I am an Atheist, and I strongly disagree with ALL 'theology' .....

I especially am alarmed by the history of creedal theism, vis a vis the Crusades and the Inquistion, et al, and our prospects for their re-visitation in the future ....

SO: HOW do I disagree 'properly' with Christians, Jews and Muslims (and all other theists) regarding what I believe to be false doctrines, without 'offending' those who profess faith ? ...

HOW do I voice my concerns that 'faith' shall again become a vehicle for creedal perfectionism and violence against non-belief ? ...

Shall I just 'shut up' ? ....

Ok ... The ball is in your court: Tell me HOW I can disagree, utterly and completely, with the assertions of theology, without 'offending' believers ??? ...

We obviously have a problem discussing these issues ..... Tell me HOW you want me to disagree with you ....

A person can easily discuss the problems with the religious war in the Middle East and the difficulties we face because of the extreme right wing, without having to disagree with each other on DU. Perhaps you could say what you believe without having to comment on anyone else's belief system who is a democrat/DUer.

I am a secular humanist .... I value knowledge the provides answers to the problems we face as human beings ....

War is a human problem, that causes human pain and suffering ....

The CAUSE of religious war, if not for strict defense to protect a population from imminent harm, can be brought into question when the supposed justification is to protect creed at the expense of human life .... Placing the protection of 'faith' over the protection of a human being is certainly an issue worthy of argument ....

I would of course criticise ANY 'faith' that promoted its 'values' over humanistic needs ... and I may find it necessary to argue against the foundations of such a faith to do so ...

wonderful thing. Having an inner compulsion to "explain" your views on theology, which has remarkably little to do with a religious war, tends to be a bit less wonderful. It generally has the exact same qualities as when anyone else who is moved by that small inner compulsive voice that drives people to view the world in terms of themselves.

It is not difficult at all to discuss those human qualities that are leading our culture to engage another culture -- on their land -- in what is indeed a "religious war" .... but without having the need to debate the validity of any religion or theology. Perhaps what you should consider is not the religions, but what it is that limits you from being able to do that in a rational manner.

I'm taking you at face value .... that you are sincere, and that you hope to become able to discuss the religious war in a rational manner. But to do that, you need to be able to recognize that you are tossing in your own issue -- your disagreement with theology -- which is a distinct topic. It's certainly worthy of discussion in it's own right. But be able to recognize what you are really doing.

Having an inner compulsion to "explain" your views on theology, which has remarkably little to do with a religious war, tends to be a bit less wonderful. It generally has the exact same qualities as when anyone else who is moved by that small inner compulsive voice that drives people to view the world in terms of themselves.

There is a great deal of compulsion in our society to discuss these belief issues. We are subjected to talk of "faith" all the time. This poster was merely inquiring as to how to do so without offending believers.

Julie

although it really doesn't change it .... If you noted post #17, for but one example, you might see "I can offer you absolute proof that ..." and "I am arguing that their (sic) is no foundation for god belief...." ..... and I guess if that meets your definition of "merely inquiring as to how to do so without offending believers," than you will see thingsa little different than me.

You are not really "subjected to talk of 'faith' all the time." You make the choice what threads and posts you read. If, for example, there is a thread about the civil rights movement in the 1960s, and you find Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr intolerable, and are convinced that there is no room for talk about him, skip over the posts that mention King. There are groups of people in America that don't want anything to do with King.

When referring to being subjected to talk of faith all the time, I wasn't necessarily referring to DU. I agree completely that faith threads are easy to skip and I often do. Even when I don't, they generally don't upset me.

Watch the news, read the paper, go out into society. It's everywhere. My local paper even has a "Faith" section on Friday.

Of course it spills into DU and of course offense is often taken (and given, it's fair to say). I think this poster made a legitimate inquiry as to the wishes of those of an opposite viewpoint. We could use a more civil dialogue and I see no harm in prefacing it with a sort of *wish list* of ground rules, so to speak.

Just my .0125

Julie

but I note you don't respond to the things he said in post #17. And you did say that he didn't seem to have any compulsion, so to speak.

I find the "religious right" offensive, and believe they pose a danger. I find most atheists to be neither offensive or potentially dangerous to our society. I do find some atheists, as well as some religious folk, to be mildly amusing. For example, the person who started this thread shows no signs of being a secular humanist; rather, they are much like the four year old child who is absolutely convinced that they are the exact center of the universe. And there is nothing wrong or "bad" about that .... but it certainly doesn't qualify their conversation as serious, deep, or challenging.

you just have a reading comprehension problem. I went and checked out post #17 and compared it to your comments. I suggest you re-read it. Take off your sensibility blinders first though bunky.

:toast:

the religious war(s) in the Middle East have absolutely nothing to do with that person's beliefs are regarding his/her "absolute proof" on the existence or non-existence of God. None whatsoever! The only time that his/her beliefs may be of a bit of significance will be at the time that the draft occures .... and I am only speculating, but the poster sounds to be approximately 18, and with little idea of what a secular humanist is .... and is seeing large issues through little eyes .... children at age 4 tend to view the world exclusively in terms of themselves. But that person, like you and yes, like I, is just a little minnow in a little puddle on someone's little back yard .... and is mighty proud of a few ideas that (s)he has recently learned, but which have not taken root to the extent needed to engage in a meaningful discussion .... and that was what you communicated, too. Hence your tiny stabs at insult, rather than any attempt to discuss in a rational manner. Come back and try to give a serious response.

I can offer you absolute proof that ....

the god of the Israelites has not convinced me of his existence ....

I see nothing about absolute proof that a god doesn't exist, just that this god has not convinced the poster of his existence.

But if you want to read it as "absolute proof god doesn't exist", well it's still a (somewhat) free country, have at it.

Cheers-
Julie

to connect the dots here .... but the poster had wanted to discuss the religious war in the Middle East. Hence, his/her opinion is not an issue of great significance .... because neither side is concerned with that belief system. At all. It is simply not a factor.

It may soon be a factor, if not to that person, to hundreds and even thousands who will most likely be drafted. And, perhaps you know this, but at that time a person's belief system could be of great significance. Even an atheist and/or secular humanist can apply for CO status. Then it is significant.

Per chance, I am active in what we might call pre-draft counseling. In order to do this, it is important to help young people -- even those as inarticulate as the original poster and you -- to organize their thoughts in a manner that will best convey their belief system.

This poster has at very best confused his right hand with his left. There are two very different topics: the war in the Middle East, and the poster's views on religion. But it is clear that you aren't able to comprehend that simple difference.

You mis-read, I demostrated this, you post nonsense with a closing line that it is I who cannot comprehend a "simple difference".

Take a look around GD today. What do you see? Threads about religion everywhere!!!!!!!! Why you are making such a stink about someone asking for guidance on how to discuss it without offending is a mystery to me.

The fact that you are projecting your own short-comings is no mystery though. Very common tactic when error is highlighted. At least by those who have a serious problem admitting error.

;-)

I guess that you have few options though..... because you simply can't point out how the poster's view on religion has anything whatsoever to do with a serious discussion on the war in the Middle East. So you twist words and rely on name-calling.

I think it's a good thing that there are open and even heated debate on the role of religion in the political world. You have mentioned that you do not want religion playing a role. As I said, there are people who do not like Martin Luther King, Jr. They believe he was a dangerous influence on the social fabric of America. I believe that they have the right to feel that way. I'm not offended that you dislike King or that you feel strongly that his works were bad. That's your right.

I also am not offended by people who think they know what "secular humanist" means, but who are obviously just beginning to form an opinion. Everyone starts somewhere.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Just stop attacking people.

Your post serves no purpose except to attack a person.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

...which is really the only religious issue that should be discussed here, in my opinion. This is a political board, not a philisophical one, and the Democratic party has not taken an anti-theism stance.

You said what I was trying to say, but couldn't put it as well as you did. It's a political board and they say you shouldn't discuss religion and politics, but this place was set up so people on the same political page can discuss politics.

NT!

Our earliest experiment with a Church-State, the Massacheusetts Bay Colony, persecuted religious minorities and occasionally hung them. The small town I grew up in, Shrewsbury, New Jersey, was founded in 1663 by religious refugees (Quakers) fleeing MA.

The Constitutional Convention was not held in Philadelphia by accident or for convenience. The non-establishment clause was not added as a matter of philosophy. It was added to prevent the federal system from being taken over by church-states that already existed. The Governor of MA was the leader of the Puritan Church at the time.

Perhaps a little history lesson is in order.

While state-sponsored religion diminishes it.

