Book Burning

[Thorne]

Giggles, he got me. I feel the same way about "blind" anything...including blind atheism especially. Yes they are out there too...just like with adherents of any faith.

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

OMG lol you really really dont like the Catholics do you sugar.

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

The faith of was raised in Lutheran (misery synod as we jokingly call it) has changed and adapted considerabely since first starting the whole reformation chatholic break up thing. I barely recognize the litergeies they use, many traditions once sacrosant are no longer considered as important and they way the congregation speaks after services to each other is even different, much more social and less reserved. I am a Bahai now but I still go to the Lutheran Church with my mother on occassion, my Owner even comes and he is a self professed Wittan (kind of pagan witch) and not shy of it.

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something, and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

Knock wood.

[leo9]

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt.

Then you'll have to take mine with the appropriate seasoning.

I was raised humanist, by parents who had quietly rejected the faith of their parents and wanted their children to make their own choices. (AFAIK, my sisters are still atheists, and treat my religion as just another of my oddities.) As a child I was briefly attracted by the bible-stories books my grandparents gave me, but my father very wisely gave me a basic guide to all the world's faiths, and let me figure out for myself that just because someone once put it in a book doesn't make it true.

In college I resolved the conflict between that and my growing sense of the spiritual by trying out Buddhism. But though I retained a love of the Zen doctrines, it felt too abstract unless you ended up treating Siharta Gautama as a god - and if you're going to deify some historical figure, why choose one from a foreign culture? (Ironic, since I ended up worshipping the Goddess of Sumer, but since she got at least as far as Scandinavia, I feel a bit closer to her than to an Indian sage!)

Paganism appealed to me as an idea, but at that time there was nobody to teach me unless I wanted to get into the pseudo-Masonic structures of Wicca, which I'm too anarchic for; so I felt around blindly till I came across the translations of the scriptures of Inanna, and felt that this was what I'd been looking for. Eventually theoretical studies and prayers into the void brought me an answer, and I believed.

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy

But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

You say that like it's a bad thing.

[Thorne]

But of course you have only my word for this, and I might just be a paid shill for the deist conspiracy

No, I wouldn't go that far. At least with your account, you appear to have given it a lot of thought and "soul" searching. I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would.

And invisible friends. Some of us have nice supportive invisible friends. I'm very glad mine found me.

Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.) I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there?

You say that like it's a bad thing.

If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?

[leo9]

I will admit, I have difficulty understanding why you would go on such a search, or why anyone else would.

And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing. One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours. As we say back here in perveland, YKIOKIJNMK.

Ahh, I see. You were lonely! Well, invisible friends are better than none, I suppose.

I guess you could call spiritual searching loneliness for something that humans can't offer. And not better, different from the human kind.

One question, though. How can one differentiate between invisible friends and mental illness? (see my sig.)

Only pragmatically, the same way you differentiate between apps and viruses: do they do something useful? In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness. The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion, which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.

. I mean, YOU claim they are there, and I'm sure you BELIEVE they are there, but how can you prove to ME that they are there?

As I've said many times, I have no interest in proving it to you, and I'm relaxed about the view that it's probably impossible. I don't ask you or anyone else to prove to me that your spiritual belief system is true in the physical sense that the law of gravity is true, because that is applying a test that is meaningless in the context: as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.

(Possibly not a good metaphor, now I think of it, because televangelism shows that some religions can be very profitable indeed. But that still doesn't prove they're true.)

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.

If you try to run your life based on superstitions, then it IS a bad thing. People like to think that astrology, for example, works. But in reality we KNOW it doesn't work. There is no demonstrable basis for claiming that the planets can control our destinies. The claims of the astrologer cannot be tested, they cannot be demonstrated, they cannot even be agreed upon by other astrologers. Do you consider it a good thing to allow one's life to be ruled by such nonsense?

That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.

[Thorne]

And I don't understand what manga fans or opera lovers or politicos get out of their particular interests, but it's variety that makes the human race so amazing.

