patrick.net

marcus says

This type of atheist isn't satisfied with just not believing. They believe all human evil is directly tied to belief in god.

No, but religion often gives people an excuse for evil and a way to convince otherwise good people to commit evil acts.

Religious or Atheist someone with a broken moral compass is prone to evil.

marcus says

They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers.

While there are many very intelligent religious people studies often show that the religious are on average less intelligent.

marcus says

Please now project some bs sky daddy childs view of god on to me, and maybe grab some humorous images off of r/athiest about what idiots believers are.

It will make you feel better.

Common... you have to admit some of those images were pretty humorous.

Dan8267 says

You started a thread proposing that all atheists are smug

No, when I posted this in December it had the same title it does now. I was only talking about atheists that for whatever reason feel the need to proselytize. I think the meme was pretty obvious.

leoj707 says

there are no positives within any religion that could not also exist in the vacuum of that religion.

You have no evidence of that, since there always has been and always will be religion.

Besides what I mostly take issue with is the generalization that ALL religion is bad or the even stronger absurd claim that you (correction Dan) can prove there is no god. You (Dan) want to argue that there is no god.

As weird as that is, I kind of get it. You are a black and white guy. There is no in between for you. You won't get accused of relativism, although you claim to be a liberal. No shades of grey for you. Either Obama is great or he's satan. Either you are going to have a personal relationship with a sky daddy or you are going to argue to the bloody end that there is no god by any definition and you know this with certainty and want to improve the world by convincing others of this.

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

leoj707 says

Common... you have to admit some of those images were pretty humorous.

Meh.

Militant agnostic is sort of like talking about extreme moderation. Doesn't compute for me.

Yes, I'm careful about what I believe and the ways in which I judge what others believe. That's just my nature.

(it doesn't mean that I don't see the negatives with religion in history, or the negatives now - which are mostly confined to fundamentalists)

On the positive side, nobody has any clue where we would be if there had never been religion, and anyone who ponders it, knows that along with the crusades and other atrocities, the church had an incredibly positive impact on European civilization (the precursor to our own)

leoj707 says

There is a time when people need to standup and say no. Dan is doing everyone a favor by taking the stand that religion needs to have no influence over politics

All ideologies have influence over politics, whether "religious" or "secular." It's naive to think otherwise.

leoj707 says

marcus says

Dan, maybe you could write one of your 2000 word comments where you feel that you accurately compare all the positives of religious belief with the negatives.

Oh, wait, you can't do that because on a deep level you need to convince yourself that there are NO positives.

Dan is actually one of the few posters that I will actually read a long post from. It would be interesting to see his interpretations of this, but it would also be a bit of a pointless exercise.

Pointless yes, but it would take less than 2000 words. Here it goes…

The positives of religion are the exact same positives of smoking pot and snorting coke. You get a false high, experience delusions, and feel really good about life and that the whole universe makes sense if you just imagine we're flees living on a dog and whoa look at all the pretty colors when I move my hand. The negatives of religion are also exactly the same.

leoj707 says

I also believe in an innate deep need for spirituality (the word I think suites the purpose of this conversation) in humans.

Two words: God Helmet.

And unlike religion, this doesn't require faith because the experiment is repeatable and has been conducted many times.

As the human brain got bigger and our ancestors got smarter, they started to realize that they were mortal and worst still, they started to think about their mortality and how short life was. This, of course, led to depression, which in turn compromised their ability to service their genes because the host humans would commit suicide or in the very least not try hard to gather resources necessary for survival and reproduction.

To keep the hosts productive and to prevent them from self-terminating, our ancestors' genes came up with a trick. It fooled the hosts into thinking that they were immortal, that their consciousness continued after death. A little mutation here and there in the genome resulting in a bit of structural changes in the brain, and ta-da, humans that think they have some kind of "soul" that continues living after death.

Once this mental virus has been planted in the hosts, the individual cultures can customize the idea any way they like: reincarnation, return to the Earth life force, an afterlife, etc. But all religions have to present the idea of some kind of immortality. That's the whole reason nature tricked you into believing in the supernatural/spiritual. It keeps you in line and making babies.

Of course there are many problems with being content to accept this delusion. Our genes tell us to do a lot of bad things such as immoral, unethical, and illegal things. Even more surprising, our genes tell us to do things that are not in our, or even their, best interests. Our genes tell us to eat lots of sugary things because evolution noticed a correlation between ripe (nutritious and vitamin packed) fruit and sweetness. So now we eat junk food that makes us obese and prevent us from acquiring mates. That's bad for us, and for our genes.

You see, genes aren't very smart, and they act on obsolete information. Success lies in reproducing so many copies in so many variations that you are bound to get lucky in some combinations.

As such, we should use our minds instead of our instincts when it comes to shaping our world and our view of that world. Thinking trumps instinct, and some ancient "needs" are better left unanswered even if it means going through withdraw.

leoj707 says

maybe Dan uses some vinegar in his fly traps

I'm all for some people talking nicely to the religious. But that's been tried for hundreds of years to no avail. Just ask Galileo, Giordano Bruno, Hypatia, and thousands of other less well-known people.

Sometimes, people have to take a harder stand against something that is wrong and ludicrous. It wasn't polite begging that got the Civil Rights Act passed or, more recently, the Consumer Protection Agency Bill. Sometimes you have to take a strong stance demanding reasonable action and opposing the status quo. Those profiting from the status quo or brainwashed by it will always fight you.

But to put things in perspective, my vinegar is a lot less bitter than the Inquisition or even the more modern examples of terrorizing and falsely imprisoning atheists, who by definition, must also be communists.

leoj707 says

marcus says

They feel superior in intelligence to the 80% of the world that are believers.

While there are many very intelligent religious people studies often show that the religious are on average less intelligent.

Marcus, it ain't a feeling. It's a fact. A feeling is an emotional response. I'm not gloating over the fact that atheists are statistically far more intelligent than the religious, but I do acknowledge that fact just like I acknowledge all other facts. Countless scientific studies have confirmed this fact. It is indisputable by any rational person at this point.

Supermodels are statistically far more beautiful than non-supermodels. If beauty is an advantage, which I think we're all adult enough to admit it is, then supermodels are superior to us in this regard. I have no problem admitting that Brad Pitt and Orlando Bloom are superior looking to me.

Strength, by definition, is a strength. I also have no problem admitting that during most of their lives, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jesse Ventura were superior to me in strength. Actually, they probably still are.