At least that's the feeling of this member of the "religious left", along with just about every other member of the RL I've run across....

my husband and I agree though, that no matter what you do, you are going to piss someone off.
I say, choose your battles wisely and know when to quit. Otherwise, be assertive about your views when you need to - as long as you don't care what others think of you, you will be all right.
They also need to respect that you don't believe in the same things they do.
As long as you aren't bashing each other, it should be alright.

are usually already offended when I initially tell them I am an atheist. It's kinda a no win situation. I am instantly classed as moral-less and evil, when I am not.

morals are considered to be "religious" and athiests are considered by some religious people to have none. "Thou Shalt not Kill" is a commandment. Religious people see this as a moral issue, which I agree that it is. The fact that someone is an athiest doesn't mean they believe that murder is okay, they just believe murder is wrong for different reasons. A religious person believes that murder is wrong because god says so, a non-religious person may believe that murder is wrong based on "human rights". Some religious people are able to see both sides of this, where "god says so" and "human rights" are BOTH good reasons. Unfortunately, others do not. In these cases the religious person sets their morals based on what god says, and never really understands the reasons for them. Non-religious people, or people who see both sides, IMHO, have a much better understanding of their morals and therefore have a better understanding of morality as a whole.

"Our" Christians, here in DU and those who profess a mild 'liberal' disposition, cannot speak for those who profess their creed with more vehemence and stridency ...

Can humans be 'moral' without god belief ? .. certainly ... But some, using references to the judeo-christian canon, can 'justify' their declaring non believers to be 'immoral' without god ...

This justification is neither supported by logic, nor is it the fault of our GOOD friends here at DU who are also christian ...

If a person REQUIRES someone to have a belief in god in order to be considered moral, than an athiest and a religious could possibly have almost identical morals (don't kill or steal, always be truthful, help your neighbor, which is one that they often forget) and yet the religious person would consider the "non-believer" to be amoral, despite sharing the same morality 99% of the time.

And it worked very effectively against Kerry. There are many Bush followers who believed (and were told by their pastors) that it was IMMORAL to vote for Kerry. They believed their religious views required them to vote for Bush because Democrats are not moral.

That is the Republican propaganda that we have to undo.

I am an atheist too, and it serves me well. Guess that also makes me moral-less and evil, when I am not. So be it.

and on that note I will refrain from any further comment for now. :grr: :grr: :grr:

This isn't a direct answer to your question but I ran across this page today and found lots of history and great quotes that will help us all in dealing with this very question as it relates to political discourse:

http://www.theology.edu/journal/volume2/ushistor.htm

unless one of us decides to impose it on society as a whole.

And I am totally with you on not letting the fundies impose their twisted version of Christianity on the nation as a whole. They have reduced a whole faith tradition to a set of rules about sex.

If I want to argue with a Libertarian or a Marxist, I first learn all I can about their worldview. Telling someone that their beliefs are nonsense is usually counterproductive, so I concentrate on asking them to imagine what would happen if their beliefs were imposed on society. With fundamentalists, for example, I ask them what they would think about prayer in the schools if they lived in a majority Roman Catholic community and their children were forced to say the Rosary every day.

Religion is experiential, not logical, so convinced believers rarely change unless they have an experience that calls their beliefs into question.

Do you go to college and come from an unhappy background too?

I did .... and I did ....

Indeed ....

You must be immature or stupid to be an atheist. Or, you must have serious psychological issue resulting from a traumatic childhood.

Christianity and other religions are so logical, that only a fool wouldn't believe them.

(sarcasm off)

Some of the most intelligent and well grounded people I know are atheists and agnostics. These are the people that have embraced critical thought in all aspects of their lives. I strive to be like that.

choose your approach - and I will be free to react to that approach.

Indeed in my reaction, assuming we are both supporting other goals that we have in common, will be a decision by me as to wheather or not I support your right to use up the limited amount of political air available to my side, given my calculation of what I lose in terms of my priorities being endorsed by a majority - if I endorse the language you are using.

In effect you control your side of the discussion - and I control my reaction - and that is as it should be!

:-)

It shouldn't even be part of the political discussion, beyond affirming the belief in separation of church and state.

Something I might be for - should be for logically - will not get my attention/active support - if I am pissed at the advocate.

I try to avoid not being totally logical - but I am not totally logical all the time - just ask my kids and grandkids!

peace

:-)

It may fall on deaf ears 99% of the time, but it's more likely to persuade people than proselytizing an absent god. The "believers" will perceive your attitude as a competing fundamentalist creed.

1) Your conversation should be about the issue at hand and NOT who's belief's are "right". For every arguement you give them about the evils organized religion has caused, you'll get one right back about being a godless person. Frame it with an issue, and keep the coversation about how organized religion effects that issue.

that God does not exist. Atheist and believers share more in common than they would like to admit. God's inaction in the affairs a mankind speaks more to God's irrelevance than to God's non-existence.

the god of the Israelites has not convinced me of his existence ....

I can show you that even that god is not powerful enough to overcome my doubt ...

Argumentum ad ignoratium ... I am arguing that their is no foundation for god belief .. not that there is no god ...

Call me an agnostic atheist if you wish: I do not believe on exists, based on lack of evidence that a god exists ....

about the lack of evidence for God existing; however, your conclusion that God, therefore, does not exist is a leap of faith.

if the same situation will exist regardless of whether god exists or not, then it is reasonable to conclude that god does not exist -- the rational assumption should always be that a complicating factor DOES NOT exist, and the burden of proof rests with those who would prove that god does in fact exist

I think Occam's razor applies here

you are demonstrating faith.

if the same situation will exist regardless of whether god exists or not, then it is reasonable to conclude that god does not exist --

No, Occam's razor leads to the conclusion that God's intervention in that situation is not required to explain the situation, but it says nothing about God's existence. I had nothing to do with Nadir running for President, but that doesn't mean that *I* don't exist.

Secondly, the only way to show that the situation would exist with or without God's existence would be to run an experiment with a world where God does not exist, and a world where God does exist. Obviously, an impossibility.

Since no experiment has shown that the situation would be the same with or without God's existence, then your belief that the situation would be the same with or without God is a belief that is grounded in faith and not science or fact.

it is perfectly reasonable to say that something does not exist if there is no evidence of it existing -- this is almost the very definition of the scientific process

to say that something doesn't exist without having infinite knowledge is not logical. Just imagine if your idea had been used by science when someone proposed that the atom is the foundation of matter...and then someone came along and said that atoms are made up of smaller particles yet...and then that those smaller particles are made of up even smaller pieces of matter yet...and that those pieces of matter might just be vibrating strings...

No, it is not reasonable. Just because you have not yet observed it does not prove its lack of existence...

theProdigal

but the existence of God is a non-falsifiable hypothesis, and therefore crap

won't deny it there. But then you have to trash all of philosophy as well...

theProdigal

God is an unnecessary complicating factor

I haven't read any philosophy that credibly shows the existence of god (and it is impossible to prove a negative in any sense, philosophically or scientifically)

Occam's Razor says nothing about whether or not ANYTHING exists. It just notes that an explanation does not require unnecessary elements. It doesn't prove that the element does not exist. Only that the element is not part of the explanation.

The fact that housecats are not needed to explain how nuclear fusion works does not mean that housecats don't exist. It only proves that housecats have nothing to do with how nuclear fusion works.

as a prime mover for existence -- if you choose to define God in some other way, please let me know

The only way you can SCIENTIFICALLY eliminate God as a prime mover for existence using Occam's Razor is if you show that God is not necessary to explain existence. Since science has yet to explain existence, you're out of luck.

if you choose to define God in some other way, please let me know

AFAIK, there are an unlimited # of ways to define God. I choose another way.

and what have we been discussing

I believe that God = Love, an opinion supported by the Pope, the Dalai Lama, Gandhi, and millions of others over the course of thousands of years.

Why must I accept YOUR definition?

then I too believe that God exists -- but I don't believe that love created the universe from nothing and created man in its image

I'm not too concerned if you don't agree with me about God and how the universe was created. Particularly when you DO agree with me that Love didn't create the universe.

But science is science, and logic is logic, and the only thing that scientifically justifies a belief in somethings non-existence is PROOF of it's non-existence.

Faith is defined as "belief in the absence of proof". If you believe in something that isn't proven, you have faith. If you believe in God's non-existence, an unproven idea, then you have faith in God's non-existence.

every negative is an article of faith -- are you saying that faith cannot be measured in degrees of reasonableness?

every negative is an article of faith

Every negative ASSERTION is an article of faith. Yes.

are you saying that faith cannot be measured in degrees of reasonableness?