The difference is that these are physical, measurable, tangible things, not ephemeral beliefs which cannot be distinguished from wishful thinking.

One just has to accept that there are a lot of people out there who feel intensely about things that leave us cold, and their concerns are as legitimate as ours.

I can accept that. It's the religious who want to force their beliefs onto everyone else who seem to have a problem with it.

In the immortal words of the Prophet Bokonnon, "Live by the lies that make you healthy and happy."

I prefer to live with the truth. There's generally far less disappointment that way.

It's been observed that love - the swept-away-infatuated kind - meets all the clinical tests of mental illness.

I can see that, especially for that kind of love, which is more akin to lust than real love. Having been married as long as I have, I can say that real love is much deeper, and far less intoxicating, than that. And more fulfilling.

The same can reasonably be said for religious devotion

Except that, once again, you are equating love, or devotion, of a tangible, physical person with the devotion of something, or someone, that is not provable.

which proves that psychology is still far from having a complete description of human nature.

Something else we can agree on!

as if an accountant were to ask you to prove that your atheism is profitable, and refuse to accept it if you can't.

Except that I CAN prove it. Look at all the money I save by not throwing it into some church!

If a person's religion makes them happy and useful, it's a good religion, but whether it's true or not is a null question for me: only they can decide that.

Then why does it seem so many of them want to force me to believe as they do?

That depends. If a person makes good decisions and feels secure in their life because they believe they are guided by the planets, I feel it's no worse than being guided by any of the other objectively absurd belief systems that people live by.

If they ONLY made good decisions I might be convinced that there were something to that. But it's been shown that they make just as many bad decisions as those who don't believe. And in some cases, they have failed to make ANY decisions because "the stars were not aligned."

I think it's wise to have a solid grasp of the difference between a belief system and physically verifiable facts, but that's my only caveat.

I agree.

[denuseri]

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position.

More than you are most likely willing to believe I bet.

I had friends in high school that were basically raised that way.

My Father was actually raised that way believe it or not and converted to Lutheran later.

My Mother was raised jewish and converted to Lutheran after several years of being a rather adament atheist when she married my father.

I was raised lutheran but studdied a lot of different theologies, not only allowed by those in authority over me, but encouraged by both my parents and the Lutheran clergy to engadge in study of all faiths and decide for myself prior to confirmation.

I took up Buddism all on my lonesome and like many of my fellow students who practiced it's philosophies along with another religion (Shinto in the case of my BFF) I never had a conflict with following its tennents along with the ones I was raised in.

For a brief period I considered atheism while I was a Nursing Student but discarded it as illogically narrow minded and intolerant.

Especially after getting really deep into the biological sciences.

For a while I had a more agnostic approach; it was more inclussive and was a much more logical path to follow...for no one is capable of really knowing 100% for sure one way or the other anything as to whats really going on there.

I converted to Bahai when I was a travel nurse working abroad after having a rather satori like experience. It apealed the most too me anyways becuase of its full tolerance for all the sciences and religions and faiths of all kinds...in other words...I believe in ALL paths to God, what ever God is or is not is something I can only fathom and have faith in anyways, his or her or it's language for telling me how the universe is made and how it works is observation (ie science) and my cognative sences tell me God is everywhere and in everything, at all times.

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And yes, there are accounts of people going the other way, going from atheism to (or back to) religion. Some of those accounts seemed sincere and credible to me, but most seemed disingenuous, as though written by someone trying to make it seem as though he was once an atheist. Regardless, I take all such accounts, as well as those accounts of deconversion, with a grain of salt. All I know is my own path, and I know that it was the right path for me.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

Nope. Not one little bit. I was raised Catholic, so I had a good, close look at their foolishness. Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization.

You may be surprised at the numbers if you include all religions world wide, (The are a LOT of wars in human history other than the ones the catholics were involved in and we cant discount all the pruges against all regions carried on in the name of atheism eaither, ecpesially since the state sponsered atheists of communist nations acted exzactly like their religious counterparts in every way especially when it can to making war on other people for their beliefs.

Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

So am I correct in assuming that you found the Lutheran Church to be lacking in something,

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

and so you switched to something more to your liking? Doesn't this give you at least SOME understanding of those of us who have concluded that ALL religions are lacking, and that NONE of them are right? Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings. Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.



Knock wood.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

[Thorne]

At no time is this more apparent to me than when I study the history and chemistry and physics of our planet and people, from its beginings during what we so far believe to be in the big bang to the present.

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

Just as precluding the existence of a god is by all standards of logic also just as likely to be "a bunch of hokum".

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

I wonder if part of your path of intolereance is a pathological need to enforce your ideas as being the only "right" ones above all others becuse they are obviously too stupid to really have decided for themselves if they believe in anything you disagree with...much like the you accuse so many religions of doing?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything! I don't really care what people choose to believe in. What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Just like the atheists. Could it be that saving face and worrying about image are natural human responces?

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

Nope I still follow Luthran values, I just was encouraged to study other faiths and spent more time on some than others as they apealed to me at different times...including as mentioned earlier a brief foray into the illogical depths of atheism (the faith of not having a belief in god).

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

The atheists simpley have no more ground to stand on with their cool aide than any other faith or belief system.

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith. I do not BELIEVE there are no gods. I simply DON'T believe there are. If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind. All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Calling everyone who doesnt believe in your way of thinking stupid without any more proof than the people your accusing of being dumbies imho makes one in large part a pot calling a kettle black.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith. They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places. They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs. They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

[denuseri]

Allow me to speculate: you study these sciences and feel that certain things would not be possible without God? But I study these same things and say, "Where is this god?" I see no evidence for any kind of supernatural intervention in this universe. I see many coincidences, and many things which we might not yet understand, but that does not mean God, to me. What I do see are people figuratively tossing a coin into the air, drawing a circle around the coin when it lands, then claiming that it's impossible for that coin to have landed so precisely in that circle, therefore gods!

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

And for the umpteenth time I must say, I do not preclude the existence of gods. I only say that there is no definitive evidence for them. There is nothing one can point to and say, "There is God!" No one can definitively say that there are no gods. What I can say is that there is no evidence for gods.

So your not really an aethiest now? Your agnostic?

I have no need, nor desire, to enforce anything!

Your arguments do not sound any different from the people you call idots for blindly following any faith.

I don't really care what people choose to believe in.

Then why do you constantly attack them for their beliefs?

What I DO care about is those people who try to force their beliefs upon me and others, (like you would do on everyone else if you were in power?) those who want to prevent atheists from holding public office, for example. Or those who want to force their morality on me, even though I find their morality offensive. Also, I do find it important that people understand the history of religious beliefs, learn how those beliefs have been manipulated to control entire populations and to keep religious leaders at the top of the heap.

Better also keep in mind how the aethist belief system was forced on entire populations of religious followers against their will too then, and manipulated to keep those same corrupt leaders at the tops of the heap.

Yes, these are natural human responses. So I would expect an organization which professes to be the voice of God on Earth would try to stand above such pettiness and try to be more "holy".

And the communists used the same exact kind of lofty rehtoric conserning aethism and look what happened.

And I respect that. You have obviously spent a lot of time and effort coming to your faith. I don't think you are stupid (and yet you ussually manage to say I am in the same breath and then try to break from the argument by catagorizing me different from the rst of those who have a faith or following a religious organization...its sophistry 101) because of that. It is those who do NOT study religion, who blindly accept the faith of their fathers, those who denigrate all other faiths but their own, simply because it IS their own.

You do realize you do the same thing every time you make statments about unicorns and flying fairy dust and equate it to religion dont you? Then sophistacally suggest that if one believes in such one has to be stupid, and when called on that revert to saying "well only if they blindly follow it then" yet ...that doesnt in any practical way change that your still saying the same thing or worse about we who made a studied decision on the matter...though as thir pointed out, no one who is human really follows their faith blindly anyways.

I can't understand WHY you would choose to believe in something for which there is no evidence. But I can respect the fact that you have made a conscious choice.

