hate, humor etc



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## jks9199

Folks, let's try to keep things civil and friendly, OK?  This has stayed civil, despite the fact that it's a topic that's potentially pretty explosive.  Let's get back on track...


----------



## jezr74

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> Initially, this thread brought back fond memories of my "coffee shop days."
> 
> While I find pseudo intellectuals and their un-researched theories often entertaining, I'm afraid this thread has become tiresome.
> 
> I've become quite comfortable with my beliefs in my "old age". I hope that you too will someday be content with yours.
> 
> I wish you all peace. I'm out!
> 
> And never...ever... forget... BACON!



I'll bet those coffee shop philosophers never saw it coming when you *smoked* them with your brilliant _cured pig meat_ as*sa*u*lt* against their theories.


----------



## jezr74

The title should be changed to -

What is Atheism to an Atheist? What is Atheism to a Spiritual, Religious or Non-Atheist person?


----------



## jezr74

Here is a great lecture by Professor Brian Cox on the Universe and how it came about. He has a very good way of explaining things to make it easier to understand.






While I don't personally think it is about Atheism, the science behind the universe and nature came up several times. It's about what it is, and is not about disproving anything.


----------



## ballen0351

What's an Atheist symbol?
http://www.cnn.com/2013/03/29/us/new-york-911-museum-cross/index.html?c=us&page=2



> "We are confident that we will eventually win this case and that cross will be removed, or atheists will be allowed to have our own symbol in there," he said.


----------



## Sukerkin

:lol:  God knows ... see what I did there .

I'm guessing if asked we'd see a huge variety of answers to the question.  Atheism is not a 'faith' with rules and hierarchy so there can be no one thing to stand for it.

Even just asking me, the answer I would give would probably vary depending on what philosophical or poetic concepts were foremost in my mind at the time.  A good one might be the famous drawing of the anatomy of Man:



But I might equally settle for an image of the brain, to illustrate rational thought, or maybe the classical symbology of the structure of the atom to show a seeking for answers beyond what we can see.


----------



## ballen0351

OK I guess I don't get it then.   If there is no symbol then what's the point.  I also don't get why an atheist would be offened by a cross.  If you don't believe then wouldn't it just look like 2 hunks of metal to you?  Why would it offend you?


----------



## Sukerkin

For me?  It wouldn't.  

I saw a very good conversation the other day on Facepalm that put forward the idea that the sort of objectionating {could've sworn that was a made up word :lol:} to things such as the cross in the article is not Atheism.  It is Anti-Theism, a rather different thing.

Now, yes, I know I am rather outspoken when religious matters come up on the board and leave no doubt where I stand on the matter of organised religion (I also know I upset some people when I do that and I am sorry but I do feel very strongly about the matter).  But I am not Anti-Theist in that I would stop people believing in any mythology they choose.  Likewise, I expect those with committed religious beliefs to not try to foist their beliefs on others, especially people like me who, over the course of more than thirty years of thought on the issue has decided that there is no evidence for 'God' (in any form) to be anything more tangible than a social construct of our own making.

That logical conclusion means that, if asked about my religious persuasion, I now answer Atheist rather than Agnostic.  But it doesn't 'define' me in any other way than that and it does not mean that I no longer have compassion or understanding for the strength of other peoples beliefs and symbols.  The Cross has been the symbol (as have all religious symbols I can think of) carried over the commission of some pretty darned horrible things but the cross in the article was a representation of the faith of some people and an expression of their sorrow (or so I presume).  I would no more object to that than I would to someone placing flowers on a grave, like I did for my wife today.


----------



## arnisador

A common atheist symbol is an atom (for science) with an _A _in it.


----------



## jezr74

Its kinda weird in my opinion to have a blessed cross put in. Just seems out of character by American standards.

Hardly worth a protest though. 


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

jezr74 said:


> Its kinda weird in my opinion to have a blessed cross put in. Just seems out of character by American standards.
> 
> Hardly worth a protest though.
> 
> 
> Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD



If I read it right and I don't know the story so I could be wrong but the workers at ground zero found It in the rubble saved it as a sign of hope.  So its being included as part of the "story" of the twin towers.v which is why adding a sign for atheism makes no sense to me it has nothing to do with the story.  It would be like wanting to add a symbol to an Egyptian pyramid because your offended by their ancient gods.  Its just not part of the story.


----------



## jezr74

ballen0351 said:


> If I read it right and I don't know the story so I could be wrong but the workers at ground zero found It in the rubble saved it as a sign of hope.  So its being included as part of the "story" of the twin towers.v which is why adding a sign for atheism makes no sense to me it has nothing to do with the story.  It would be like wanting to add a symbol to an Egyptian pyramid because your offended by their ancient gods.  Its just not part of the story.



Yeah, seems like protesting for the sake of protesting. Not the place to do it of that's the case.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## arnisador

It's part of the story. It's odd to an atheist that the take-away message from nearly 3000 religious-inspired deaths is "God cares" (in the form of crossed bars), but so be it.