And Plácido Domingo, José Carreras, and Luciano Pavarotti are all superior to me at singing.

Since I have no problem acknowledging the superiority of others in particular qualities, there is no reason why I should have any problem acknowledging my superiority in intelligence to someone who can't figure out that a book is bullshit if it contains allegedly true stories that the Earth is only 6,000 years old, a man lived after being eaten by a whale, and all the animals on the planet fit on a wooden boat.

I am intelligent, and intelligence is a good thing. If that hurts your ego Marcus, than like the Fonze said, sit on it. I'm not going to apologize for having a strength that makes you feel insecure, nor am I going to pretend that it's not a great quality to have. That's false modesty like if Scarlett Johansson said she thought she was plain looking.

That said, my vocal opposition to religion and superstition has nothing to do with my self-image and everything to do with a deep and strong belief that the world would be far better off if we stopped infecting each other and the children with this sick virus that has caused so much destruction and suffering throughout history. Furthermore, the level of technological advancement and man's recent destructive capacity has made it more important than ever that we stop basing our policies on fairytales and start basing them on rational thought.

And even ignoring all of that and all the rational, objective evidence that shows religion and superstition to be dangerous, there's still the overwhelming drive I have to fight against forces that infringe upon human and civil rights. And religion is most certainly one of these forces. And if you read my other threads, you'd know how much I hate tyranny and the abuse of power. Religion is a prime example -- not the only example as my numerous other threads have pointed out in detail -- of a force that is used to violate human and civil rights.

And none of those reasons have anything to do with my intelligence or self-perception. You, Marcus, have simply invented in your head fictional motivations that you have imposed upon me. They do not reflect reality.

And ultimately, as I have said many times before, the messenger is irrelevant. It's the message, the argument, that matters. Making a personal attack on an individual does absolutely nothing to suggest that individual's argument is flawed in any way.

marcus says

Besides what I mostly take issue with is the generalization that ALL religion is bad or the even stronger absurd claim that you (correction Dan) can prove there is no god. You (Dan) want to argue that there is no god.

You can take issue with the statement "there is no god", but do so by offering a counter-argument or at least addressing the arguments presented. Instead, the only thing you do is make personal attacks, which is a sign of weakness in debate. It's like Rush Limbaugh saying "we need to lower taxes or the economy will fail and unemployment will skyrocket", and they you reply, "well, your fat Rush!". In such a situation, you just look the fool. Attack the arguments, not the arguers.

As for the statement "there is no god", I have already proven that for various definitions of god -- all the accepted ones -- so just see any of the prior threads. I don't see a point in repeating them, so I'll just summarize.

I've disproved all possible instances of the Standard Monotheist God or SMG using a dozen independent proofs, not evidence, proofs. No one has even attempted to challenge a single one of my proofs. We can be sure that SMG is as possible as the square root of two being the ratio of two integers. This, of course, completely discredits the three major western religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam. All three require SMG to exist.

I've demonstrated that the Clockwork God or CWG isn't a god at all, but at best, Sheldon Cooper working in a lab with a particle accelerator. Similarly, I've shown that Undefinable God or UG by definition can't be a god and is just a cop-out.

I've ignored the Standard Polytheist God or SPG since no one advocates that or even considers the polytheistic gods to meet the criteria of god. Even if they existed, the would be at best powerful alien lifeforms.

There really is no definition of god left for me to disprove, but if anyone comes up with one either I'll disprove it or show that it ain't what people call god. You could, of course, be absurd and define god as a teacup pig and then, by that definition, I would not be an atheist. But the politicians aren't passing legislation based on what they think a teacup pig wants us to do.

marcus says

As weird as that is, I kind of get it. You are a black and white guy. There is no in between for you.

Once again, Marcus, you make assumptions about what's going on in the inner minds of others without any basis. I most certainly believe in fuzzy logic, continuous spectrums of behavior, and both the in-between and the orthogonal. I'm pretty much the exact opposite of what you just claimed I am.

For example, in the double slit experiment, you can adjust the size of the slits to produce full particle behavior, full wave behavior, or a continuous spectrum of behavior from particle to wave. If the slits are small relative to the electron's wavelength, then the behavior becomes particle-like. If the slits are large relative to the electron's wavelength then the behavior becomes wave-like. Particles and wave are just two endpoints in a spectrum of behavior. That's why physicists treat low-frequency, low-energy photons as fields or waves and high-frequency, high-energy photons as particles.

Second example, I'm neither left nor right, but orthogonal to this absurd one-dimensional view of politics. I have a view of politics that involves over a dozen dimensions. So the terms left and right are meaningless in this view. In my paradigm, there are many more degrees of freedom than in yours.

marcus says

You won't get accused of relativism

I firmly believe in the Theory of Relativity, and I understand it. I remember when I was 7-years-old and on a boat for the first time. I stood on the boat by an obstruction to wind, and I took out a ball and dropped it straight down to see if it would move with the ship and land between my feet or just fall "straight down" and thus land to the right of my feet towards the ship's rear end. You see because the ship was moving fast. Little did I know at the time, I was testing the Theory of Relativity.

However, what I don't believe in is the nonsense that the existence of god is subjective. God is not Tinkerbell. He doesn't exist just because you believe he does, any more than unicorns would exist if you believed in them.

Furthermore, acting on a false believe is at best foolish and at worst deadly.

marcus says

although you claim to be a liberal.

I don't label myself with terms that are frequently changed and misused. It's not useful. I believe in liberty, rationalism, and personal responsibility. Both "liberals" and "conservatives" claim to believe in these things. Neither side demonstrates it.

I believe in the scientific method and good engineering practices. And I'd like to see both applied to government in replacement of politics. The merit of ideas should be based on empirical evidence, verifiable experiments, and sound mathematical analysis rather than the talking points politicians and the media use. I'm willing to accept any idea, no matter how ridiculous it seems, if it can be proven to be correct. I'm actually a text-book example of an INTJ. Google it.

marcus says

No shades of grey for you. Either Obama is great or he's satan.

Hardly. Have you read my ratings of the U.S. presidents from Ike to Obama? You commented on it.

Did you notice that I've ranked them across a wide spectrum, and that I gave both high and low marks to both Democrats and Republicans, and that I went into great detail on how I graded each president back up with objective, historical facts?

Just because you choose to ignore the crimes against humanity committed by Obama during his admistration simply because he's a Democrat, doesn't mean I have to follow your hypocritical example.