Faith is a belief in that which isn't proven. It's one thing to look at the evidence and say "Well, the preponderance of evidence suggests that "x" is true, so I will act as if "x" is true, even if I do not know it to be true". That's not faith because the speaker does not *believe* it is true, but is only acting AS IF it is true.

It's another to say "Well, the preponderance of evidence suggests that "x" is true, so I will believe that it *IS* true". In this case, the speaker is making an expression of faith, in that s/he is stating a belief in something that hasn't been proven.

what is believing, other than acting as if something is true -- since nothing can be proven beyond any doubt, that's what we have to do anyway

If you don't believe it, look in the dictionary. You won't see the words "acting AS IF something is true". Belief means you think it *IS* true.

since nothing can be proven beyond any doubt

As someone who has referred to scientific methods, you should already be aware that science proves nothing beyond any doubt. However, it does "scientifically prove" something, and if you believe in science (which I assume you do) then you should believe in things that have been "scientifically proven"

Otherwise, how do you judge what to believe in?

is no different from acting as if it is true -- believing in things that have been "scientifically proven" is nothing more than acting as if they are true, either

I know there is a difference in the definitions of the words, but what is the point of a belief if it does not change your action?

I believe in things for which I have seen evidence

My ex-gf used to demand that I behave respectfully towards her parents even though they were incredibly ignorant Freepers. However, in order to maintain my supply of nookie, I agreed to act AS IF I respected them when they were in my presence.

I STILL believe they are a**holes.

but what is the point of a belief if it does not change your action?

I would say there's no point. But beliefs, as I pointed out, are not the only motivation for action. Sometimes, nookie alone is enough. Therefore, an action may not indicate the belief you think it does. In my case, my actions (act like I respect someone) was based on my DESIRES and not my BELIEFS.

and God is not necessary to explain it -- I could pick almost any other explanation excluding God as God is generally understood

If not, then your belief in existence is based on faith.

and God is not necessary to explain it

How can you know that when science has yet to explain existence?

I could pick almost any other explanation excluding God as God is generally understood

There are an uncountable number of ways that people have experience and understood God. There is no one "generally understood" explanation of God.

then I suppose God has to exist, but its definition is absurdly broad (unless we go into solipsist nonsense)

I'm not saying it's never happened (though I have no evidence that it has happened, aside from your post) but I doubt that it's a very widely held view among those who believe in God's existence.

And I'm not saying that there aren't people out there who have a very illogical and/or unreasonable belief with regard to God's nature or definition, etc. There are certainly plenty of those types to go around. However, those who do not share those illogical beliefs should not be judged on the basis of other people's beliefs.

There are plenty of wacky people who believe in gravity, but their wackiness doesn't have any effect on the existence or plausibility of gravity.

Occam's razor says nothing definitive about the existence of god, but it does suggest strongly that god is overspecified as causal reason for the existence of the universe.

Definitions
* a --> b means a causes b directly
* a ->> c means a causes c either directly or transitivly, as in a --> b --> c
* <> --> d means nothing caused d
* primal-cause is defined as {primal-cause ->> anything && <> --> primal-cause}

So to explain the universe causally, science posits

* primal-cause ->> universe

which boils down to

* <> ->> universe

while religion posits

* god ->> universe

which, given that god does not have a cause by def, also boils down to

* <> ->> universe

or, in essence, that god has the same causal properties as the primal cause of science: he/it is caused by nothing, and causes everything else either directly or indirectly.

However, religion posits additional properties of god (benevolence, omnipresence, etc) which are not clearly needed to explain the existence of the universe. Science, in effect, commits to nothing it doesn't know about the primal cause, while religion does. Doh!

Personally, I suspect causal explanations are useless in this context - it's always turtles all the f***ing way down.

with almost all you say there, particularly it's humorous tone.

Thanks

They are neither provable nor disprovable. They rely on faith, not science.

it is perfectly reasonable to say that something does not exist if there is no evidence of it existing

No, if there is no evidence of it's existence and no evidence of it's non-existence, then the only scientific conclusion that can be drawn is that "there is no evidence of it's existence and no evidence of it's non-existence"

this is almost the very definition of the scientific process

No, the definition of the scientific process is known as "The Scientific Method". Funny how a religious person needs to explain that to you.

the burden of proof rests with those who would prove that God exists, not with me -- if a hypothesis is not falsifiable, then it is bogus

and saying "God does not exist" is an assertion.

If you were to say "I do not believe God exists" or "I do not believe that God doesn't exist", you would not be making an assertion, and so there would be no burden of proof on you. But if you say "God does not exist", then you have something to prove.

than to conclude that god does exist

and I don't see any reasons or evidence cited in that post. Just another faith-based assertion.

there is no evidence showing the existence of God

The fact that there is no evidence does not make a belief in non-existence logical. Logic tells us that the only thing a lack of evidence proves is that there is no evidence.

For thousands of years, we had NO evidence that atoms existed, yet exist they did. The fact that we had no evidence did not effect their existence in any way.

If, for example, God shows up and says "hey, I exist", then my argument goes bye-bye -- if God exists, where is the evidence?

According to religion, God has ALREADY shown up, but science has no instrument that can detect and prove His presence.

Think of an atoms. For milleniums, there was no evidence of their existence.

Did atoms exist a thousand years ago?

where is the evidence?

The evidence for GOd's existence, like the evidence for the existence of atoms, is all around us. It just may take us a bit longer to figure out how to recognize the evidence.

before they were discovered -- you suggest that God exists -- where is the evidence

There were a number of scientists and philosophers who posited the existence of atoms. One was from ancient Greece, about two thousand years ago.

Your assertions regarding both science and religion have been filled with errors.

in the way that they are understood now?

then by saying that god exists, all you are saying is that something exists out there that we can't understand? because that's pretty weak

face it...it will always be true as we have limited mental capacity...

theProdigal

in the way they are understood now.

then by saying that god exists, all you are saying is that something exists out there that we can't understand? because that's pretty weak

Black holes exist, no?

We don't understand them either?

Gravity exists, right?

There's a lot we don't understand about gravity

A lack of knowledge about something does not imply that something doesn't exist. It only indicates what we do not know everything about that something.

Saying "I don't know if Jim is here" does not imply "Jim is not here". Saying "There's no evidence this patient has cancer" does not mean the patient does not have cancer.

the evidence. I don't mean that tongue-in-cheek. I do mean it seriously. I will only speak for myself, and not other DUers. But in fact, the weakness of your stance is similar to that of a person who says "I do not believe in Santa Claus," and think that this is proof that there is no God, simply because little children view God and Santa as equal, if not exact.

God is love, God is truth, God is the sum total of the natural laws of the universe. You and I most likely have very similar ideas on "good" and "bad," "love" and "hate," "truth" and "lies." I'm confident that you love children, want poor people fed and clothed, do not want industry to dump PCB-contaminated oils and TCE and similar solvents into the water supply. That's God, too.

The evolution of the human brain resulted in a layer in the back which brought about the "fall from grace." Being connected to the whole is the goal of religion.

Many people mistake the symbols of religious teachings for the ultimate reality. But that is not an error exclusive to those who are religious. Many of the "atheists" are caught up in the symbols, too. And the need to try to "disprove" them is about as meaningful as telling little children that there is no Santa.

and can be more credibly (in my opinion) explained by evolutionary and societal pressures

Please expand on your last paragraph -- I'm not sure I understand your point

when evolution has been shown to lead to diversity and not uniformity? (Note: "societal pressures" are environmental factors that impact the course of evolution)

And even if evolution led to one set of values, why did it lead to THIS set of values, the values we share?

are harmful to the establishment of society, which is necessary for the survival of the species

and is not necessary for the survival of the species. Civilization is only about 5,000 years old. Humans existed for tens of thousands of years without any society.

I have to say, for someone who believes in science, you've made a number of assertions concerning science that just aren't true.

that humans existed for tens of thousands of years without any society -- without "civilization", sure, but in groups and relying on one another, in circumstances where murder, theft, etc. would have been hindrances to survival. Evolution most certainly does "care" about society to the extent that it "cares" about anything -- a group of humans working together will be more capable of survival than a group of humans working as individuals

I am becoming sick and tired of your accusations regarding my knowledge of science

Society is simply the sum total of our social behaviors. Society has been around for a long time.

I shold have said that evolution doesn't care about murder. Evolution conerns itself with "fitness", defined as the ability to reproduce a genome. Murder does not necesarily lead to "unfitness", except in the murdered. Murder does sometime lead to fitness in the perp.

