[Serious]Why are you not a believer of the existence of God

[FunkyDexter]

Pulling passages out of any or all is what most religious debate is about

It's not the pulling out of individual bits and pieces that's the problem. It's doing so while disregarding of the overall message of the whole that's the problem. Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

If you hadn't added that, I would have made a further quip.

The horror... the horror...

[zaza]

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.

Fortunately, the closest we can get to shouting around here is CAPS LOCK.

2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.

Agreed. However, there is an important distinction to be made here that5 is often missed. Neither the Nazis, nor the Russians, nor the Chinese, nor anybody else as far as I know, has marched under the banner of atheism, taking the wonders of godlessness to the uncivilised masses by force. Dictatorships which do not attach themselves to a religious flag almost inevitably embrace atheism and persecute those of a religious leaning, simply because religion constitutes a threat to their power. However, I have never heard of atheism being the motivator.

Religion, on the other hand, is very frequently the main motivating tool.

3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.

I don't think anybody disagrees that expressing your opinion and incitement to violence are two different things. As ever, there is a large grey area surrounding what people say, what they claim to mean, and what listeners infer. Unfortunately, judgements can only be taken after somebody has said their piece (sometimes with knock-on effects) and it is then up to the courts to decide.

4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point

Which works both ways...those of a religious persuasion can use various parts of their chosen text to indicate that slaying the unbelievers (etc) is entirely justified. To my mind, that indicates that for a lot of people, religion is used selectively to justify the things that they wanted to do anyway, and also explains why sufficiently talented orators can use skillful argument to persuade normally sensible people to do entirely unsensible things.

In a recent example reported as a feature in the Times, some academics interviewed groups of Muslims on their thoughts on the Balkan war, and how America was instrumental in preventing a genocide in the region by the Bosnian Serb army. The result was, by and large, complete indifference. Then, an enthusiastic chap got up to speak about the American-Jewish plot to subjugate the Muslim Brotherhood, and was met with a chorus of cheers, despite evidence that had been laid before the same group minutes earlier.


It is not difficult to see that, in general and with no reference to a specific religion, a group of people:

1) who feel united across racial, national and gender boundaries sharing a particular belief system

2) who have demonstrated by the very fact of that belief that they are prepared to suspend logic or a requirement for evidence (that is the definition of faith, a point often missed by atheist argument)

3) which, historically, has proven susceptible to manipulation by skillful argument

4) whose belief system almost invariably promotes conversion of the non-believers as a requirement for achieving salvation

...are fairly intimidating to those who are not a part of that united group.
When members of a rival group feel threatened, they have a tendency to unite closer....and so friction builds up, and we know what the consequences are.

[5ms?]

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective. And from this perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread but I'm talking generally, not just this thread. There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour. Can you seriously not see the hypocracy of that position? I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

It might seem that I'm siding with the theists here, and I probably am, but only because I see the atheists shouting far louder that the theists and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout. If you don't believe that the atheists are the shriller group then take a step back from you're beliefs for a bit, allow yourself to accept that there is a possibility, however unproven, of a God and then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole.

A few things I'd like to add:-
1. While it's true that shouting is a one way form of communication so is talking, whispering and, indeed, posting on forums. Two way forms of communication include conversing, debating, arguing and engaging. Volume is irrelevent.
2. When measured alongside the track record of nations that have mandated a religion, that of nations which have mandated atheism really does not stack up well. The latter include Nazi Germany and Stalinist Russia. Not exactly the highest paragons of virtue.
3. Censorship, while often abused, is an entirely necessary and desirable mechanism in society. I, for one, have no desire to see poedophillia re-enacted on BBC primetime. I specify re-enacted to separate the sensationalising such a thing from the act itself which would, of course would be illegal if carried out for real; rendering any debate about censorship moot. Now that's obviously an extreme example but does serve to debunk the blanket belief that censorship is neccessarily a bad thing. Where you draw the line between the extremes is really a matter of opinion but I personally don't believe our society (UK) has benefited by the more licentious aproach we've adopted in the last 20 years or so and is, in fact, rather the worse for it. Whether that applies elsewhere in the world I have no idea.
4. While it is entirely possible to pull passages out of the bible, koran, torah or any other religious books that appear to demonstrate that the assosciated religion is evil, violent and warlike, to do so while disregarding the overriding arc of these works, which is invariably about forgiving, helping and generally being nice to each other demonstrates a willful desire to miss the point.