Whereas you ignore Obama's crimes, Bap ignores G.W. Bush's crimes. The fucked up thing is, there both the exact same crimes! Any rational, objective person would have to rate Obama and Bush the same regardless of whether that's a high rating or a low one. And I'm the one who can't see beyond party lines?

Just a little recoup on that list… The scale was parabolic from 0 to 10, with 0 being Hitler and 10 being Superman. Parabolic in the sense that the distance from 3 to 4 or from 6 to 7 is more significant than the difference from 4 to 5 or from 5 to 6. But not hyperbolic because the extremes don't go to infinity, but rather cut off at a threshold. Since you're a math teacher, you should understand what I'm talking about.

And on that list, I rated the presidents:
6 Ike
7 JFK
3 Johnson
3 Nixon
4 Ford
4 Carter
3 Reagan
5 Bush Sr.
6 Clinton
1 Bush Jr.
1 Obama

That's a pretty wide range. If it wasn't for the pro-torture, pro-murder without trial presidencies of the past twelve years, the range would have been 3-7 with complete coverage of all integer values. And I don't see shades of grey?

Also, I've notice that you didn't object to Bush Jr. getting a 1 and Bap didn't object to Obama getting a 1. But you both objected when I held the other accountable to the exact same standard. Yeah, I'm the biased one.

marcus says

Either you are going to have a personal relationship with a sky daddy or you are going to argue to the bloody end that there is no god by any definition and you know this with certainty and want to improve the world by convincing others of this.

I've never argued that. Quite the contrary. See the teacup pig example above.

And yes, I can be absolutely certain of some things. Not everything, but certainly some things. I'm not going to get all Immanuel Kant on your ass. Feel free to read his books if you want to understand the detail. I'll give you the executive summary and I'll use modern, colloquial terms instead of the standard philosophical ones since I know you hate that intellectualism.

There are three kinds of knowledge. Two of which can be proven beyond doubt. [Damn, I can't use the term a-prior, ok…]

1. Mathematical/Logical

A statement that can be mathematically or logically proven is unquestionable. For example, the square root of two is an irrational number. As a math teacher, you should know that we can prove that beyond any doubt whatsoever. We can be completely certain of this kind of knowledge.

What you probably don't know is that mathematics isn't the only subject where this is possible. Technically, it can be done with any subject that uses a precise modeling language. For example, code written in languages with certain rules -- and I'm not going into details because then I do have to get technical -- such as no undeclared exceptions can be formally verified. This is an expensive and time consuming process, but if done, you can be 100% certain the code works.

2. Empirical

We can be 100% of empirical facts. For example, I can prove beyond any doubt that a given desk is 4 feet tall by carefully measuring it.

Naturally, any statement derived solely from other statements of type 1 and 2 can have 100% certainty, and so on.

3. Correlations

This is the part where some people get tripped up and end up thinking we can't be certain of anything.

The Scientific Method uses correlations to establish an imperfect, but highly confident, likelihood of a statement being true. For example, a theory predicts that the gravitational attraction between two objects is inversely proportional to the square of the radial distances between their centers. We then observe this prediction to hundreds of decimal places, the best we can, and conclude that the theory is almost certainly correct, as the chances of it being wrong are astronomical due to repeated, precise observation and confirmation.

Yes, that's less than 100% certainty. But none of my proofs against the existence of gods or the supernatural require this type of knowledge. I used type 1 exclusively in those arguments.

By the way, Marcus, that will be $10,000 for my efforts in squeezing over 200 years of Western Philosophy into five minutes. It would cost you much more to learn this shit in college at today's rates.

marcus says

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

I suppose I could dumb it down a bit more for you. But there are limits to how simple I can make a subject matter, so try to pay attention this time. In simplest terms…

1. God does not exist.
2. Yes, we can be certain of point 1 because of rational, logical reasoning.
3. No, it does not matter if you believe in god. Believing in a fictional character doesn't make that character pop into existence.
4. No, it doesn't matter how emotionally attached you are to this delusion, it's still a delusion.
5. No, it's not a harmless delusion. See all of history.
6. No, it's not a delusion that was just harmful in more primitive times and is ok now. Look at the Middle East. Listen to G.W. Bush saying "God told me to invade Iraq.". Look at all the really bad and rights-violating legislation passed by the U.S. Congress for religious reasons. Look at how religion interferes with the education of our children in areas like evolution and consequentially medical research and practice. These are really important issues, and I've only scratched the surface.
7. Yes, the world would be better if we all started thinking a bit more rationally instead of using superstitions and religious dogma as a crutch. We could build better systems of government and economics if we stopped using mythology and started using good science and engineering practices. Such system would be much more socially just than systems based on any Bronzed Age or Iron Age desert religion.
8. Finally, people should promote rational thought and argue against irrationality, especially religion and superstition, in order to further point 7. For in a democracy, and to a lesser extent, in a republic like the United States, an intelligent, educated, rational, and thinking population results in better government, better economics, more social justice, and fewer and less severe human and civil rights violations.

Please Marcus, show me that you have enough intelligence to at least understand these eight points. They aren't rocket science.

marcus says

Yes, I'm careful about what I believe and the ways in which I judge what others believe. That's just my nature.

That sounds like bullshit. First, there's a huge difference between judging a person and judging an idea that person believes. Second, all beliefs should be critically evaluated.

Third, it sounds like your just pussying out of having an uncomfortable conversation because it might be controversial. Well that sucks. The Civil Rights movement would have never gotten anywhere if controversial race issues could not be discussed. Controversial issues are exactly the issues that need to be discussed precisely because they are controversial. You don't need to talk about shit that everybody agrees with.

Finally, I don't buy your statement. You don't judge the beliefs of other people in a negative way because you're so humble and all ideas have merit. Right? That's total bullshit. Counter-example: Tens of millions if not hundreds of millions of Islamic men in the Middle East, deeply and religiously believe that it is a moral imperative to honor kill a woman in their family if she has had sex with a man who isn't her husband, even if the woman was raped.

Tell me that you "respect" that belief. It's a deeply held, religious conviction from another culture. Are you saying you would tolerate honor killings out of respect for these men's beliefs? I don't think that you are that fucked up. And the only alternative is that you are engaging in politically correct bullshitting.

And that's just one counter-example. I could provide an infinite number of others, but only one is necessary, and this is a very real world, non-academic example that greatly impacts peoples lives right now. It is cowardly and wrong to ignore such atrocities simply to make yourself more acceptable to other people. Grow a backbone and stand up for human rights even if it means pissing off some assholes with shitty beliefs that happen to be religious beliefs. You can't make any positive impact on the world without pissing somebody off.

marcus says

I was only talking about atheists that for whatever reason feel the need to proselytize.