Killing off a competitor for the attentions of breedable females can increase one's evolutionary fitness.

I am becoming sick and tired of your accusations regarding my knowledge of science

It's not an accusation. I have explained where and why I think you were in error.

but because evolution favors groups of humans that work well together to defeat outside threats to survival by not doing things like murdering that reduce trust levels (or it did until technology elevated humans above natural selection), murder is indirectly not favored by evolution

It doesn't. If evolution favors any form of life, it's the sponges, molds, and insects that make up the bulk of life on our planet.

Evolution only favors that which makes something more able to spread it's genome. If murder can work both ways, then evolution doesn't favor it. In times of overpopulation, evolution actually encourages murderous behavior. In crowded population, evolution leads to some strange behaviors like suicide, sex changes, and even weirder things.

are better able to survive, and better able to spread their genome

That said, evolution favors these humans more than other humans. Given that our value system did not develop in times of overpopulation, but over the course of milennia of survival, murderous behavior was not encouraged.

Of course evolution leads to strange behaviors in crowded populations, which is one of the reasons why the value system begins to break down in such circumstances. If society were one bad winter from being wiped out, then you can bet there would be less tolerance for homosexuality, for example, because that would lead to fewer children and less of a chance for survival.

On edit:
And we would be having this argument, either.

Read Sociobiology by Edmund O Wilson. He's the seminal authority in the field because he created the field of study.

According to his research, cooperation vs non-cooperation, and the evolutionary benefits of each, is highly dependent on the environment and the reproductive strategies of the species. What works in one environment, doesn't always work in other. Human cooperation may make sense in most situations, but not all.

"Humans working well together are better able to survive, and better able to spread their genome"

Fitness and survival are not as closely linked as you make it out to be. This is the main mistake the Social Darwinists make. In some species, the most fit die young because they die immediately after mating. No mating lengthens their life, but reduces their fitness.

Of course evolution leads to strange behaviors in crowded populations, which is one of the reasons why the value system begins to break down in such circumstances. If society were one bad winter from being wiped out, then you can bet there would be less tolerance for homosexuality, for example, because that would lead to fewer children and less of a chance for survival.

But that doesn't represent a breakdown of a value system. It represents a change in it, and instability in it, but there is still a value system. It just values different things because from evolution's standpoint, nothing is more inherently favored than anything else, with only one exception...fitness

Evolution favors fitness.

okay, "breakdown" was a bad term to use, but it is a (difficult for some) change from historical values, which were established when cooperation was necessary for survival

Believe me, I understand the basic principles you suggest that I read about

and maybe I should have said "survive long enough to reproduce" -- but I think my general point holds -- that is, if a group as a whole is unable to survive because of a lack of cooperation, then evolution (natural selection) favors cooperation

but I think my general point holds -- that is, if a group as a whole is unable to survive because of a lack of cooperation, then evolution (natural selection) favors cooperation

But note the "if" in "if a group as a whole...". That condition doesn't always hold true in all situations, and in those situations cooperation is not favored by evolution. Basically, wrt the details we're getting into I have two points

1) Evolution doesnt necesarily cooperation. It only does that when cooperation increases fitness.

2) There's no inherent correlation between fitness and survival. As I've shown, in some species, the relationship between fitness and survival is of an inverse nature. As one goes up, the other goes down.

And actually, this is slightly true in humans. As a female human has more and more babies, indicating higher fitness, her life expectancy decreases.

that I don't mean individual survival, but survival of the species -- I would argue that when humanity was fighting for survival, evolution did favor cooperation, and this lead to the establishment of many values that allowed for successful cooperation

I don't know if there's much point in continuing this discussion through this clumsy means of communication, but it has been interesting

You strike me as having an open mind, and seem to have values that benefit human-kind. I have enjoyed talking to you, even about that which we may not fully agree.

:) thank you for your kind words, and I share the same sentiment with you

It has been interesting, and you have been quite patient with me. I appreciate that, but like you, as interesting as it is, I don't see that this will help us with the question that was asked in the OP.

But thanks anyway

If an atheist wants to know how to discuss religion with a theist, he should first ask for the definition of god/gods that the theist is going to use. The moment evolution or human behaviour is mentioned, a definition of 'fitness' and 'society' would be useful too.

the single best point on the entire thread. Very good.

Please explain how this works among species where one or two alpha males control access to all breeding females. Please include humans as well, i.e. Muslim societies and polygamy.

I'm not sure what exactly you're disagreeing with.

If it's the thing about cooperation, then the answer is "The example you gave may be one where cooperation is favored by evolution, but that doesn't mean that cooperation is favored in ALL situations"

Please explain how this works among species where one or two alpha males control access to all breeding females. Please include humans as well, i.e. Muslim societies and polygamy.

and I realize you didn't ask me .... but what is your question? It should be obvious that those situations involve the spread of a select set of genes. In different cultures, the traditions in mating usually come down to survival of the group. I don't understand your question; I'm not saying its not a valid question ... I just am not able to follow it. Thanks!

You want me to explain how WHAT? works among species.....?

all homosexuality effects population growth

I didn't say "all homosexuality effects population growth"

What I said is something like "overpopulation can affect the level of homosexuality in a population"

Basically, it's an argument that homosexuality is the result of both genes and environment.

population. In a crisis situation were breeding became an imminent imperative the promotion of female promiscuity would make more since.

In a crisis situation were breeding became an imminent imperative the promotion of female promiscuity would make more since.

Yes, and in some other situation, the opposite of promiscuity might make more sense. My point is that none are inherently favored by evolution. It depends on the situation. I'm sorry if my words confused that point.

are genetically driven in response to population levels. This idea seems to suggest an unseen force in evolution, and specifically the human species, which almost borders on the divine.

This idea seems to suggest an unseen force in evolution, and specifically the human species, which almost borders on the divine.

It has nothing to do with the divine. It's science.

Behavior in humans is affected by population density, a fact that can be easily confirmed. Dense populations of humans have higher levels of aggressive behaviors than a population that is spread out.

Similar affects have been demonstrated in the populations of other species as well.

When lemmings get crowded, they commit mass suicide. When chicken are crowded together, they get very aggresive.

ANd as far as sex roles go, some types of clams can change their gender depending on the ratio of males to females

can I assume that the higher frequency of homosexuality in ancient Greece proves that ancient Greece was over populated.

there are other factors which can affect this. We live in a complicated world. Situations that depend on only one factor are rare in real life.

to read the book before continuing the debate. But thank you for the chat.

It comes from the margins, so it's not too obvious. Counter-intuitive actually.

But the margins are useful for showing that the common way is not the only way. Life comes in a multitude of forms, and it's foolish to say all those forms work the same way.

of murder that has not proven to be beneficial. In the old writings, we read about Cain killing Abel. This is in part the story of our agricultural ancestor killing off the hunting & gathering brother. But it goes back much further: in the days before "civilization," but clearly after the use of the thumb created an enormous growth in our ancestors' outter layer in the back of the brain, and tools became weapons, our more peaceful cousins on the evolutionary "family tree" began to die from injuries to the back of the head. We were the more successful murderous relative. But there is absolutely no reason to believe that this benefitted our species in the long run, and it clearly did not benefit the Garden.

My point is merely that there are times when it is favored, and times when it is not.

Given the characteristics of human life, or at least the ones that have an effect on how genes are distributed throughout a population (ex. reproduce sexually, long gestation period followed by years of parental attention, etc) cooperation is very often favorable to our fitness.

Just not always, as you clearly indicate.

I might not have been clear on that, but I posted this in agreement with what you were saying.

And that is neither because of a strength or weakness on either of our part. It is, in fact, because words - and language - is but another form of symbols ... and nothing more.

Often, people assume there are differences where there are none. Let me try to explain .... and please believe that I am sincere in this. But the theory of evolution is very well described in the teachings of many of the world's religions. The oldest books in what we call the Bible are the story of evolution. They are simple posed in a style that appeals to a wide audience, including those who are onle able to see and understand in terms of the symbols.

Even the right-wing republican Christians recognize that Jesus taught by using parables. But they become angry at the mere suggestion that parables have long been the favored teaching device of spiritually mature men and women, including the Jewish people long before Jesus.

Thus said, if you (and not you as an individual per say) say that the teachings are wrong, and then for "proof" you debate the symbols that are used in the parables, rather than the truths conveyed, then it is safe to say that you (again, not specifically you, but our "atheist" brethern and sisters on DU) are only able to see things on the level of those who believe in symbols .... and it can be best compared to a teen-ager who doesn't "believe" in Christmas because there is no Santa Claus!