edit> Personally I'd vote for it to be moved into World Events. It's deader than Zoroastrianism (wouldn't you just love a religion that worshipped Zorro?) in there and I'm not really sure this thread still constitutes 'Chit Chat'

edit a bit more>Shaggy, there are some countries where you're puns would get you stoned... and not in the hippy sense either. Thank your anthropomorphisised concept of choice that you live in the US.

And from your slightly broader perspective the worst of the atheists seem to be just as shrill, stubborn and close minded as the worst of the theists. In fact, they generally appear to be worse.

I'm not an agnostic nor (a fence sitter) nor atheist, But I'm not a believer in Dee-U god's either.

I've have been to Christian summer camps, Sunday schools, church and had religions instruction classes at school.

"then read this thread again. You'll find it to be pretty one sided on the whole."

To be honest,
This thread should be totally one sided .
This Thread was for those with no belief in God's what so ever, or those that are not a believer in Dee-U god's.
Dee-U invited them, because he was curious why they did not belief in his God's.
See Post #1

So In fact I do think that this is the wrong Thread for posting for those that are believers in Dee-U god's.

Now read this thread again, But do start with the title.

I absolutely object to someone trying to convince me of there beliefs being the correct ones, I do not try to convince any person of My beliefs, Personally I'll only some times talk to someone about beliefs, when they are genuinely curious to know about My beliefs, or I'm genuinely curious to know there beliefs.

I've never had atheists impress there beliefs on me, shrill or otherwise, and I've only ever had theists think that it is their duty to convince me that I'm wrong, But have found the theist not atheists, the first to be offended when I return the favor,
I do think atheists may hold on to there beliefs stubbornly, the same as theists and me...(hypocrisy of that position?)
At Home Knocking On The Door, only theists, never ever atheist's....(hypocrisy of that position?)
On the street only theists, never atheist's....(hypocrisy of that position?)
Oh yes..... (The hypocrisy of it all)!
Oh..... (The hypocrisy of it all)!

I'm siding with the atheist's here, but only because I see the theists shouting far louder that the atheist's and I've always been cursed with an urge to challenge those who shout.

Now read this thread again, and do start with the title.

One thing I'd like to add:-
1. I think Volume is relevant.
I've never have had a rational conversation with some one shouting. (Worth noting that: any person shouting only wants to be herd, and are not interested in conversing/conversation, solely instructing)

Yet I've had conversation at a whisper, normal talking Volume, and indeed, [posting on forums('Chit Chat')], E-Mail, PM's, So on.............
And yes 'Chit Chat' is conversing/(conversation).


May be it's because I don't have a broad perspective, like you

Read this thread again, and do start with the title, and see DAMMED atheist's answering Dee-U question....(hypocrisy of that position?)

[NeedSomeAnswers]

I think Volpe has stated my position better than I could myself. Personally I'm agnostic and, while I don't believe for second that that gives me any moral high ground I will claim that it does give a slightly broader perspective.

Everyone thinks that they have the broader perspective, but why does being Agnostic make anyone have a better perspective on things ? it seems to me a bit of a kop out, i neither believe something nor do i not believe something.

People seem to get caught up in this trap that if you completely disagree with something then you are incapable of understanding the other side, i don't believe that this is true, people are perfectly capable of understanding things they dislike or disagree with.

To be honest, Dee-U invited it with the title of the thread

Yep, the title of the thread asks why people are not believers so unsurprisingly there are a lot of people on the thread who are stating just that.