And I cant understand why you would choose to believe in aethism when there is also no evidence that it is the one true way eaither lol.

If you respect we who have faith in a belief system so much (religion , philosophy what have you) then why dont you show it for a change instead of making the same statements of intolerance against us?

And once more I challenge you to explain how NOT believing in gods can be a faith.

I do every time we have this debate you just choose to not see the obvious.

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.

So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?

I simply DON'T believe there are.

lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

If you can provide me with evidence, solid evidence, which can be tested, I'll be happy to change my mind.

Hummm, looks up at the other two posts before this set and sighs...looks to me sugar that you still need to make you mind up to begin with.

All I've ever seen from most theists are self-confirming anecdotes and demands that I "open my mind to accepting God". Whatever that means.

Not me, all I am doing is asking you to acept that others may not share the same belief system as you and that no matter what we personally may think of those said beliefs (like aethism for instance), it doesnt mean we cannot be tollerant and live together and work for the betterment of our species as a whole together or even one day find harmony in acceptance of each other as having different beliefs.

And yet again I deny that I am saying everyone who believes is stupid. If that were so then I would have to call my parents stupid. They believe. But they do not BLINDLY believe. They have studied, and modified their beliefs to more closely conform to reality. I still think they are wrong, but I don't think they are stupid. Just as I don't believe you, or leo9, or so many others who have really learned of their faith, are stupid. I do think you are wrong, but not stupid. And I'm just as sure that you think I am wrong. And hopefully NOT stupid.

Illogical at times maby, especially when it comes to discussions conserning religion and wether or not belief in aethism constitutes a belief..I mean you do have faith that aethisum is right dont you? Despite a complete lack of evidence to support your beliefs. That there really is not a god or gods? I know you must be flip flopping somewhere at least subconsiously since you apeared to have vacilated in your beilefs right in those very set of posts once allready.

Most atheists, and I place myself among them, are not interested in destroying people's faith.

Then why do you spend so much effort trying to do so?

They are only interested in preventing those people from infiltrating those faiths into our governments, schools, and work places.

And replacing them with your own.

They are interested in being just as respected for their NON-beliefs as those believers want to be respected FOR their beliefs.

We already legally have that in the USA.

They want a person who has been properly elected to be able to fill the office he was elected to fill without having to go to court because he happens to be an atheist. They want to be able to advertise atheist groups and meetings, just as churches advertise their meetings, without having to go to court to force businesses to place those advertisements. In short, we want to be treated as equals in society, without having to bow our heads and pray at the beginning of every activity. We want theists to keep faith in their hearts and religion in their churches, where it belongs.

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?

[Thorne]

And what I see with atheists is the same thing coin and all.

That's probably because you cannot seem to comprehend the idea that people CAN live without faith of any kind! You refuse to accept the idea that atheism is NOT a belief system, but simply a LACK of belief in gods. You try to take basic principles of religious faith and translate them onto atheists because you feel they must have some kind of faith. As this exchange shows:

I do not BELIEVE there are no gods.
So then you believe there are gods or a god? lol Tell me which god or gods do you believe in then?
I simply DON'T believe there are.
lol ok which is it, you believe or you dont?

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements? If not then any discussion is useless, as you are arguing from a false premise.

And replacing them with your own.

This too is a false premise. I do not want to replace them with anything but the truth, as demonstrated by science and history. Christians in Texas, among other places, are still trying to get Creationism (sometimes masked as Intelligent Design) placed into biology classes, claiming it has equal validity with evolution. Yet evolution has massive amounts of evidence, has been tested and tested and retested, and continues to be tested. Creationism? All they have is "God did it!" How is that equal to evolution? Even the Catholic Church, for all its faults, has accepted evolution as true. Creationism is a religious doctrine which has no place in a science class. Evolution is science. So which group is trying to force their beliefs on someone?