But Christmas is a spirit, as little Virginia found out. That spirit is a form of energy. Science recognizes energy .... and it doesn't depend on if that scientist is an atheist, a Catholic, a Jew, a Hindu, or a Mohawk who follows the teachings of Handsome Lake. If you see a living person, and a corpse, there is a clear difference .... and if we agree that Einstein was correct in that energy cannot be created or destroyed, but rather changes form, where is that energy that creates te distinction between a living body and a corpse?

What is the energy that is behind a living tree? My word is "God." I respectfully accord you the right to define it as it is most meaningful to you, and only ask that you accord me that same respect. (And that respect is "God," too!)

but I don't think that would be considered by anyone to be "god" in a theistic sense

what you were saying .... but the "I don't think that would be considered by anyone ..." part almost implies that I'm a "nobody." (grin) Let me assure you that there is evolution in the understanding of "God," too .... as a matter of fact, it is the only form of human evolution that there is .... and it is the ultimate meaning of the teachings of all of human-kinds' masters of all ages. But it brings us back to my point: because what you have said actually means that it is not what people who believe in symbols believe .... and I can only agree that little children in this country will almost always believe that Christmas is about a fat northern elf who rewards good behavior with toys.

all I meant was that you understand God differently from the way that most people I have run across / read about understand God -- that is, as a defined entity -- I did not mean to imply that you were a nobody at all -- I don't believe in "God" in the monotheistic sense -- that doesn't mean that I don't believe in what you call "God" (although I would not call it "God")

in a tongue-in-cheek way .... which obviously did not translate as well as intended.

I would venture that a good many religious people think in much the same manner that I do .... however, in order to communicate specific ideas to larger groups of people, the use of the previously mentioned symbols is necessary.

If you look at the studies by Joseph Cambell, in his studies of the world's religions,you find that he noted that in primative societies to the most modern and "sophisticated," people who have had an internal experience almost all say the same thing: that it can not be described in so many words. It can not be properly communicated. And so people do the next best thing: they use symbols/words to try to convey the higher meaning.

Thus, if you read the teachings of a Gandhi, a Jesus, a Buddha, or the Peace Maker of the Haudenosaunee, they teach the same higher meaning wit the symbols of their culture. But in each case, the lesson includes the unity of all things ... which means the universe all that is in it is one .... and hence anyone who makes a distinction between those things that I listed and "God" does not understand beyond the symbols.

I would say that the internet only serves to muddle communications further, more often than not

although without it, we would never have enjoyed the opportunity to converse. Thank God for the internet!

of evidence....is a leap of faith....quite literally.

RC

The burden of proof is not on the atheist. The theist makes an assertion, and thus must provide proof.

Disclosure - I am a hard atheist who has offended folks on DU in the past.

Re: the burden of proof - not you offending people :)

I'm not here in order to offend! Just happens sometimes; apologize sincerely, don't do it again, and move on...

"God does not exist" is an assertion, and if someone makes an assertion, then there is a burden of proof that falls on the person making that assertion.

The best non-belief position is that of the agnostic: I can't conclusively know if there is a God, and whether there is or is not a God is of not consequences to me -- I don't know and I don't care.

Everyone else is making some kind of a belief statement.

Someone who thinks there is a God does so without concrete evidence of God's existence. Different people have different experiences - some affirm God dogmatically as a matter of creedal faith. Others affirm God because they feel they have certain evidentially experiences in their life that bear witness to the reality of God.

Someone who thinks there is no God does so without concrete evidence as well. All this evidence about burden of proof has nothing to do with actual logic. The existence of God is not a deductive logical conclusion from concrete premises. The non-existences of God is not a deductive logical conclusion from concrete premises. Both claims are inductive claims based on different subjective and inferential evidence. The question of an "infinite" God is not scientifically solvable because it is outside the realm of the finite - it is not falsifiable, therefore not something that science and address, according to Karl Popper. But that is not the same thing as saying that belief in God is anti-intellectual or anti-science. Belief in the activity of God is simply a belief - it neither necessarily requires to you reject rational evidence nor provides you with scientifically measurable data.

If you choose to say anything other than "I have no opinion on the existence or non-existence of God, and I don't care" you have stepped into the realm of belief. "Certainty" is a myth. We don't know anything for certain. If you believe that there is no convincing evidence to believe in the existence of a God, great. That's may be a reasonable position. However, if someone else believes that there are some direct experiences in their lives that bear witness to divine activity - that's not some blind faith based on nothing - that person would say that, doing their best to properly understand experiential evidence, they conclude that these experience bear witness to the activity of God in their lives.

Now, we can disagree or call into question a persons interpretation of events, but acting like people who believe in God do so without any "evidence" is silly. They "do" believe they have evidence - and the real discussion is about whether that evidence is legitimate or not.

Assertions, all assertions, carry a burden of proof.

I know all. I can say what exist and what does not exist.


In truth, I am still stuck trying to understand space, time, and matter at the smallest. As soon as I get these questions settled I am going to work on the existence of God question.

the same as I choose to believe in a Supreme Being, is my business. The problem arise when someone trys to force their beliefs onto someone else.

and let the second law of thermodynamics sort them out.

</kidding>

Honestly, if religious DUers voice an opinion based on religious beliefs, they are fair game for a rational counter argument. I just wouldn't go out of my way to provoke them here. This is a political board. Usenet has many places for religious arguments.

Do what I do. Whenever I am stuck in a situation where religon is being discussed and am asked my opinion, particularly when the talibornagain are on the attack, I simply answer that as a practicing Solipsist any answer I would give to them would be by definition unknowable to them. It confuses the hell out of them. Most don't even know the definition of 'solipsist'. Which says something about their grounding in religon and philosophy.

I reject Solipsism as well ... I am firmly grounded on Terra Firma, if not philosophically, then at LEAST in a corporeal sense ...

When do you know you know all the knowable about the self?

So many questions!

:-)

Crunchy, and quite tasty, too.

Some old Indian guy along Route 66 told me that.

There were two knobs on his front door, one on either side. Neither one opened the door because it was blocked by his sofa. He always used the kitchen door.

There's lots of good theology out there. "Secular Humanism" is a kind of theology, I think.

Anyways, why argue with another man over his god when you can argue with that god directly, like, "Hey you, yeah you, the invisible being over there, why did you tell this guy to hate me?"

Nine times out of ten the invisible being will say, "Hey, that wasn't Me!" and if the invisible being doesn't say something like that, well it's either you or the other guy who is cracked.

Myself, my theology is about 80% Social Justice Left Wing Catholic, 10% Quaker, and a lot of other stuff mixed in for spice. Yes, I attend Mass most Sundays. Otherwise I'm out communing with Mother Nature or visiting friends and family...

Peace be with you.

I like your theology mix!

I think I am 100% Social Justice Left Wing - with religious faith - with the flavors of that faith being a few variations of Christian sans Pope, mixed with non-orthodox Jew, a bit Buddhist, and my family/regional geographic history and cultural history interpretations of God/faith mixed in for spice.

And I also find Church, mixed with communing with Mother Nature, and visiting friends and family, to be my outward and visible sign of the inward and spiritual grace.

Peace be with you.

and if there is someone making snide comments about athiests in foxholes,for instance, address them calmly but firmly. No need to shut up. Ignore the theology threads and the prayer threads, which do exist and have always existed here on this "political" forum and ignore the threads where people are sharing their religion with others of the same faith -- no need to go there , unless there are serious thinkers on a thread discussing theology who want to hack out the deeper questions re religion maturly and intelligently without emotional involvement.

No need to apologize or be expected to automatically respect any god out of "respect" for religion.

My brother is a Catholic priest and we disagree on a lot of religious issues but wanting to remain close to each other we have agreed to disagree and respect each other's point of view.

The important thing is not to try convincing the other person that you are right and he/she is wrong.

Also do not let them have power over you.

for each other's beliefs. If you are secure in your atheism, which I would say most atheist I've met pretty much are, you will not look down upon those who follow Christianity, but respect it as the road some have to take to get to that which we are all ultimately here for (even if it is nothing).

Same goes for Christians. They need to listen to their own religion which tells them that not everyone believes, yet all are worthy of the respect as we pass through this world.

Only those who are not secure in their beliefs will try to impose them on others or get angry when someone doesn't agree because such dissent challenges their beliefs, which proves that it must be built with a deck of cards when they can't even allow themselves to think of an alternative reality.....