There is a culture of proselytizing atheist's who seem to think that it is their duty to convince theists that they are wrong, delusional or possibly just plain mad if they believe in a God. They are happy to argue their own beliefs and try to convince others that their position is the correct one and I applaud that. But it is these same people who are the first to be offended when a theist returns the favour.

Are you being serious ? in this particular thread you may have come across examples of this but in the world at large i would say the opposite is true.

There is a large culture of theists who seem to think that is there duty to convert non-believers or believers in different faiths to there religion. And the theists are the first to be offended when an atheist returns the favour.

I have absolutley no objection to someone trying to convince me that there is no God but I do find it bizarre when that same person takes it as an affront when some else tries to convince them that there is one.

I have no problem in talking about god or faith with believers but there is a difference between having a discussion or argument about belief and someone trying to convert you to there position.

I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism, nor am i about to be converted myself and yes it does annoy me sometime when people think it is there duty to convert people to there religion.

I also think that the idea that atheists (in general) are offended if some try's to explain there position is also wrong, if anyone wants to have a rational discussion with me about belief or the nature of belief then i am all for it, i am not likely to agree with them but it wont stop me listening.

I don't try and force my atheism on anyone else and yet last week alone i have had both Christians and Mormons knocking on my door trying to convert me.

Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

While it is true that most major religions do preach this, isn't it a pity that many of there followers through out history have taught, rape slaughter and death.

Show me a war in the world today and you can bet that religion splits the two sides.

(disclaimer, yes i know there is bound to be a war somewhere that is not either directly about religion or where the two sides are not split along religious lines, but i bet if you really think about it you would be astonished with how many are)

[capsulecorpjx]

My final words on this topic is:
1) I don't believe in any Religion because non have evidence, and there are plenty of plot holes, inconsistencies in their core religious text, not to mention it doesn't agree with Science at all on the nature or creation of the world. Not to mention their idea of a Just and Loving God often directly opposes the idea of Human and Individual Rights, rights which I don't believe is subjective, but absolute.

2) Religion does cause more violence, but so does every idealogy (Communist Class hatred, French Revolutionary Atheists who killed Clergy), and sometimes no idealogy (Mongolian / Viking hordes who looted and conquered).

[5ms?]

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

[penagate]

Everyone thinks that they have the broader perspective, but why does being Agnostic make anyone have a better perspective on things ? it seems to me a bit of a kop out, i neither believe something nor do i not believe something.

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

[5ms?]

NeedSomeAnswers was Quoting FunkyDexter having the broader perspective

[Davadvice]

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread, my friend.

[5ms?]

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread, my friend.

good good

[FunkyDexter]

I thought I killed the thread.

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything but I'm struggling to find the time lately. I'm still reading though.

it's going to take somthing special to kill this thread

I'm guessing the second coming would do it...

[5ms?]

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything but I'm struggling to find the time lately. I'm still reading though.

I know I'm wrong about everything, but would like to know why?

I'm guessing the second coming would do it...

I'm here!

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Thank you, NeedSomeAnswers and capsulecorpjx, I thought I killed the thread.

why would you want to do that, this thread is one of the most amusing still open :0)

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything

Excellent, and when your done telling us why we are wrong i for 1 will be here ready to tell you why what you haven't even said yet is also wrong

[Davadvice]

and in that we have an agreement, we are all wrong in each others eyes. i however, am perfect and can commit to say that there is no god.

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

[Jenner]

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

Very well said.

[Shaggy Hiker]

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

Their both mythological beings you pathetic, pontificating, pantheistic, poop! I don't believe in the physical incarnation of either one of them...or something like that...or whatever. However, if you want to take it on faith that they exist, then I take it on faith that I believe you may do so.

[EntityX]

Is pantheistic poop better than polytheistic poop? Perhaps monotheistic poop is the best poop of all. Whenever you're in the market for poop you should always be discriminating.

[5ms?]

and in that we have an agreement, we are all wrong in each others eyes. i however, am perfect and can commit to say that there is no god.

in time people may actualy believe Dan Brown, heck the may even believe Deren Brown

I know I'm perfect,
My mum would tell me all the time, "you are a perfect little S#!T"

[5ms?]