Translation: Marcus wants to implement the policy of Don't Ask, Don't Tell on atheists. You know, because it worked so well with gays.

It's hard for me to get through all of that. I'll try to finish it later.

But here are a couple of questions.

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

More importantly

2) Are there atheists who are significantly more intelligent than you, who chose to be the kind who just don't believe but don't really have much to say about what others believe, and who would even totally neutral as to whether non-fundamentalist religious people are a good or bad thing for humanity ?

Dan8267 says

You can take issue with the statement "there is no god", but do so by offering a counter-argument or at least addressing the arguments presented. Instead, the only thing you do is make personal attacks

Yes I have no interest in trying to prove that god exists, or even proving that god's existence is unknowable.

And yes I said you sound arrogant when you make these arguments. This is obviously my opinion, but that one statement got you very upset and led to escalated name calling on both sides. Maybe we can avoid that this time.

I don't have much else to say on this, but I would love to hear your answers to my questions above.

Maybe you could just make it a simple yes or no, and then devote another comment to the thousands of words on why if the answer is yes, it doesn't bother you and also why if the answer is yes, these people aren't by your definition superior to you.

My next comment on this will be me exploring the answers to this question.

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind.

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing, and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this.

I'm going to work on answering this, because the nitty gritty arguments about god just aren't interesting to me. I guess I'm stuck in my relatively agnostic position.

I think the human behavior part of it is actually more interesting to me. On both sides. Is it me ? Or am I right in what I think (insert what you call name calling here).

Marcus,

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one? Or is the term "fundamentalist" just a slur against people you disagree with?

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could accept that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true (since eliminating all religion does eliminate the extremists and or fundamentalists- but still unknowable since it eliminates all religion - the belief of 80% of the world(some kind of belief in god)), but still also in my view possibly false.

marcus says

You have no evidence of that, since there always has been and always will be religion.

Sure there is. Yes, there always has been religion, and likely always will be, but there always has been and always will be secular organizations and people. I doubt you can name a religious positive that is not also found in secular individuals and people.

marcus says

On the positive side, nobody has any clue where we would be if there had never been religion, and anyone who ponders it, knows that along with the crusades and other atrocities, the church had an incredibly positive impact on European civilization (the precursor to our own)

Right no clue, and yes one of the positive aspects of religions -- the christian "church" and others -- has been that they acted as a knowledge store and common ground for people in the past. This was a very important step in our advancement as a society, but... religion has some fundamental flaws -- ever been to the creation museum? -- that we are running up against now and we no longer need it to preform many of the functions that it did in the past. It is currently holding us back in many areas.

wthrfrk80 says

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one? Or is the term "fundamentalist" just a slur against people you disagree with?

No, fundamentism is a real thing defined by our common language.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fundamentalist
fun·da·men·tal·ism
noun
1. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) a movement in American Protestantism that arose in the early part of the 20th century in reaction to modernism and that stresses the infallibility of the Bible not only in matters of faith and morals but also as a literal historical record, holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.
2. the beliefs held by those in this movement.
3. strict adherence to any set of basic ideas or principles: the fundamentalism of the extreme conservatives.

World English Dictionary
fundamentalism
— n
1. Christianity (esp among certain Protestant sects) the belief that every word of the Bible is divinely inspired and therefore true
2. Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law
3. strict adherence to the fundamental principles of any set of beliefs

So, wthrfrk80 is this something that you agree with?

wthrfrk80 says

All ideologies have influence over politics, whether "religious" or "secular." It's naive to think otherwise.

RRrrriiight... yes.

I think that all ideologies religious or secular that are based on an extremely subjective experiences and a totally unprovable basis should have very little influence over science and politics, and should in no way be used to legislate how others who don't believe this extremely subjective evidence live their lives.

Do you want the way you can live your life dictated by the feelings and intuitions of people that have a different faith than you just because they are in the majority and can vote that morality onto you?

All morality is based on subjective feelings and intuitions of people. There's no way to prove mathematically that murder is "wrong."

You vote your morality onto other people, just like I vote my morality onto other people. That's democracy.

leoj707 says

holding as essential to Christian faith belief in such doctrines as the creation of the world, the virgin birth, physical resurrection, atonement by the sacrificial death of Christ, and the Second Coming.

Isn't that what Christians have believed (rightly or wrongly) for 2000 years? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"? Why not just call it "Christianity"? Now, maybe Christianity is bad/incorrect, but there's no reason to rename it.

leoj707 says

Islam a movement favouring strict observance of the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law

Again, isn't "strict observance to the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law" the most basic definition of Islam? Haven't Muslims always observed the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law...by definition? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"?

marcus says

I can understand people taking issue with fundamentalist christians or islamic fundamentalists as being an impediment to progress or worse. Maybe my language was not clear, but I was assuming people would know what I meant.

Yes, when the conversation starts to get polarized it is harder to make the more "grey" points of our opinions clear.

marcus says

If someone wanted to argue that the world would be better off without religious extremists or without fundamentalists (who take their Bible or Koran literally - when it suits them), I could except that as a reasonable assertion.

But to me this is far different than asserting that the world would be better off without any religion...

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists. The problem is that the extremists are hard to separate from the rest of the "flock". While not extremists themselves a large part of any religion become apologists for their extremists. As long as people allow religious organizations to dominate their lives and society we will always have extremists.

marcus says

without any religion - and without any belief in god, even if it is possibly true

A spiritual life is possible without the pope or even a belief in god. God(s) is just the convenient explanation that have been passed down over the millenia, and people tend to ascribe spiritual "truth" to whatever explanation is given to them as children.

leoj707 says

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists.

So you're labeling "extremist" those Christains and Muslims who believe the basic doctrines of their respective religions? I'd say that's pretty unfair.

I'd say that Libertarians tend to believe the basic themes of libertarianism. And Marxists probably believe the baisc themes of Marxism. That doesn't mean all libertarians and marxists are extremists.

wthrfrk80 says

All morality is based on subjective feelings and intuitions of people. There's no way to prove mathematically that murder is "wrong."

Yes, and no. For one don't confuse religious doctrine with morality; they are two different things. People have an inherent basic moral code built in by evolution. Without it we never would be able to organize and work together. All pack animals, human or not, have "morals".

Human morality evolves over time as our situation/society evolves. Morally repugnant things today were morally OK 2000 years ago and vise versa.