Only then can a dialog ensue. However, there aren't too many people who fit the bill, thus the widespread sensitivity in the realm of theology, which probably explains most of the problems in the world.

WE HAVE A WINNER!

I am a Christian...naturally, as part of that (or as the whole of that) I believe that God exists. I also think that I could be wrong...I could just be silly old deluded Dave. I believe atheists are wrong in their belief that there is no God. I also think that they could be right.

I can be vehemently opposed to your ideas and ideals. I can think they are dangerous...bad for the country...bad for the future...but I can and will listen to them IF there is a mutual respect.

One of the biggest problems we have in this country and the divide that is to be seen as a part of it is the egos that are involved in the attempted exchange of these ideas/ideals. Because one side thinks they are better than the other (and both sides have people who think this way) there can be no exchange of information because one person/party is always looking down on the other's thoughts as somehow lacking in rational thought or some other required element.

You begin to believe that the other side is worthy of respect...then you can have an exchange. Until that time it is going to be nothing but a lower opinion...not worthy of listening to let alone accepting.

theProdigal

I would not call myself a Christian although I believe in God wholeheartedly and in the Bible as metaphor. I too think atheists are wrong about the existence of God or lack thereof, however I also think today's Christianity is wrong in their interpretation of God (for example, the God I know by could not be anti-gay, it's just not logical, but it's really none of my business since it's between God and that person, my job is NOT to sit in judgment but to love, accept, respect, and help ALL people).

But I am humble enough to know that there's no way to tell who is right and who is wrong. Maybe we are all right, maybe all wrong, maybe each person believes what is necessary to do whatever it is we are here to do, even if theoretically it's nothing. How can we ever really know?

But the problem you so eloquently point out, which is the lack of humility on both sides, is what makes me believe those who are in charge of the left/right dialog in this country both have it wrong. With no exchange of ideas and information, each side is not challenging their belief systems and therefore growing spiritually. I guess you can call it some kind of spiritual stagnation that is keeping us from moving forward as a nation.

my dearest friend is an atheist. We leave it alone. She doesn't call me a believer in the supernatural...I don't tell her I think she's on an ego trip. Problem solved.

and would pursue the "egotism" evoked by atheism as I find it insulting so I will say my piece here. I will just inform you that it is a sterotype that atheists are egotists. An exploration of where that comes from and the reasons for that thought might be helpful. Buddhists are atheistic and I have never had the impression they are egotists. How about the spiritual leader, Dali Lama--he does not strike me as an egotist--in fact I find him so humble as to be more humble than many hierophants in some religions.

AT some point it may be helpful to try and dismiss these types of wrong assumptions about atheists. Many atheists I know are just as kind, just as humble, just as wonderful people as any. We raise families that are good families,our children are good children, we help others in need, we try not to harm anyone, we contribute to the welfare of a community and we probably have a lot in common with those of a religous faith. Certainly, we are not lacking or missing anything that those of a religous faith have. If it would be pointed out how the life of a religious believer is any different than that of mine, I will gladly take it into consideration.

Just as it is a sterotype to lump all Christians into a category of judgemental, abortion doctor hating, Bush loving bigots. And there you have it.

gander to defend using a sterotype yourself? Why?

All I wanted to do was tell you is it was insulting and to try to dispel that myth/sterotype that atheists are egotists and tried to do it in a reasonable way. I gave my reasons,pointed out some examples, and asked for an example of how a religious believers life is any different than mine. I got no answer to that but that's OK, because I think there is no difference. I also said we have a lot in common with religious believers and I gave examples of that and there are plenty more.

I am not interested in getting into tit for tat types of locked horn conversation over who uses more sterotypes.

It is not true that atheists are egotists and I would like to understand further what prompts that judgement and how that judgement came about.

to get wound up in needing to label others, and there you have it. In reality, ask PassingFair how I feel about atheists. She's the dear friend I mentioned above. Why use a stereotype in this thread? It surely gets attention, and also tends to switch a shoe or two. We are all human first and foremost. Even freepers.

I simply could not let it go by and let it stand as is.

It is true. We are all, after all, only human beings.

on DU.

and, on edit: perhaps we will all want to think about what you just posted before we cast stones. Sometimes those shoes don't fit well.

are refered to as "atheistic," because in one sense that is true .... but left unexplained, it could easily be taken to imply that Buddhism is therefore "atheist." And that simply isn't exclusively so. Although the word "atheistic" has the common root, only one of the possible meanings would be that an atheistic person is an atheist, or even one branch of deism. It also covers agnostics, as well as those who do not think that there is any separation between humans, natural law, and the universal energy source. The Dali Lama, at least that last time he was in this neighborhood, taught a message of unification.

and is now broken down into several subsets for one reason or another that I am too lazy to find out. Many athiests began as agnostics and many agnostics are now claiming they are agnostic /atheists. Many atheists simply were born to atheist parents. Most that I know began to question the religion they were born into somewhere in their early teens.

I fully agree with the Dali Lama's unification although I did not hear that lecture,--He is a man I find delightful. I don't know the universal energy source and tend to doubt that type of mysticism as a dogma.

Many atheists also at one time were believers, so a conversation with a believer is one which those atheists can understand more than the believer can understand atheism, as the villification of an atheist is present as a tenet of faith in most religions, if not all.

words having meanings. People can use them correctly, or use them incorrectly. Agnostic and atheist, for but two examples, have different meanings.

If you look at a living plant and a dead plant, there is a difference. Any Buddhist would know that one. (wink)

and some dead roots, but are still live plants and there are plants that appear dead but their hidden roots are still alive. All they need is some H2O :-)

converted! (grin)

of our own autonomous existence ...

We ARE individuals .... Our knowledge of our own existence is 'felt' inside of our own minds ... We cannot avoid being separated by others by the mere fact that we ARE separated from others ....

What is true about us: We are ALL individuals, AND We are ALL members of humanity, AND We are all a part of the earthly animal world ...

Ego drives us, as individuals, to fulfil our own animal needs: food, shelter and protection from climate, as well as protection of ourselves and our young from danger: these are primal instincts experienced by ALL animals ... We mostly rely on our association with our fellow human beings, in societies, to help provide our own human needs along these lines, and in that respect, we are no different from other species that congregate together for mutual benefit ...

Yet: we would not stand by and allow ourselves to go WITHOUT those needs if our mutual association could not provide for our own personal survival .... Surely: some heroes would give their life for the good of the community (selfless NON Ego behaviour), but on the whole: most in the community would strike out on their own as 'lone wolves' if the community could not satifsy our basic needs ...

In that sense, we see ego as self interest, an instinctive behavior to survive ...

As human beings, we cannot completely avoid acting in our own self interest to survive if our survival is threatened .... but knowing this: human kind has through the ages found that forming communities can help MANY human beings reach those goals and fulfil their basic needs ... it is in the interest of the members of a community to strengthen their own communities to secure food and shelter, and to provide mutual security for the protection of self and child.

It is this aspect of human existence, that as a member of a human community, that one can form altruistic, ANTI egotistical behaviours that place the survival of community, and of the species as a whole, on a higher plane than personal survival or comfort ...

As a secular humanist, I feel it is my purpose to STRONGLY promote the safety and mutual success of the community as a whole, because it enhances MY existence, as well as the existence of all other members, and provides the best chance for INDIVIDUAL survivability, and promotes greater safety for my children ...

By acting for the benefit of community: we are also acting to improve our own lot: hence our own 'ego needs' are satisfied by promoting our collective 'ANTI Ego' needs ....

My own atheism recognizes that theism offers no more secure environment for our mutual survival than other nontheistic worldviews, and that coupled with its lack of material support as a viable 'reality', theism can actually at times HARM communities, and lead to the harm of individuals and their families ...

Ego can never be omitted as a cause of action for any animal, especially humankind, no matter how great the sense of altruistic community ....

is pretty egotistical. And I've heard it many, many times from Christians both here and in real life.

Those same Christians never stop to think that maybe our eyes are already wide open.

It cuts both ways. I think the safest is to go with separation of church and state and mutual agreement to disagree without rancor.

I think it is possible for all of us to get along. But that is easy for me to say, because like Gandhi said, "I am a Hindu, a Christian, a Buddhist, an atheist, an agnostic, and a gnostic."

The separation of church and state should keep the government from favoring one religion, oppressing another, or promoting any religious agenda. But it should not be mistaken for keeping people such as the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr from having an opinion on civil rights. Hopefully people can see that distinction.

NT!

nt

NT!

Go and mis-spell no more.

Stupid is as stupid speaks.