Agnosticism is not a copout. Agnosticism is the position that man does not know whether a God or gods exist. Strong agnosticism is the position that it is impossible to know this.

Agnostics can also be classified as either theist or athest depending on their personal beliefs.


Personally, I am 'ignostic' (or 'noncognitivist') which means that I believe that the word 'God' is not intrinsically meaningful and therefore I can only classify myself as theist or atheist within the context of a specific definition of a God or gods. For example, I don't believe in omnipotence, but if you gave me a definition of a God who was not omnipotent then I might be able to say whether I could believe in them or not.

Is that a copout? Perhaps, perhaps not. But I don't think that it gives me a better perspective on anything. One can have an open mind no matter one's theological beliefs.

Very well said.

To be or not to be.
I to have a strong believe, that I have a believe.

[FunkyDexter]

OK, I've got a bit more time now. Damn this whole employment lark getting in the way.

First of all, I never said a 'better' perspective, I said broader and that's an important distinction in this case. You can only define 'better' in the context of a known truth and the whole point of this debate is that the truth isn't known - or at least we disagree on it which means our views of what is 'better' will differ.

I'll still stand by broader, though, because it is absolutely part of human nature to discount arguments that conflict with our beliefs. We seek out media that reinforce our beliefs. We surround ourselves with people whose beliefs roughly correspond to our own. We are, of course, able to open our minds to the other argument but it is something that we must conciously do and, whether we like it or not, the tendancy is not to. That doesn't mean we can't give the opposping view credence, or that we won't, but it does mean that we're considerably less likely to. In that context I would argue that anyone who hasn't made their mind about any argument has a broader perspective in that argument. The very act of "making up one's mind" about anything must, by definition, involve closing that mind to some extent.

Zaza, I agree with a lot of you're response but I'd argue a couple of points.
1. I don't believe any war has truly been fought or persecution pursued because of religion. Religion's name has been invoked as a rallying call, certainly, but there are always underlying socio political causes. The troubles in Ireland were rooted in foreign occupation and more recently were driven by a lack of political representation for the South in government. The march that turned into Bloody Sunday was a protest against the fact that poverty in the South had reached the point where people were starving, not that people were Catholic or Protestant. The situation between Isreal and Palestine and all it's spin offs are again rooted in Foreign Occupation and, again, the poverty and starvation in the Palestinian territories. The Palestinians don't bomb the Jews because they're Jewish, they bomb them because they see them as the cause of their misery and want to fight back. Equally the Jews don't send tanks into Palestine or Lebanon because these are Arab countries, they do so because they think it will help protect themselves against terrorist attacks. When Ferdinand and Isabella called for the Spanish Inquisition against the Jews it wasn't because they were Jewish, it was because the Jews had all the money and Ferdinand and Isabella wanted it. Yes, religion is used as a rallying call but so is nation, skin colour or what football team one supports. Getting rid of religion wouldn't reduce the number of wars that are fought one jot, it would simply change the rhetoric.

Which works both ways...

Absolutely, but two wrongs don't make a right. Argue against how selective interpretation of a religious text can be used to justify an evil act, certainly. But don't then selectively quote religious texts in an attempt to demonstrate that the religion is, itself, evil.

racial, national and gender boundaries

Why are any of these boundaries any more valid than religious ones. Wherever there is a boundary there will be division, regardless of the nature of the boudary.

they are prepared to suspend logic or a requirement for evidence

Nothing to do with religion I'm afraid. That's just human nature. Have you seen reality TV?!

susceptible to manipulation by skillful argument

pfft, doesn't even need to be skillful, just passionate. And it certainly doesn't need to be religious.

promotes conversion of the non-believers as a requirement

the only difference between religions and any other grouping is that in religion this is explicit. It's Human Nature that, not only do we group with people who are like us, but we want everyone else to be like us too. That's why we debate. That's why we argue. It's because we want to convince the others that our's is the right way to be.