So you wish to take a page from Stalin's book and take away the people of faith's right to freee speach and assembly? That way you will never have to see another church service or god forbid someone cross themselves or pray?[/B]

Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them. I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

[denuseri]

Let me try to clarify. You seem to be implying that atheists are saying, "I believe that there are no gods." What we are actually saying is, "I do not believe that gods exist." Can you not see the difference in those two statements?

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Both statments belay a "belief" in there not being any gods in existance do they not?

Both statements are conserning one's belief in something else. No premise missed there.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.





Why is it you always want to bring up Stalin, or Hitler? Why not Torquemada, or Cromwell? Stalin wasn't trying to replace religion with atheism, but with worship of Stalin! A state religion, which he could control.

Then why did he and the other communisits before him call it aethism sugar? Last time I checked he didnt have anyone praying to him in any church. The Communist's were pretty clear about their belief system being one of Aethism.

And no, I do NOT want to take people's faith away from them.

Then maby you might want to be more clear in your statments conserning such things, cuase all I hear is a lot of the same rehtoric used by Stalin and the other aethists of his day in his country where they did that very thing.

I simply want that faith maintained where it belongs: in their churches, in their homes, in their hearts. Not in the government and not in the science class.

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

I don't have a problem with people praying in public, as long as they don't interfere with those who don't wish to pray. But it is illegal for government officials to begin an official meeting with a public prayer. It is illegal for the law to ban non-Christians from holding public office. Yet the state of North Carolina, and possibly others, still have laws banning atheists from taking public office.

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Is that what you want for America?

[Thorne]

Lets see...."I believe that there are no gods" = A belief in there being no gods, yes?

Exactly.

and "I do not believe that gods exist" = A belief that gods do not exist, yes?

Wrong! "I do not believe that gods exist" = A LACK of belief in gods! NOT a belief in the lack of gods.

The only premise thats missed is you refusing to acknowledge that your belief system of aethism has no more validity to it than anyone elses belief system involving some other religion from each other's perspective.

How much faith you have in it and why you have faith in it... is another thing.

So you're claiming that atheism is a belief in the lack of belief of gods? That makes no sense. Is the lack of belief in Santa Claus a belief system? What about the lack of belief in unicorns? Is that a belief system, too? No, all of these are LACKS of belief. Or to be more precise, an understanding of the lack of credible evidence for the existence of those things.

And how can I have faith in atheism, since there is nothing there to have faith in?

Hummm, I seem to remeber a little freedom of speach cluase there in our constitution. Whats wrong with presenting all beliefs and letting the students decide for themselves huh?

Certainly! But in a comparative religion class, not a science class. Would you want Evolution taught during religion courses? Perhaps we can teach History during Phys Ed! How about Sex Ed during Driver's Ed? Each topic has it's place. There is no place for religion in science classes, unless you can provide scientific evidence for your religion.

[B]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Depends on the meeting. A private club? No problem. A religious group? Be my guest. A county board of education? That's a problem. If you only permit one type of prayer you are promoting a specific religion. But how many fundamentalist Baptists, for example, would allow a Muslim prayer to open their school board meeting? Or a Pagan prayer (or whatever they use)? Why haven't we seen any voodoo priestesses giving the convocation for Congress? But if you cannot accommodate ALL faiths (or lack thereof), it is illegal to accommodate ANY!

[B]Next you will be on about anyone but a professed aethiest holding office. There are no federal laws banning an aethist from office are there? You cannot expect to run for an office anyways without the support of the voting constituents. If there are enough aethists in the state in question to support you I am sure you can get it changed.

Recently there was an election in Delaware, I believe (I can't find a link to the story, sorry) in which an atheist WAS elected. Local Christian groups dragged up an old state law which prohibited atheists from holding public office. Yes, the law was overturned by Federal courts, but there should never have been a question to begin with. And of course, the taxpayers had to pay for the costs of getting things straightened out. But since the churches do not pay taxes, they didn't have to worry about that!

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

Why not? I can ridicule those who believe in leprechauns, can't I? How about those who believe in faeries? I can even ridicule those who believe in homeopathy? Why can't I ridicule those who's superstitions include gods?

Is that what you want for America?