The general moral prohibition to murder is probably never going to go away -- regardless of what religious beliefs are common -- because we need it to have a functioning society. However, it is interesting to note that religious beliefs do raise the murder prohibition in circumstances where non-believers of that religion find morally repugnant.

BTW, here is an article about science and morality that you may find interesting:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/a-science-of-morality_b_567185.html

And an interesting book that explores how religion effects someones idea of who it is OK to murder (and religious violence in general):
http://www.amazon.com/Under-Banner-Heaven-Story-Violent/dp/0385509510

wthrfrk80 says

You vote your morality onto other people, just like I vote my morality onto other people. That's democracy.

So... in the bible slavery is morally acceptable. If the majority voted to make slavery legal do you think that would be OK?

wthrfrk80 says

So you're labeling "extremist" those Christains and Muslims who believe the basic doctrines of their respective religions? I'd say that's pretty unfair.

For one it is not what I said. It is what we as English speakers have agreed upon is the definition of the word fundamentalist. And, no that is not entirely what the dictionary said all. Please take the definition as a whole, not just the part you want to argue with.

wthrfrk80 says

That doesn't mean all libertarians and marxists are extremists.

No, however there are some extremists in any organization.

You might have noticed, but I am somewhat of a dictionary fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

Isn't that what Christians have believed (rightly or wrongly) for 2000 years? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"? Why not just call it "Christianity"? Now, maybe Christianity is bad/incorrect, but there's no reason to rename it.

If you take a closer look at the definition you will see that a fundamentalist is "strict" and "literal" in their interpretations of religious text. Most christians cherry pick around the parts they want to take as literal and what they believe is metaphor.

A unitarian universalist Christian is most certainly not a fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

Again, isn't "strict observance to the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law" the most basic definition of Islam? Haven't Muslims always observed the teachings of the Koran and Islamic law...by definition? Why give it a new name like "fundamentalism"?

Same as for christians, but some religions currently tend towards fundamentalism more than others. Mormonism and islam for example seem to be more fundamentalist than the church of england.

Dan8267 says

Two words: God Helmet.

One word: awesome.

Dan8267 says

And unlike religion, this doesn't require faith because the experiment is repeatable and has been conducted many times.

This type of experience can be done without the use of a god helmet. A very close ex-mormon friend of mine had very intense spiritual experiences during temple rituals, and he attributed them to the power and truth of his mormon faith. He began to have doubts for other reasons, but to make a long story short the convincing evidence for him was when he was able to duplicate the spiritual experiences sans mormon ceremony.

BTW, did you see how you can now buy a god helmet of you own? From a quick look at the "testimonials" people use them to enhance their psychic abilities, etc...

I don't think that god helmet studies are going to convince anyone that their spiritual experience is not "real".

These threads are great. Good enough for Jehovah, for sure.

Bap33 says

hey Dan, not that it matters, but everyone dies.

Yep, nobody gets out of here alive. We go back to star dust from whence we came. Thank goodness the universe did not expand perfectly evenly when it blew out in the big bang. Imperfection is the handmaiden of life.

leoj707 says

I think that we can agree that the world would be better off without fundamentalists/extremists.

In that sentence you portrayed the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" as synonyms by using the slash (/). That's what I was talking about.

leoj707 says

Human morality evolves over time as our situation/society evolves. Morally repugnant things today were morally OK 2000 years ago and vise versa.

Well, how convenient. That means we can do anything we feel like doing and just say, "what we thought was wrong yesterday is no longer wrong today." We're "evolving."

Unless morality is objective, it's ultimately meaningless and everything just boils down to who has the power and who doesn't.

leoj707 says

So... in the bible slavery is morally acceptable. If the majority voted to make slavery legal do you think that would be OK?

I'm not saying it would be OK, but it would definitely be democracy. Democracy is mob-rule, where the 51% votes to enslave the 49% (or in our case, the 60% votes to enslave the 40% thanks to the filibuster rule).

leoj707 says

A unitarian universalist Christian is most certainly not a fundamentalist.

A Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian at all. They deny the diety of Christ and most of the "basic" doctrines of Christianity going back 2000 years. That doesn't mean that a Unitarian Universalist is "bad," but technically they aren't Christian. In the same sense that a Muslim who denies Mohammed isn't really a Muslim. Right? If someone comes to me and says, "yeah, I'm a Marxist but I really agree with Ayn Rand more than Marx", I couldn't help but question if they were really a Marxist. Gotta love identity politics.

leoj707 says

Mormonism and islam for example seem to be more fundamentalist than the church of england.

It would be more accurate to say Mormonism and Islam seem to be more faithful to Mormonism and Islam (respectively) than the Church of England is faithful to Christianity.

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions. Rather than use negative labels, why not try to understand the basic doctrines of the worlds' various religions?

wthrfrk80 says

In that sentence you portrayed the words "fundamentalist" and "extremist" as synonyms by using the slash (/). That's what I was talking about.

Yes, in general fundamentalists are extreme. They seem to fit the definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/extreme?s=t
ex·treme
noun
adjective
1. of a character or kind farthest removed from the ordinary or average: extreme measures.
2. utmost or exceedingly great in degree: extreme joy.
3. farthest from the center or middle; outermost; endmost: the extreme limits of a town.
4. farthest, utmost, or very far in any direction: an object at the extreme point of vision.
5. exceeding the bounds of moderation: extreme fashions.

wthrfrk80 says

That means we can do anything we feel like doing and just say, "what we thought was wrong yesterday is no longer wrong today." We're "evolving."

More or less, but it seems to happen over generations rather than over night.

wthrfrk80 says

Unless morality is objective, it's ultimately meaningless.

Well, there is no moral system that has been consistent and objective over time. That is one appeal to fundamentalist, everything is literal and static from the day their god(s) wrote/inspired the text(s), but even fundamentalists cherry pick from their religious texts and they cherry pick different things that did the fundamentalists 1000 years ago.

The moral "laws" that get closest to being objective over time are things like murder. Things that cause society to fall apart when they are not followed by at least most of the people.

wthrfrk80 says

(or in our case, the 60% votes to enslave the 40% thanks to the filibuster rule)

Well, in our system it is more like the .01% enslave the 99% through their dollar votes.

wthrfrk80 says

A Unitarian Universalist is not a Christian at all.

What can I say? There are people that identify their religious faith that way.
http://www.uuchristian.org/

I suppose you could get a hold of them and tell them that they are wrong.

wthrfrk80 says

It would be more accurate to say Mormonism and Islam seem to be more faithful to Mormonism and Islam (respectively) than the Church of England is faithful to Christianity.