In truth I think we're saying almost exactly the same thing: that human beings form arbitrary groups and then rail against each other. The only difference is that I don't see why a religious grouping is any different to any other. You wouldn't argue with someone for being German... but identifying with that group caused alot more problems in the last century than religion did.

NSA, I'll answer a few of your points too:-

Yep, the title of the thread asks why people are not believers so unsurprisingly there are a lot of people on the thread who are stating just that

That's why I made a point of saying I was speaking generally. Of course, I did then go on to challenge people to look back through this thread which is a bit clumsy but, instead, go back and look through other threads there have been about religion in this forum. You'll find the same balance of responses no matter how the original question is phrased.

Are you being serious ?

Yes, absolutely. I may not get atheists knocking on my door asking if I've heard the good news (although at 37 that's still only actually happened once with a theist) but I do get atheists taking out banners on buses and creating works of theater which are undoubtedly designed specifically to offend, for example. I would also point out they've increasingly begun publishing their own 'religious texts'. One thing I want to stress here is that I'm talking about proselytising atheists - not the great mass who just just go around quietly not believing in God. But then I don't think you're really objecting to theists who don't proselytise either are you? In truth I think the vast majority on both sides of the debate are quite happy to keep themselves to themselves and most of the people I know who are religious haven't felt the need to mentioned it for quite a long time after they've known me - they didn't think it was any of my business.

However, when an atheist does proselytise they do tend to be extremeley aggressive and insulting about the their theist couterparts. In this thread you yourself (and I think your arguments been very measured, well put together and innoffensive on the whole and I really wish you'd given me some better examples to quote) have compared God to Father Christmas and called Christians deluded. That sort of language always seems to creep in when atheists argue against theists. I rarely, if ever, see it from theists in return.

I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism

Possibly not, but viewed from the outside that is how it appears I'm afraid.

I don't try and force my atheism on anyone else

that, on the other hand, I fully accept. You see to be trying to convince rather than to force. But at that point I go back to what I was saying right at the beginning of this thread: these discussions are never about a desire to achieve understanding of the other sides point of view. They're always about trying to get the other guy to accept your own point of view. I don't really believe that when Dee-U started this thread he truly thought there was a chance that your arguments would convince him to abandon his religion, he just wanted a platform to put his own opinion across. It's what we do, we can't help it. It's hard-wired in and I am, of course, doing it right now. <shrug>

isn't it a pity that many of there followers through out history have taught, rape slaughter and death.

Yes! but the fact that something is abused does not necessarily invaidate the thing. People have done alot of good in the name of religion too. A huge number of our charities have their roots in religion. The very concept of a welfare state in the UK traces back to Victorian Christian values. To be honest, I don't believe this good was done because people were Christian, they were done because they were humane and, just as rape and slaughter are part of human nature, so are charity and compassion. We do what we do because we are what we are. We then go on to justify in whatever manner makes us feel best about ourselves.

Show me a war in the world today and you can bet that religion splits the two sides

I'll do that when you can show me a war where the underlying cause is not either greed or desparation.

5Ms? I had wanted to respond to your points too but I've been writing this for nearly an hour now (I really need a life) and I've run out of steam. Your making some good points but could I direct you to the quote function. Without it your posts can be really hard to follow.

Apologies to all for the huge post but I saw a soap box and jumped on it.

[5ms?]

First of all, I never said a 'better'

And from your slightly broader perspective

And befor you say it, I know you didn't say I did.

First of all, I never said a 'better' perspective, I said broader

So a broader perspective is Not a better perspective?
If so, my perspective must be better!

5Ms? I had wanted to respond to your points too but......

I'm so disappointed

(I really need a life)...

I have a life!, You can share my life, but I think you'd be disappointed

and I've run out of steam.

No stamina A!

Your making some good points.

You're the only one that think so.

but could I direct you to the quote function.

How am I doing with the quote function.

Without it your posts can be really hard to follow.

It can be really hard for me to follow my thoughts, so why should it not, be really hard for you to follow my posts.
It's hard to Write, so should be hard to read

Nah. I for one fully intend to come back and tell you why you're wrong about everything but I'm struggling to find the time lately. I'm still reading though.