What I want is an American population that understands the difference between evidence and wishful thinking. I don't claim that we cannot have any religions (though the loss of them wouldn't upset me in the least.) Just keep your religion where it belongs, and stop trying to force it on everyone else.

[thir]

[B][COLOR="pink"]Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

I'd like to step in here, but this is something that I feel strongly about.
I would not feel threathened, but I would be very angry to be forced to participate in a prayer I do not want to participate. I felt like that before, and I feel it even more now, because I would be forced into a prayer in a faith I do not belong to. Let these people do their prayers before the meeting, and leaves others alone.

But being intolerant of all beliefs other than your own and using sophistry to attempt to demean your opponents faith in their own belief systems is surely not holding to the high principles of science you profess to follow is it?

I cannot see how not wanting to be forced into the prayers of others is being intolerant it it the faith forcing itself on others.

To me the tolerance is where you leave others be, with what they do or do not believe in, in the puclic space, and in their jobs.

[leo9]

Why is it a aethiest would be threatened if a few people start a meeting of any kind with a prayer if they choose?

Look at it this way: would you object to people starting a meeting with the traditional Jewish prayer "I thank God for not having made me a woman"?

Or with a collective assertion of belief in Marxism and the eventual triumph of the Communist Party? Or with a declaration that Scientology is the only true way and this meeting will be conducted in accordance with the principles of Dianetics?

The point is, a prayer is an assertion of a belief system. If you happen to disagree with that belief system - and, moreover, you live in a country where it is constitutionally mandated that government should not be bound by any one belief system - are you not entitled to object to someone implicitly dedicating the proceedings to their chosen belief system?

[thir]

I'm sure there are some atheists out there who have not seriously considered their position. Primarily those who were raised without any religious training, children of atheists or agnostics or lapsed religious parents. But it's been my experience that most atheists were formerly religious believers, from many, many different faiths, who at some point began examining what they were being spoon-fed and realized that it was all mush. I have read many accounts (and seen videos) by these people, and they are quite remarkable in both their similarities and differences. In almost all cases they have rebelled from their parents' religions. Some went directly to atheism, but many went through other religions first, before coming to the conclusion that it was all a bunch of hokum.

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Also, the Catholic Church is historically responsible for far more misery and pain than any other religious organization. Even in modern times, these so-called arbiters of morality are far more interested in protecting the image of the Church than in protecting those people who depend upon them. But I have also examined other religious organizations and I found all of them lacking in any evidence to support their beliefs and dogma. And without evidence all they have is hearsay and wishful thinking.

I keep wondering at this emphasis on there being no actual evidence. There isn't any - that is what faith means. And what does it matter what people think? As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

Even the pagan faiths are still professing a belief in some sort of supernatural beings, with absolutely no evidence for the existence of such beings.

Not all of have supernational beings in our beliefs or outlook. But for those who do, they need no scientific proof. Why should they? It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real. That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Personally, I find such beliefs no different from the belief in lucky numbers, astrology, four leaf clovers, lucky charms and any other superstition.

All different from any actual faith ;-)

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

Knock wood.[/QUOTE]

[Thorne]

As I say, culture matters, and it is hard to distinguish cultural matters from religious ones. In basically atheist countries that is what you get, and not from a lot of thinking.

Exactly my point! People tend to believe (or not believe) based upon how they were raised. Some never venture beyond that.

As long as they keep it to their own lives. Do you see any damage to them, or to society as such, from that?

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

It would mean that only that which science can prove, and has so far been interested enough in to work with, or even thought of, or know about, is real.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

That is a very limitted world indeed! Don't you think that there is tons of stuff out there and in there that noone has thought of yet, or are you on the page with the 'plateau' people who think that basically we now know everything, and the rest is just tinkering?

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works. They might even find out WHY everything works, if there IS a why. Who knows? They might even find God someday. If they do, though, I think He'll have a lot to answer for!