I agree that they are more faithful to the original beliefs, but I don't think that a fundamentalist has any more faith in his/her beliefs.

The FLDS are more faithful to the original teachings of Joseph Smith and Brigham Young than the mainstream LDS church. And, yes the "F" they use in their title stands for fundamentalist.

wthrfrk80 says

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions. Rather than use negative labels, why not try to understand the basic doctrines of the worlds' various religions?

I do understand the basic doctrines of many of the worlds religions. That is why I am glad that most followers choose not to be fundamentalists.

Being a fundamentalist in some situations has a pejorative connotation because many literal interpretations and strict following of original beliefs are totally abhorrent by today's moral standards.

When a group believes that stoning a 12 year old girl to death, because she has a crush on a boy, is the right thing to do because they have a fundamental view on their religious texts that reflects very poorly on them. The same can be said for a different set of fundamental beliefs where that 12 year old girl is required to join the wife stable of a church elder.

Morality is definitely relative.

"It's bad to lie"
vs.
"It's bad to lie... to the mass murderer who is asking you directions to the local preschool."

wthrfrk80 says

The term "fundamentalism" is a pajorative used against people who hold to the central beliefs of their respective religions.

One more thing here.

People can hold central a belief in their religion without everything being literal and strict. Implying that one must be a fundamentalist in order to hold central their beliefs cheapens what may be an honest and strong faith. Fundamentalist are certainly not "better" christians, or better any other faith.

@thunder,
there is no commandment against telling falsehoods to protect innocent lives, or protect your own interests. THe commandment is against saying an innocent person did something wrong when asked about it.

That is why the commandment is against murder, not killing.

and there is no commandment that says "be good" because "good" is relative, and man's version does not equal God's version.

leoj707 says

Fundamentalist are certainly not "better" christians, or better any other faith.

I would say that an atheist who believes there is no god is a better atheist than one who says there is a god. In fact, I would say that the "atheist" who says there is a god is no atheist at all. Right?

In the same way, I would say a Muslim who actually follows Islam is a better Muslim than one who doesn't.

I haven't even touched the issue of which person is "better" simply as a person.

wthrfrk80 says

I would say that an atheist who believes there is no god is a better atheist than one who says there is a god. In fact, I would say that the "atheist" who says there is a god is no atheist at all. Right?

Apples to oranges.

By definition an atheist has not belief in god(s). That does not compare to two people who believe in Jesus... just differently.

wthrfrk80 says

In the same way, I would say a Muslim who actually follows Islam is a better Muslim than one who doesn't.

Well, it is not the same...

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim? Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible? The fundamentalists? What makes their opinions more valid?

Is the person who kills their neighbor who they see working on the sabbath a better christian because they are following a literal and strict interpretation of the bible, how about when they use the rules in the bible to sell their daughter into slavery? Does that make them more of a christian, a better christian?

wthrfrk80 says

I haven't even touched the issue of which person is "better" simply as a person.

Are you implying that a fundamentalist is a better person? Do you really want to live next to the guy above? Have you read the bible? It is full of fucked up shit that people are allowed/required to do.

Would you prefer to live next to Kevin and Elizabeth Schatz or Dan8267?

marcus says

It's hard for me to get through all of that. I'll try to finish it later.

You must be a great teacher. "Students, reading is hard. Try to minimize it."

Bap33 says

That is why the commandment is against murder, not killing.

Right, and that is why the commandment says, "Thou shall not rape and murder children."

Oh, wait... I got that wrong there is no commandment against the rape and murder of children. Then surely there is a commandment about beating not children to near death...

...nope not their either.

Hmmmm... there is the passage about how you should kill your child if they curse you...

Bap33 says

and there is no commandment that says "be good" because "good" is relative, and man's version does not equal God's version.

Yes, "good" is relative, and god's certainly does not seems to be the same as mans.

BTW, Bap you never were able to prove that I am not your god.

Bap33 says

there is no commandment against telling falsehoods to protect innocent lives, or protect your own interests. THe commandment is against saying an innocent person did something wrong when asked about it.

bap, I wasn't addressing the Bible or the Ten Commandments in this case, only the idea that morality is absolute.

leoj707 says

By definition an atheist has not belief in god(s).

True.

And by definition, a Christian believes in the doctrines of Christianity, which isn't merely "believing in Jesus" vaguely defined. Evan an atheist can "believe in Jesus" in the sense of believing he really existed as a person, but wasn't God.

And by definition, a Muslim believes the historic doctrines of Islam, not merely "believing in Allah", vaguely defined.

My analogy is NOT apples to oranges.

leoj707 says

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim?

Mohammed and 700 years of history.

leoj707 says

Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible?

Jesus. And secondarily, the Apostles.

leoj707 says

What makes their opinions more valid?

Because they were the founders of Christianity.

leoj707 says

Is the person who kills their neighbor who they see working on the sabbath a better christian because they are following a literal and strict interpretation of the bible, how about when they use the rules in the bible to sell their daughter into slavery? Does that make them more of a christian, a better christian?

I don't know about your Bible, but my Bible is divided into two parts: the Old Testament (or Old Covenant) and the New Testament (or New Covenant). The Old Covenant expired with Jesus. Jesus ammended (and even overturned) much of the Old Covenant of ancient Israel. That's well understood in most Christian circles.

leoj707 says

Are you implying that a fundamentalist is a better person?

I made no such implication. I was NOT trying to imply one person would be more pleasant/kind/nice than the other. I was trying to clarify what I meant by "better Muslim" and "better Christian" and "better Atheist." In that context, the word "better" is more like "more faithful to their stated beliefs" than "nicer to chat or drink beer with." But technically it's my fault for not being a better communicator.

leoj707 says

Have you read the bible? It is full of fucked up shit that people are allowed/required to do.

I believe you are talking about the Old Testament, not the entire Bible. Faithful Christians live primarily by the New Testament.

leoj707 says

Do you really want to live next to the guy above?

Which guy? Bap33? I wouldn't mind having Bap33 as a neighbor. Especially if he's willing to let me ride in that sweet go-kart.

wthrfrk80 says

My analogy is NOT apples to oranges.

Yes, there are no people that are atheists and also believe in god.

There are people who define themselves as christians, but they don't fit in your definition of christianity.

Not the same.