I still would like to know why?
End Quote

[Shaggy Hiker]

FD, I liked your post so much that I intend to steal some of the points, especially the one about religion not being the actual cause, but just the fig leaf (see, I can alter it just enough that it isn't outright theft). However, since this is chit chat, I feel that I should use all of my effort to ridicule you over taking an hour to write such a modest missive. Unfortunately, the only way I can think to do so is to suggest that you improve your typing speed. Other than that, you're going to have to come up with the rest of what I should say on your own.

[5ms?]

That doesn't mean we can't give the opposping view credence, or that we won't, but it does mean that we're considerably less likely to. In that context I would argue that anyone who hasn't made their mind about any argument has a broader perspective in that argument.

I've seen many people faced with subjects with known truths, those that could make their minds up, more often had a broader perspective and higher IQ.

Are you being serious ?

Yes, absolutely. I may not get atheists knocking on my door asking if I've heard the good news (although at 37 that's still only actually happened once with a theist)
.

Atheists knocking on my door with the good news, never has happened
Theist knocking last month 3, but a good average is12 a year, in 50 years would be 600 times,
And if you think about it, an average of 2.5 times saying "No Thank you, I'm not interested" , 1500 times saying No Thanks.
Looks like I need to get a BIG dog like you have.

[AsmIscool]

Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

Actually if you read the Satanic bible it in no way encourages any form of unpleasantness. It clearly states that people like that are not very good people and not wanted in their religion. You are thinking of the version that the bible has very efficiently convinced everybody to believe throughout history. They dont want you to like the competition.

I am an Athiest because I do not believe in a God. People who need that sort of thing will obviously believe. But it doesnt stop me from being a volunteer at the local church charity. Because they know not to shove it down my throat. I told them right from the start.

Religious fanatics who chase me down the street or bang on my door get told too. I will convert you to Satanism, and they very quickly leave me alone.

[NeedSomeAnswers]

Good Post FD

Now as we have already established that i am a pedant in another post i will now attempt to correct you were ever possible

But then I don't think you're really objecting to theists who don't proselytise either are you?

your right i am not !

First of all, I never said a 'better' perspective, I said broader

Fair enough but is broader always better ?

The very act of "making up one's mind" about anything must, by definition, involve closing that mind to some extent.

While this is true, this is something we do every day and is inherent in human behaviour. Also making you mind up does not have to mean that you are close minded.

If you test a theory and can prove the outcome, then it is not closing your mind to say the x = x and no x does not = y.

For Instance the theory of Gravity is a theory we can prove because we can observe its affects upon us and things around us.

For someone to then say that Gravity is a by product of human waste gases and if no one farted we would all float of into space, then my mind is fairly closed to this argument as i suspect so is yours.

But if miraculously someone was able to prove it to me then i personally would be happy to change my opinion and alter my thinking, surely this is an example of being open minded ?

What you find (rather unsurprisingly) with religion (and yes this is a rather large generalisation) is that in the face of all other evidence people who are religious will at times believe things that are completely incredulous and when faced with evidence will hide behind there belief.

I don't believe any war has truly been fought or persecution pursued because of religion

This may have to be one of those areas were we disagree, if you look back through history there have been religious crusades (and i don't just mean the Christian ones although they a rather good example) who's purpose was to retake the holy land and kill or convert the (mainly Muslim) enemy.

In this thread you yourself (and I think your arguments been very measured, well put together and innoffensive on the whole and I really wish you'd given me some better examples to quote) have compared God to Father Christmas and called Christians deluded.

Ah now that not strictly true, i did not compare God to Father Christmas, i compared the belief in God to the belief in Father Christmas which is slightly different

However i do understand your point but how on earth are you supposed to have an argument about something without at least annoying somebody !!!

but I do get atheists taking out banners on buses

Oh come on i have seen those banners, you have to be pretty uptight to be bothered by them, i see signs up everyday by a church i walk past which says "Jesus died for your sins" but i don't get offended. I am not offended by advertising

Quote:
I have no desire to convert anyone to atheism
Possibly not, but viewed from the outside that is how it appears I'm afraid.