Personally I belive in luck, and bad luck too, as they excist. Fate too - as in we cannot control nearly as much as we think we can. And good-luck charms too! If I decide that I can 'store' energy in a charm, and that it will help me in a specific case, then it will. Proven fact ;-)

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

[thir]

That's my entire point! They SHOULD keep it to themselves, NOT try to push it into everyone else's lives. Too many don't!

And mine too, most definitly.

Not at all! Science doesn't define reality. It catalogs it, measures it, tries to understand it. And since much of Western science has it's origins in the Church, one of the things they have tried to prove is the existence of gods, heaven, hell, spirits, afterlife, etc., etc., etc. And to date there is nothing there!

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

Far from it! Science doesn't know everything. But it's my belief (and you can call this a faith if you want) that science CAN know everything, eventually. Given enough time and enough resources mankind just might learn how everything works.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

NOT a proven fact. It's called a placebo effect. You THINK it helps you, which can have some positive effects, but when tested under controlled conditions we find that it does nothing at all.

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

This is the importance of science. It shows us what works and what doesn't. It helps to keep us from deceiving ourselves. Without science we'd still be wallowing around in the mud, dying of mysterious diseases, grubbing out a dangerous existence plagued by fear of imaginary beings. Science has brought us medicine that works, an understanding of our place in the world, near instantaneous communications with the rest of the world, the ability to travel to any place we want to go.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

Sure, it's also brought us nuclear weapons, and more efficient ways to kill ourselves. Nobody claimed it was perfect. Science is, and should be, dispassionate, uncaring. It's people who can take the lessons of science and use them for either good or evil.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

[Thorne]

Well, seems to me many scientists try to monopolise reality. If they do not have it in their books, it isn't there.

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist. Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist. That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.

I do not think so, there will always be more! Even if we manage to survive the next hundreds or thousands of years.

I tend to agree. But infinity is a funny thing. If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

Wrong. There is enough research that proves that placebo works, even when you know it is placebo. You can learn to use that.

To some extent, perhaps. Though most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work. Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

And weapens, pollution, overpopulation...science helps us eat up the world.

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

Science isn't something mysterious that comes from above or out of nowhere! Scientists are people, and they are responsible for their results, and should be using their heads!

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality. Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually, and helps to insure that progress marches on. Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I do not buy the idea that if it is called scientific, then anything goes.

Neither do I.

[thir]

That's not quite it. If it cannot be measured, cannot be touched, cannot be seen, and does not appear to have any measurable effects on the universe around us, then for all intents and purposes it doesn't exist.

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

Even if it does exist, if it has no effects upon us, then it might as well not exist.

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

That doesn't mean that sometime down the road we won't develop a means to detect it, if it's there. And if we should do so we would certainly have to revise our hypotheses about the existence of gods. As would the religious.
<snip>
If humanity manages to survive long enough, who knows what is possible?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

most of what I've read indicates that if the patient KNOWS it is a placebo it's unlikely to work.

Surprisingly, this is not so: "However, placebos can also have a surprisingly positive effect on a patient who knows that the given treatment is without any active drug, as compared with a control group who knowingly did not get a placebo.[4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Placebo

Most of the benefits from the placebo effect (as I understand it) seem to allow the body to relax, relieving stress, and letting the natural systems work to their full potential. Very similar to the effects of prayer, I believe.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

And science will help us repair the damage we've done, if we allow it. Of course that would require sacrifice from everyone, something which is not likely to happen voluntarily.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation. That is a holy cow that needs slaughtering, and sommon sense - as of neccesity seperated from profit - kicking in instead.

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

I think it is time to start thinking about what we actually need, and what we should not have or do, to control what happens with us and the globe instead of running along with all possible speed - blindfolded, because noone is interestes in anything but immediate profit.

Very true. Science is a process. The scientific method is the best tool we have to make sure that science is done properly and that results mirror reality.
Yes, scientists are people, and can be just as corrupt and dogmatic as any other people. But the method tends to expose such, eventually,

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

and helps to insure that progress marches on.

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

Sometimes there are steps backwards, and mostly the forward steps are baby steps, but the general movement is towards a better understanding of reality.