We seem completely boxed in. Fundamentalists are convinced that their way of life is threatened by my very existence (atheist, liberal, freethinker, all of the above). Because fundamentalists feel under attack by the modern world/whatever, if you try to argue with them it is proof that they are right. You are not discussing things with them, you want to wipe them out because they are a threat.

Karen Armstrong has written about fundamentalism and its current rise. She is very alarmed and thinks the world needs to see it as the threat that it currently is.

I was shocked (in retrospect I should not have been) that no one talked about the religious aspect of 9/11. Of what happens when religions go nuts. Na. They hate us for our freedom not because they are religious zealots like Fallwell and Robertson.

I wonder if it will take the liberal christians to take back their religion from the wackos currently defining what it means to be christian (hate gays and start wars).

Voltaire,Lennon,my wife, not in that order.I could go on forever naming altruistic atheists,bush won(so far)the election,not the common sense of most American's.Be COOL real Christian's are more concerned with tolerance and forgiving.

--IMM

if atheism is a theology, then health is a disease

The semantic games above are pretty typical. Based on the nature of human thought and belief almost everything you believe is at some level "faith-based". Even things like gravity or what the color of my carpet will be tomorrow at some level requires a "leap-of-faith", but clearly to equate them with belief in supernatural undetectable beings is intellectually dishonest at the very least. And when you move the discussion from a God the semanticists often discuss (which has no relationship to the God believed in by most religions) to one of the real Gods posited by ancient books the comparison/equation becomes more ludicrous. This because even a cursory glance at the evidence shows these ancient books to be nothing more than the creation of human beings with varying goals (enlightenment, control of populations, documentation (often quite erroneous) of historic events).

I don't believe that purple aliens fly out of my nostrils each night when I go to sleep. Is that a faith based belief of mine? According to the semantic games above, yes it is. But to equate that to having a belief in the same super-natural undetectable beings is ludicrous.

with any theology. That's one of blessings of living in the US of A.
Or so I thought. "Theology" simply means "god talk."
Of course, specific religions or denominations have their preferred theology. And since they own the club, they make the rules and can profer their theology. But, living in a democracy, you can find any or no theology that fits your thinking.
We have "freedom of religion" which means you get to choose.
And if the far right wing thinks they can legislate theology, then they gotta throw out the constitution..... over my cold dead body...

whether or not god exists, in the United States there should be room and tolerance enough for us all. That is what our founding fathers fought for and what we should fight for now.

There are those who will defend their beliefs with urgency and superiority. Those are the ones you must avoid or ignore. There are those who will respect the viewpoints of others. Those are the ones you will want to address.

Respect.

:eyes:

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You thinker, you.

--IMM

The issue isn't there belief system generally, it is tolerance for others with different points of view. That is what you are trying to get across.

If you are trying to convince them that religous belief is false, you will most likely have a very difficult time.

I know once people hear you are an atheist you can see their discomfort. I used to proclaim myself an atheist and I know.

If you are arguing about doctrines of faith, you aren't going to get anywhere, however if you are arguing ethics, there should be many points of agreement.

If you are making arguments about the place of religion in history, you should, with open-minded believers be heard with respect and even much agreement.

I'm sorry to hear you may be experiencing frustration in dialogue with theists. Unfortunately, there is a lot of judgment around atheists. The atheists I have known in my life have been some of the most ethical people I know.

I agree that many are made uncomfortable. And in discussion, I will sometimes use a euphemism to avoid this. I'll say I'm, "not religious" or perhaps the more assertive, "non-believer."

the term atheist gets them all defensive and may deflect from the issue you are trying to discuss.

--IMM

I've seen someone say "I'm an atheist" and be told immediately that "That's ridiculous!" and "That doesn't make any sense!" (by two Catholics).

Try to imagine an atheist saying those very words in response to "I'm a Christian."

I have a very large problem with the automatic assumption that atheists are deficient. As you say, though, some believers get very defensive.

It comes from the same place that their favorite flavor or color comes from. It's not subject to logic or reason. It's part of their emotional makeup.

A friend I had in college and I used to perform for people by debating the virtues of fat versus thin stripes. The side we would take depended on what we were wearing that day.

--IMM

sorry ....

what the hell was that about?

you're not throwing around ad-hominems are you?

just hominids.

I feel compelled to add my two cents, so here goes:
I agree with just about everything everyone has said. I mean it.
I find here some of the most thoughtful, articulate and well-meaning minds I am ever to come across.
Who says you can't discuss religion, or the lack thereof, without it ending in a floor fight?!

My husband of 26 years (Catholic School, alter boy, the works!) is the nicest person I have ever met in my life. I have faith in that.
I donate my time and money to local charities. We rescue unwanted dogs(Jean, the Beagle, is the current love of our lives). I love my work.

My life wasn't always this way, a bumpy, traumatic road to say the least. Also the only left-hander in the family, carrying my 'soapbox' with me wherever I went, always ready to fight, an 'I'll do it myself' kind of a girl. Oh, and stubborn, don't forget that!
I am still a fighter, still carrying the soapbox, and yes, still stubborn, but now it is as a happy person, not as an angry, please feel sorry for me person. What made the difference? For me, it was two things:
Passion for what I believe in, and compassion for others with differing points of view, especially regarding religion.
Only when you are completely comfortable with who you are and what you believe(and people can tell)are you able to listen to and accept what other people believe.

Sorry to rant or sound professorial, I don't mean to. And I don't know if I even answered your question! Here is the 'nutshell' version:

Trajan, If you are sincere in your atheism, you should be able to admit and discuss it, and any other beliefs, with others calmly. The important thing to remember is not the difference of opinion, but that you both have one, and each is valid.

I am an atheist.

Active and thought out Atheism is not a problem for Christians and these often are advocates for the intention of Christianity, Peace and Justice for the poor.

It's the Atheists that confess a religious creed and then ignore God who are the real danger. God requires us to feed the poor, vist the imprisioned, and clothe the naked.

first for your bravery, secondly for the fact that this thread has lasted this long. impressive.

I speak to them in terms of values. I allow my life to speak to the values I hold dear.

Secular humanism is a belief system as well. It has values. Let your life speak to them.

Secularism, in the hands of well intended people, yeilds a good result. Religion, in the hands of well intended people also yeilds a good result.

Either belief system placed in the hands of the corrupt results in very unfortunate things.

Most everybody has a belief system to explain his or her place in the universe. However, I think of the position my father would take when I asked him some of the philosophical questions. His reply, "Nobody knows." This is hard for many people to deal with. They want an answer.

I guess this is the description of the true agnostic. Funny though, my father was a leader in our synagogue, and I think his membership there was an accommodation to my mother. My father led all of their actual charitable functions. But if you asked him if there was a god, he'd say, "Nobody knows."

I have been a skeptic as long as I can remember. And as soon as I could discern the difference between truth and fiction, it seemed to me the god stories more resembled the fiction. And gaining knowledge of the material universe reinforced that to the point where any common notion of an active god was that of a powerful being with nothing to do. Literally, atheist means "without god" and that's how I see reality. There is no need for me to pose some superior intelligence lurking about.

Interestingly, my father was respected as the most moral and trustworthy man in the community. This despite the fact that he never made a religious affirmation in his life. His was a life of deeds.

But I go back to the wisdom of my father when the ultimate test comes up. I would want everybody to make their own decisions. But ultimately keep in mind that nobody knows.

--IMM

The "People of The BOOK" set the terms for the Debate.

I may believe that they believe in something that has no basis in fact and probably doesn't exist, but if I express that opinion, I'm "Bashing" or being "mean".

Doesn't seem like a very level playing field to me.

If you are not religious, you are automatically seen as denigrating other people's faith. This happens to me all the time. It's best to find ways to avoid mentioning that you are an atheist - that label carries a lot of baggage.

I don't feel like I am being dissed if someone mentions that they are religious.

I don't even think you know about my faith at all (and that's not an attack. I'm just noting that you and I are strangers to each other)

I don't feel like I am being dissed if someone mentions that they are religious.

And I don't feel like I am being dissed if you mention that you are NOT religious.

have enough religion- Christian religion, that is- you don't have a goddam prayer.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=1335010&mesg_id=1335010


There is a profound difference between "Christian Dominionism" and the personal faith expressed by many DUers on this board. The fundamentalist movement in Christianity, Judism and Islam is a dangerous political movement and must be understood to effectively combat.

An atheist can still be a profoundly spiritual person. Spirituality is not about theology, it's about living an authentic life.

By showing me the same mistake that I show you.