----------



## jezr74

While I don't think its relevant, things like this just take one person to link it too a ideology and people will follow and jump on the wagon . I didn't mention in my first post, but I thought the cross was more about putting something against Islam, and found that very disappointing, but didn't want to assume.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## ballen0351

arnisador said:


> It's part of the story. It's odd to an atheist that the take-away message from nearly 3000 religious-inspired deaths is "God cares" (in the form of crossed bars), but so be it.



I guess it could have been much much worse that day.  I believe at normal capasity around 50 thousand people worked in the buildings of the towers total so only 3000 deaths is kinda good of you can have a good in that situation


----------



## DennisBreene

Sukerkin said:


> *CC* said: "I personally feel that spirituality is a uniquely personal journey that one must take on their own and those that try to push their religious agenda (be it in favour of a God or against) are merely attempting to seek justification for* their *beliefs.*"
> 
> *I concur.  I have no problem with anyone having spiritual beliefs that, in the end for most faiths, boil down to "Be nice to each other".  When it gets to "Except for those over there because they don't believe the same as us" I have a problem but for most ordinary people that is not the situation that ever arises.  My objections lie in the actions of the hierarchies in control of the power of organised religions rather than with the individuals who hold faith.
> 
> For decades I was an agnostic, willing to be swayed either way on the God(s) Question if a good argument or, lord above {}, some proof came along.  These days I classify myself as atheist, having had enough of the origin of the universe and of life explained rationally for *me* not to require a 'God of the Gaps' to fill in where reason and experimentation have not yet reached.  Similarly, again with the "for *me*" proviso, I do not have a need for a religion or a deity to encourage and enforce my innate drive to be morally 'good' rather than 'evil'.
> 
> So, what I 'believe in' as an atheist would not be all that distinguishable from what some other (hopefully) essentially good person believes who also happens to believe in a creator deity.  Mankind is capable of both great compassion and great vileness, great creativity and great destruction, nobility and baseness are within most of us simultaneously and which holds sway over a person is a matter of conscience, empathy and self-awareness.


  Very well stated. I would add that while science has not proved the existence of God, it cannot disprove it either.  I believe that any entity that would qualify as fitting the general criteria of a deity must be far beyond human capacity to understand it's true nature. While I have yet to be convinced of the existence of such a being, I am comfortable with the notion that it is an unanswered question not a disproved concept. I may well get the answer on the day I die.  In the meantime, I live my life with the moral code as instilled by my parents, the church I was raised in, and society in general. I consider myself agnostic (not knowing), not amoral.


----------



## jezr74

DennisBreene said:


> Very well stated. I would add that while science has not proved the existence of God, it cannot disprove it either.  I believe that any entity that would qualify as fitting the general criteria of a deity must be far beyond human capacity to understand it's true nature. While I have yet to be convinced of the existence of such a being, I am comfortable with the notion that it is an unanswered question not a disproved concept. I may well get the answer on the day I die.  In the meantime, I live my life with the moral code as instilled by my parents, the church I was raised in, and society in general. I consider myself agnostic (not knowing), not amoral.



It can be tested though, some religions and faiths actually make claims that can, and are tested on a irregular basis. People make a choice as to if they want to ignore it, or learn from if. When people say there is no evident, they are also saying they choose to ignore all the compelling information that supports it as well. 

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk HD


----------



## Carol

Images associated with violent death were everywhere you looked in lower Manhattan. Whether it was the National Guard set up in Battery Park, the two Coast Guard cutters patrolling NY harbor, taking turns guarding the Statue of Liberty......or, the most horrific and inescapable of all....the smell.  That ****ing smell.  There was no escaping it. 

There are folks think about religion when faced with the realities of death, even those who aren't very active in their faith.  I don't think at the time that the iron cross or the priest were turning the opportunity in a us-vs-them environment.  That may have changed in the years following, but I think the main interest for the cross in the museum is due to its discovery at ground zero and not its follow-up role as a possible political football.

I dunno, there may be irony there, but the article sure made it sound like the Atheist org was going me-too-me-too over the use of iconic symbols, and not creating commentary over the irony.  Doesn't sound like quite the time or place for a protest as Jezr says, but neither is it the time nor the place for a victory celebration.


----------



## crushing

celtic_crippler said:


> If you put religion aside and simply look at the teachings of people like Jesus or Buddha, its hard to disagree that we wouldnt be better off as a people if their examples were followed. Which kind of brings up the question,* From where do atheists derive their moral character? *



Maybe from a place more humanistic than supernatural?

http://www.knoxnews.com/news/2013/jun/29/al-westerfield-atheists-victims-of-hypocrisy-by/


----------



## arnisador

Philosophy, or just the basic innate tribal conventions we share with other primates.


----------



## jezr74

arnisador said:


> Philosophy, or just the basic innate tribal conventions we share with other primates.



And common sense. You see more promotion for human rights, and moving humanity forward from non-religious groups.

In my opinion morals/ethics is not very compatible with religion, and holds back improving humanity as a whole.


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk 4 Beta


----------