Ah yes but you just judging from the contents of this thread, i can assure you in real life you wouldn't even know i was an athiest and i am about as militant about it as i am about cheese.

I'll do that when you can show me a war where the underlying cause is not either greed or desparation.

What about the war on Terror ?

[FunkyDexter]

[quote]taking an hour to write such a modest missive.[quote]It's... 'cause... I... type... real... slooooooooow. Actually I spent most of the time scrolling back and forwards between the previous posts while I was putting my argument together.

Actually if you read the Satanic bible it in no way encourages any form of unpleasantness.

I've heard of "Satan's Bible" which is basically a Christian bible with some extra sections refering to mysticism etc. and a rather snazzy picture of a daemon in it. Is that what you're referring to? If so it's not really the bible that a Satanist would view as their sacred book is it? In truth I don't know much about either it (beyond what I've seen on the discovery channel - it was quite interesting) or the modern day Church of Satan so I won't argue with you. All I was really doing was trying to pre-empt the inevitable "Aha, but what about Satanism" response someone would have come up with had I just said "All religions teach compassion".

Fair enough but is broader always better ?

No. That's why I made the distinction.

it is not closing your mind to say the x = x and no x does not = y

Yes it is... but it's a scenario in which closing your mind is a good thing. There's a provable truth: x does equal x.

On the gravity thing, a broader perspective would be to say "it might be caused by people farting", that's probably not a better perspective though.

At which point a a broader perspective becomes a better perspective depends on the provability of the argument and that is, of course, entirely subjective.

The crusades are another example of a conflict justified by religion rather than caused by it. The Turks had taken Jerusalem and were threatening Byzantium so the Byzantine Emperor called for help. This clearly comes under the banner of desparation. He wasn't worried because they were Muslims, he was worried because they were threatening his city. He'd have been just as worried is they were Christian. And the fact that he then closed his gates to teh Crusaders when they turned up and that they proceeded to sack his city demonstrates quite amply that both he and the crusaders were motivated by greed.

i did not compare God to Father Christmas, i compared the belief in God to the belief in Father Christmas which is slightly different

That's entirely true and I was just clumsy in the way I quoted you, sorry for that. I think my point still stands, though, it's the atheistic side of the debate that generally introdcuces that type of language into the debate. Just to be clear, I really don't think you're particularly guilty of it and I had to try quite hard to find examples. The types of atheists I was referring to as shrill are ALOT worse than I imagine you've ever been - but they do most certainly exist.

War on Terrorism

Bit of greed, bit of desparation. If you believe that America's gone to war for oil then the greed is definitely in there (I will make no judgement on that point for fear of derailing the thread) and the self protection that is encompassed by the motivation to prevent terrorism is, IMO a form of desparation. Perhaps Self preservation might have been a better term for me to use than desparation but I'd happily conflate the two and, either way, it's certainly nothing to do with religion.

we have already established that i am a pedant

Wear the badge with pride, brother. I'm with you all the way.

[AsmIscool]

I've heard of "Satan's Bible" which is basically a Christian bible with some extra sections refering to mysticism etc. and a rather snazzy picture of a daemon in it. Is that what you're referring to? If so it's not really the bible that a Satanist would view as their sacred book is it? In truth I don't know much about either it (beyond what I've seen on the discovery channel - it was quite interesting) or the modern day Church of Satan so I won't argue with you. All I was really doing was trying to pre-empt the inevitable "Aha, but what about Satanism" response someone would have come up with had I just said "All religions teach compassion".

It's definitely The Satanic Bible by a rather odd chap called Anton Szandor LaVey. Nothing like the Christian bible though. More of a wiccan religion with lots of spells and incantations to get the girls to do strange things for you. They practice enjoying life as opposed to the rather strict abstention demanded by the Catholics which is probably why they have never got along. It's actually quite a good read for a load of rubbish.