-- by not making statements about "all Christians" that don't have anything to do with all Christians, but with the actions of specific groups. Likewise, I don't make sweeping generalizations about all atheists when I really have a criticism of some select atheists.

-- by treating me with the basic decency and respect that all human beings deserve. It's OK that you disagree with "all theology." I probably agree with the bulk of your arguments. But allowing that disagreement to translate into rancor, personal disdain, and a dismissive and patronizing attitude toward your fellow brothers and sisters in this community is unacceptable. When it happens - and we are all guilty of failing to be at our best from time to time - credibility and respect demands that you seek to make it right and stay on right respectful terms with others here.

-- by rejecting any notion in your mind that is fundamentalist in nature. Meaning, if you assume before even discussing it, that anyone who comes from a different perspective than you is obviously inferior, less intelligent, more ignorant, or less analytical, or less of a human being than you're guilty of the same dogmatic, closed minded thinking that religious fundamentalists are guilty of. You disagree with me appropriately by accepting me as an equal but disagreeing person - not as an inferior person because I disagree with your opinion.

It isn't complicated to disagree respectfully. And it's a little disingenuous to act as though it is. It is very simple to treat others you respect as equals properly. The problem is when a person has an attitude of smug superiority and assumes that they are right an all others who have a different point of view or weak, inferior or less valuable. If you can see that, then you have serious problems.

My personal beliefs are my personal beliefs. I don't care that you don't share my beliefs and I don't think more or less of you for your personal choices to believe whatever you want to believe or don't. I have no problem with people who think differently than I do. I have big problems with people who not only think differently than I do, but also refuse to fully respect in a non-judgmental way my right to think differently without being "less" of a person.

Two equally good, equally intelligence, equally knowledgeable, equally mature, equally informed people can disagree - even on questions of religion, simply because of the complicated realities of context, place, personally and different living experiences - different people interpret and express themselves in different ways, and that should be respected.

It really doesn't bother me at all when you disagree with "all theology." It does bother me when people start trying to explain to me how, because I don't think just like them, I am inferior or ignorant. That's what fundamentalists religious fanatics do.

"Christ-like" and therefore not Christian.

What they are is more along the lines the "Christian Identity" movement which is not only racist, but is actually the spiritual base of organizations like the Neo-Nazi's, the KKK, the Aryans, the Neo-Confederates, the Neo-conservatives, the CCC (council of conservative citizens) and other conservative republican organizations.

The more extreme factions believe that Jesus was white (history and anthropology show that he was most likely dark or olive skinned) and that the other races are like animals that whites have been granted "dominion" over. America has a long history of action according to these beliefs as demonstrated by the fact that America is completely the result of stealing from other races through warfare. The "Christians" supported the genocidal wars against the native Americans and the Mexicans by pointing to the religious theory of "Manifest Destiny" where God ordained these murders through "Divine Right"

It is just like what is going on now in Iraq, and the "Christians" who support the bush administrations policy of stealing resources from a different race.

Check out the "Christian Identity Movement" or the "World Church of the Creator" for more information.

My suggestion would be to understand these differences and compare / contrast them in any discussion about the American Taliban.

The Creationist's science fair:

http://objective.jesussave.us/creationsciencefair.html

interesting...

theProdigal

It's a pretty funny site---kind of like ...oh what's her name---Betty Flower's "mock" internet church Landover Baptist Church.....

Ex: the 2001 Middle School Christian School Science Fair Winners:

1st Place: "Life Doesn't Come From Non-Life"

Patricia Lewis (grade 8) did an experiment to see if life can evolve from non-life. Patricia placed all the non-living ingredients of life - carbon (a charcoal briquet), purified water, and assorted minerals (a multi-vitamin) - into a sealed glass jar. The jar was left undisturbed, being exposed only to sunlight, for three weeks. (Patricia also prayed to God not to do anything miraculous during the course of the experiment, so as not to disqualify the findings.) No life evolved. This shows that life cannot come from non-life through natural processes.
2nd Place: "Women Were Designed For Homemaking"

Jonathan Goode (grade 7) applied findings from many fields of science to support his conclusion that God designed women for homemaking: physics shows that women have a lower center of gravity than men, making them more suited to carrying groceries and laundry baskets; biology shows that women were designed to carry un-born babies in their wombs and to feed born babies milk, making them the natural choice for child rearing; social sciences show that the wages for women workers are lower than for normal workers, meaning that they are unable to work as well and thus earn equal pay; and exegetics shows that God created Eve as a companion for Adam, not as a co-worker.
Honorable Mention:

"Mousetrap Reduced To Pile Of Functionless Parts" - Kevin Parker (grade 7)
"Dinosaur & Man Walked Together" - Donny Findlay (grade 6)
"Rocks Can't Evolve, Where Did They Come From Mr. Darwin?" - Anna Reed (grade 6)

---

That's all it takes.

Things like the resurrection. That stuff. Did it happen, or was it fiction. If it was fact, then suddenly it means a lot more than just philosophy and story telling. That is where the arguments originate.

As an agnostic, I envy both sides their certainty. Try not to piss people off for their beliefs, or lack of, by using common courtesy. I'm even nice to the Jehovah's Witnesses that come to my door. I find atheist conversation interesting. Being polite goes a long way. It tends to disarm the most vehement arguments, unless the arguer (is that a word ?) is just nuts. Then, I walk away. Fast.

It's best to keep your views to yourself.

If someone is willing to discuss their religion with you and you tell them you are an atheist, why does it need to go any farther?

If they want to argue with you about why you are "wrong", then share your views with why you believe they are "wrong".

Frankly, it's not worth your time and you are far better off agreeing to disagree.

And then expect respect in return and realize the other person just might have some facts on their side too...

It's not really that hard. People just need to be polite to one-another.

:)

Anyone remember what shrub did while TX gov...nice slap across the face to all non-Christian Texans:

8/6/00 - NY Times> Four months ago in Texas, Gov. George W. Bush signed a proclamation declaring June 10 to be Jesus Day, and urging all Texans to "follow Christ's example by performing good works in their communities and neighborhoods."

The proclamation received little attention at the time, except for some gratitude from a Christian organization that had asked many governors to issue proclamations supporting its annual day of charity, prayer and parades in Jesus' name.

Now what seemed purely ceremonial has turned into a controversy for Governor Bush. As word of Texas's Jesus Day has spread through e-mail, Jewish newspapers and church-state separationists, the Republican presidential nominee has come under criticism for insensitivity to people of non-Christian faiths and a disregard for the First Amendment.

If it offends someone to bad.

It's like trying to argue with a child about the existence of his/her invisible friend, which is all God really is. It's a spiritual security blanket that most people are unwilling to give up, some out of fear, and others just because they've been leaning on it all of their life and don't have the ability to stand up on their own.

It's difficult to argue theological assertions with believers because their beliefs are based on emotion, not logic. Look at how they desparately try to explain the story of Noah's ark, or Abram/Abraham's circumcision, or Jesus' resurrection. Logically, they know these claims are impossible, but their emotions can't let go.

The Bible has been debunked over and over, yet they keep on wriggling and re-interpreting in a desparate attempt to make it fit what is known as REALITY.

Having been an atheist all of my life, I think a lot of people who claim to believe in God don't. People in power understand how useful it is in influencing the weak-minded. Face it: without God, the Republican party wouldn't exist. They jumped on the abortion issue in the seventies, made it a religious issue, and here we are.

The sad truth is that most people are relatively weak-willed, gullible, and have low pain thresholds...perfect targets for those who wield the God weapon.

an, "I'm right and you're wrong" attitude. Calling people's belief structure childish and just something they lean on...that those with religious beliefs are somehow 'weak minded'. What a pant-load. Please share with me why your BELIEF has to be right and mine has to be wrong. I think your belief system is founded strictly in arrogance and pride...and I don't mean the good kind of pride (please note, I am just using this as an example of this poster's stream of screed and it is in no way my actual opinion of atheism). And please share with me all the debunking of the bible. It is a religious text...wrapped loosely in some history. The only time it is debunked is when people try to take allegory and poetry literally.

YOUR smugness and attitude is why some people of religious flavors of all sort have a negative view of the Democratic Party. Disregard their faith and belittle it at your pleasure...but also at your peril.

theProdigal

OnEdit: And by the way the Avatar that you have showing...Sir Isaac Newton...had deep reigious beliefs and thought that science was a good tool to better understand God...was HE weakminded and childish and in need of a crutch? Maybe you should change your avatar to someone or something that is a little less reliant on a diety...