In once instance -- the atheist -- you are allowing people to self-define, and even follow the definition everyone understands. In the other they must conform to only your definition.

wthrfrk80 says

The Old Covenant expired with Jesus. Jesus ammended (and even overturned) much of the Old Covenant of ancient Israel. That's well understood in most Christian circles.

Yes, I am aware that this is the way that most christians choose to cherry pick their faith. That said it is not always readily clear in the bible what old rules are invalidated by Jesus, and there is a lot of fucked up stuff still available.

Do you love your family?

wthrfrk80 says

But technically it's my fault for not being a better communicator.

Understood thanks for the clarification.

leoj707 says

Yes, there are no people that are atheists and also believe in god.

Agree. But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

leoj707 says

There are people who define themselves as christians, but the don't fit in your definition of christianity.
Not the same.

"My" definition of Christianity is the same definition that goes back 2000 years. "My" definition of Christianity is the same definition many other people have (and have had for 2000 years). I'm not inventing anything new, anymore than you are inventing some new definition of atheism.

There are probably people who define themselves as atheists but don't fit your definition of atheism. But, like you, I would say they are not really atheists, considering the basic definition of atheism. After all, "your" definition of atheism is hardly anything new or controversial.

leoj707 says

In once instance -- the atheist -- you are allowing people to self-define

No I'm not. Like you, I believe that atheism has a precise, objective definition: the belief that there is no god (or gods). If someone came up to me and said, "I define myself as an atheist, but I deeply believe in God!" then I would say to myself, "no, you're full of shit, since atheism is the non-belief in god (or gods)...you should probably either change your beliefs or change your label to avoid confusion." At that point I wouldn't even be getting to the whole debate about the existence of god.

Related: I worked for the U.S. census bureau one time. They told me that if a person self-identified as "black" or "white" or "hispanic", even if they clearly were not, we still had to go by THEIR definition. To me, that seemed absurd. But I guess that's just the power of group-identity. The census bureau didn't want to have to deal with any potential controversey.

marcus says

1) Are there a significant number of people who are more intelligent than you that believe in god in some way? Are there possibly even a million or more such people?

I don't have the data on that, but it's a pointless question. People are brainwashed from early childhood to believe in whatever god their parents believe in. If all intelligent people believed in unicorns and the Lock Ness monster, would it mean that these things probably exist? Would it mean that it's good to believe in those things?

The truth is not a democracy.

marcus says

2) Are there atheists who are significantly more intelligent than you, who chose to be the kind who just don't believe but don't really have much to say about what others believe, and who would even totally neutral as to whether non-fundamentalist religious people are a good or bad thing for humanity ?

Since when is belief in a fact a choice? If you are choosing which factual statements to believe and not, then you're doing it wrong. For example, I believe the world is round because we have satellites in orbit, and I've seen pictures of the Earth, and I understand that gravity forces it to be round, and I've seen ships depart on the horizon with their masts being the last part visible. As such, it is not my choice to believe the world is round.

Second example, hell, I'd love for their to be some benevolent sky daddy that makes everything all right, rights every wrong, and guarantees that we all get to live in perfect bliss for all eternity. That would be great, but it's a crock of shit. I don't choose to believe there is no god, anymore than I choose to believe that the Earth isn't flat.

Is it logically possible to believe there is no god, but to advocate deep belief in god because there are advantages to manipulating people into believing in a false god? Yes, this possible. It's called hypocrisy, and it happens all the time. The vast majority of the high-ranking Republican politicians do this all the time. One of the many problems with hypocrisy is that using evil means to promote good ends often ends up with horrifically evil ends and a perversion of the original intent, or to put it in more common terms, the ends don't justify the means.

Don't get me wrong, occasionally one can use evil to fight evil (e.g., justifiable wars) just like one can literally use fire to fight fire. However, it's a double-edge sword and must be wielded very cautiously. As such, religion isn't a good candidate for this.

marcus says

you make these arguments.

Arguments cannot be arrogant. They can be right or wrong, and even to some degree. They can even be stupid, but they can't be arrogant.

You seem to promote the idea that some stupid ideas are not allowed to be challenged because they protected from criticism for some unspecified reasons. If a person believed that he was Napoleon, should we play along? If a U.S. president bases what he does on astrology, we should look the other way. Holy fuck! That actually happened!

Why should religion be the one and only thing that gets special treatment so that no one is allowed to criticize it or it's track record, yet it is allowed to affect our every day lives in extremely intrusive ways?

http://www.youtube.com/embed/9lzT48rPEhM

Ah, hello, Miss Cleo? This is the president, Ronny. I wanted to know if I should issue a first strike against the Soviet Union. Why yes, I am a mamma's boy.

Once again, I refer to the example I gave about honor killings. Should we respect that belief and not question it?

marcus says

Maybe you could just make it a simple yes or no

The first I don't have the data on. The second, it wasn't clear what you were asking, but I believe I addressed what you were getting at.

marcus says

Why do I respect atheists who are neutral to whether non fundamentalist religions are a good or bad thing for mankind.

I don't think you understand what respect means. You can't "respect" someone you know nothing about. Respect and common courtesy are not the same thing. Respect, by definition, must be earned. It is more than a neutral opinion. Took respect someone is to hold that person in higher esteem than you would an average Joe. The way you are using the term, degrades it.

Furthermore, a rational person can passionately argue against a core belief of a person they respect. And a rational person understands that attacks on his beliefs are not attacks on him. In fact, truly respectable people are precisely those who welcome attacks on their beliefs. They merely demand that such attacks be sincere and rational.
marcus says

and why is it that I can not begin to comprehend or respect the views of an atheist who is certain that there is no god by any definition and feels that arguing this is a courageous and noble thing

That's your failing, not ours. The fight for rationalism is essentially the same as the fight for civil rights, the end of slavery, self-governance, liberty, and the dignity of man. Rational thought is at the center of all of these fights because only irrational arguments can justify the opposing positions. No rational philosophy can make a moral case for slavery, monarchies, empires, or subjecting humans to degrading practices.

And it is courageous precisely because of the fierce opposition.

marcus says

and most importantly he or she knows the world would be a better place without even the non-fundamentalist religions and wishes to convert others to his mindset on this.

I can't know for absolute certainty that the world would have been a better place without the Holocaust. It is quite possible that had the Nazis never risen to power, history would have unrolled in such a way that the Soviet Union and the United States had a nuclear war ending the human race in the 1960s or 1970s.