Wicca is the religion practiced by witches. No, they don't fly around on brooms or wear a big, black hat. They worship nature and don't believe in hurting anything, even insects. Wiccans heal illnesses with herbs. Find out more about modern day witches below.

[5ms?]

and i am about as militant about it as i am about cheese.

A cheesy militant, Mmmmm!

[FunkyDexter]

Theist knocking last month 3,

Have you considered moving out of Utah?! Genuinely, I'm staggered by that figure.

HoHow am I doing with the quote function

MUCH better

[5ms?]

Theist knocking last month 3,

Have you considered moving out of Utah?! Genuinely, I'm staggered by that figure.

Nah, a BIG!!!!!!!!! dog

taking an hour to write such a .........

It's... 'cause... I... type... real... slooooooooow. Actually I spent most of the time scrolling back and forwards between the previous posts while I was putting my argument together.

No surprisingly.
It took me 3 hours to write this.

[Davadvice]

Their both mythological beings you pathetic, pontificating, pantheistic, poop! I don't believe in the physical incarnation of either one of them...or something like that...or whatever. However, if you want to take it on faith that they exist, then I take it on faith that I believe you may do so.

I'll take that with a twist of sarcasm and humour (giving the benifit of the doubt)as I’m most definitely sure you are not using profanity do describe me.

[capsulecorpjx]

It's not the pulling out of individual bits and pieces that's the problem. It's doing so while disregarding of the overall message of the whole that's the problem. Religions (excluding the slightly fruity ones like satanism, which aren't really the ones we're talking about here anyway) universally preach tolerance, peace and love for your fellow man.

The horror... the horror...

Then you guys are ignoring all of the Old Testament and all of Revelations aren't you?

That's some deep cherry picking.

[Jenner]

This guy's hilarious: Pat Condell's Godless Comedy

He sounds like a true atheist. If he's an agnostic theist, he doesn't indicate it.

[5ms?]

This guy's hilarious: Pat Condell's Godless Comedy

He sounds like a true atheist. If he's an agnostic theist, he doesn't indicate it.

Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both."
- Benjamin Franklin

A must see!

[Lord Orwell]

Wicca is the religion practiced by witches. No, they don't fly around on brooms or wear a big, black hat. They worship nature and don't believe in hurting anything, even insects. Wiccans heal illnesses with herbs. Find out more about modern day witches below.

wicca is not the only religion practiced by witches. I think it odd really that it's considered a religion, period. But as for the flying on a broomstick, this actually has an interesting source. Hallucinogenic drugs were rubbed on a stick which was used in a naked ritual for enlightenment. I will spare you the details, but use your mind here and figure out how flying a broomstick arose from these three things: A naked woman, a hallucinogenic trip, and an unmentioned method of delivery of said drug that involves it being absorbed through a mucous membrane that only women have...

Wicca is "A" religion practiced by "SOME" witches. Evil people can practice magic too...

[AsmIscool]

Evil people can practice magic too...

Evil people can practice Christianity or any other religion for that matter. Never met a bad Buddhist though. I have seen one get angry once but that was just a very disturbing thing.

[FunkyDexter]

He sounds like a true atheist.

He sounds like an idiot.

[5ms?]

FunkyDexter

He sounds like an idiot.

Who?, Pat Condell, or Benjamin Franklin

[5ms?]

I will spare you the details

Don't bother to spare us!.
Could be a good read!.

[FunkyDexter]

Pat Condell, or Benjamin Franklin

Pat Condell. Anyone who states at the top of their page that they 'don't care about my opinion' and 'will offend me' pretty much precludes any chance of my bothering to listen to them. I gave his video about 5 minutes of my time (which I'd quite like back now) and it confirmed to me that his opinions were exactly what I'd expect from someone who kicked off with that header line. He's exactly the sort of self-righteously shrill proselytising atheist I was referring to previously.

Mind you, Ben Franklin was a bit of an idiot too. Seriously, who flies a kite in a thunderstorm? Only joking.