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

[Thorne]

Like for instance gravity used to be, x-rays used to be, many bacteria and virus used to be, black stuff, and so on. Many many things.

There is a difference, though. The EFFECTS of gravity, viruses (virii?) etc. could be seen, or touched, or measured. How do we measure the effects of God?

Our whole history of science is one of keeping discovering things, species articles, vira and what not we did not know existed. But they were there all the time, even if we did not know it.

Yes, which is why we cannot absolutely say that something does not exist, only that we do not YET have evidence for its existence.

I think it is a narrow and - speciescentric? - way of seeing things: If we cannot measure it, it isn't there.

True. But if we not only cannot measure it, but cannot see any effects of it?

Isn't that a quite narrow and uncurious way of seeing things?

In this case, we have been searching for those effects, and that evidence for thousands of years. People, including reputable scientists, are STILL searching for evidence of gods. That does not imply a lack of curiosity, does it?

What is very likely is that as long as we funtion the way we do now, we'll keep finding new things about our world we did not know.

I agree.

Actually, noone knows how placebo works. and it has puzzled reserachers for awhile. Theories abound, but noone can prove how it works

Kinda sounds like prayer. Which is fitting, since religion in general, and prayer in particular, do seem to act very similarly to a placebo.

I read your words almost as if 'science' is some independent force that can be of assistence. But science is inseperateble from the society in which it works, and nowadays sciene has one purpose, and one purpose only: to make money.

I know a lot of scientists who would love to see some of that money!

General reserach which is the kind that really finds out new things is almot non-existent, because it does not immidiately mean profit.

Partly true. More accurate is that such research has become prohibitively expensive, as the cost of equipment soars. But I would ask you, where is the profit in sending rovers to Mars? Where is the profit in the Galileo probe at Jupiter, or any of the vast number of other missions probing our universe? In fact, it's the very LACK of profit that has the anti-science types protesting about the money invested in space research.

Add to that the idea that 'search for knowledge' justifies any means to that end, and you have a very bad situation.

Very bad indeed. And just where do you see that happening?

What is it with this idea that 'progress' is enevitable, that all new stuff must neccesarily be better than the previous, that we are 'gong forward'?

Since we cannot (as yet) go backward in time, we are always moving forward. Whether or not such movement is better or worse is generally a matter for the historians to solve. Change is usually chaotic, and an be downright painful, even when it is for the benefit of all.

I think it has to do with Darwin, and the idea that 'evolution' equal 'preogress' or getting better, when what is acutaly means is arbitary change which sometimes turns out to be benificial, sometimes not, and something else takes over.

Darwin never implied that evolution was always moving forward. Evolution is a slow, natural process with many side branches and reversions. Sometimes species decline and go extinct, sometimes they evolve into other species. Tracing back the evolution of humanity we tend to assume that we are at a pinnacle, but that is just hubris. There is still more evolution to come, even for humans, and only future species will be able to determine whether we were a successful evolutionary branch or just another failed twig.

Yes, after a number of people have died, and with great difficulty.
How many scandals are still out there, which will never be revealed?

Once again, scientists are people, just like politicians and priests. All we can say is that scientists, in general, are trying to find the truth, objective truth. Sometimes they fail, sometimes they succeed. Politicians and priests, however...

Will you define for me excatly what you mean by 'progress', and why it is enevitable?

In this context I mean the search for reality. Progress means learning more about the way the world, the universe, actually works. And it is NOT inevitable. As long as we continue to study and to learn, we can hope to make progress. Everyone may not be happy with this progress, but to my mind it is better to understand the truth (reality) of how things work than not. And this is my biggest problem with dogmatic religions. They would have us stop the search, put away our telescopes and test tubes, and just accept that "God Did It".

I so wish science was all about a better understanding of reality. But it is only about one thing: MONEY.

Again, I know many scientists who would like to see some of that money.

And if you can accomplish ANYTHING in this life WITHOUT money, I'd like to know what it is. In my experience, without money you don't eat, you don't wear clothes, you don't travel. You die.