Using your analysis, that means we should not attempt to prevent future holocausts because they might also be "blessings in disguise". I don't buy that argument for a second. If I'm going to make a decision, I'll go with the most likely scenario. Holocausts are bad, and the world is worst off if they happen.

marcus says

Hey people are different. That's what makes the world go round. I can not even begin to fathom where you're coming from.

Again, honor kills. Think about that.

Yeah, people are different. Some think it's a moral imperative to kill their raped daughters. Makes the world go round.

marcus says

Militant agnostic is sort of like talking about extreme moderation. Doesn't compute for me.

A real agnostic believes that you can never know if a god exists even after you die. After all, you can't know that the great being in front of you is really a god or something short of it.

Most agnostics are just closeted atheists afraid of being ostracized for being politically incorrect. Back in the 1950s, gay men would just say they prefer the freedom of being single. That's what most of today's agnostics are like. Give them another 30 years and they will come out of the closet as flaming atheists.

wthrfrk80 says

Marcus,

What exactly is a "fundamentalist" relgion? Can you give an example of one?

What's the difference between a cult and a religion? The number of followers.

What's the difference between mainstream religion and fundamentalism? The degree to which the lunacy of religion affects your daily life.

It's all degrees. Like almost all evils, religion can be throttled.

marcus says

there always has been and always will be religion

There always has been and always will be homicide and rape. We should still strive to minimize those things.

leoj707 says

fun·da·men·tal·ism
noun

Here's a better description. Back in the 1920s, a bunch of hillbillies were afraid all their daughters would turn into sluts when they saw all the flappers in the big city. To prevent this, they decided to go medieval and use religion to scare their daughters into remaining chaste. However, religion being the ridiculous nonsense it is, was contradicted by that new fangled science thing like evolution and physics. Worst still, the progressive movement made childhood schooling compulsory.

With schools trying to get children to read and write and think, the new fundamentalists had to fight back by attacking teachers for teaching and promoting home schooling, which made sense since they already adopted home breeding. Finally, when anyone made any challenges to their religion, they had to become even more irrational and outrageous as shouting and mob mentality are the only defense against critical thinking.

Unfortunately for the fundamentalists, their tactics backfired. Instead of preserving chastity, fundamentalism ensured that all their daughters would appear in countless Girls Gone Wild videos, whereas the educate women in liberal elite states tend not to masturbate on camera for a t-shirt. And that's why till today, you never see Harvard students on Girls Gone Wild, but hear a lot of southern and heartland accents. Don't believe me? I've got gigabytes of hard evidence.

leoj707 says

For one don't confuse religious doctrine with morality; they are two different things.

They are also mutually exclusive. Morality requires free, critical thinking to address conflicts and reach mutually beneficial resolutions. Dogma prevents this.

leoj707 says

People have an inherent basic moral code built in by evolution.

True. The divergence of moral codes are corruptions due to local culture and arbitrary rules like not eating non-fish meat on Fridays or not performing even menial labors on Saturdays. Such arbitrary rules are not moral codes even though they are called as such.

leoj707 says

I don't think that god helmet studies are going to convince anyone that their spiritual experience is not "real".

Not most. The people most susceptible to such so-called spiritual experiences are also least likely to be rational about them. They are acting on instinct, the mutations that lead to mysticism in the first place to keep the dumb human hosts in line and doing the bidding of their genes.

The "spiritual" experiences are really just emotional experiences. They take place entirely in the theatre of the mind. Some people understand this, and some don't. The more intelligent people do realize that their mind is capable of playing tricks on them and that rational thought is the way to counter this. This is exactly why atheists are statistically more intelligent than the religious. Intelligence and learning causes people to reject religion and mysticism.

thunderlips11 says

Yep, nobody gets out of here alive.

You can check out any time, but you can never leave.

http://www.youtube.com/embed/NUbTW928sMU

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Who is to say what it means to be a true muslim?

Mohammed and 700 years of history.

Mohammed is dead and history doesn't talk like that.

wthrfrk80 says

leoj707 says

Who is to say what should be literal and what is metaphor in the bible?

Jesus. And secondarily, the Apostles.

Ditto to Jesus and the fictional Apostles representing the 12 signs of the zodiac.

The bottom line is that the Old Testament, the Ten Commandments, and the New Testaments are all lousy foundations for morality. Both testaments are pro-slavery. The Ten Commandments doesn’t address rape, sexual humiliation, slavery, child abuse, or a host of other issues that were relevant to the time when it was written or today.

To do justice to morality in a complex world, one must first strip away all religion, all theology, all superstition/spirituality, all faith, and all traditions. Once you start with a clean slate, you can discuss morality in detail using mathematics, science, and engineering knowledge, discipline, and modeling. Short of that, any moral code would have a poor foundation and would become corrupted when applied to the real world. If morality is harder than international banking, then why don't we use at least the same level of thought and technology for modeling morality as we do international banking?

wthrfrk80 says

But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

Who cares? Labels aren't important. What's important are the government, economic, educational, and social systems in which we live.

leoj707 says

Yes, I am aware that this is the way that most christians choose to cherry pick their faith

I wouldn't call the distinction between the Old Covenant (before Jesus) and the New Covenant (after Jesus) as mere cherry-picking. There are plenty of places where Jesus specifically invalidates Old Testament practice (like eye-for-an-eye, stoning the woman caught in adultery). And there is plenty of discussion in St. Paul's epistles regarding things like circumcision, dietary restrictions, and other Jewish customs.

Yes, dishonest and arbitrary cherry-picking happens. But when Christains fail to stone people that's probably not a good example. ;-)

wthrfrk80 says

They told me that if a person self-identified as "black" or "white" or "hispanic", even if they clearly were not, we still had to go by THEIR definition.

Not a good example, racial designations are not always very clear to an observer. They may know something about their ancestry that you do not. That and the census bureau probably did not want you wasting time arguing with people about their race.

wthrfrk80 says

Agree. But what if someone asked you, "who are you to say what it means to be a true atheist?"

I would say, don't listen to me look at what we as an English speaking people have decided on. It is very simple and clear:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist?s=t
a·the·ist
noun
a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

wthrfrk80 says

There are probably people who define themselves as atheists but don't fit your definition of atheism.

Probably not, unless they don't know how the word is defined in the English language.

wthrfrk80 says

"My" definition of Christianity is the same definition that goes back 2000 years. "My" definition of Christianity is the same definition many other people have (and have had for 2000 years). I'm not inventing anything new, anymore than you are inventing some new definition of atheism.

Oh, interesting... well then... no cherry picking then 'eh... you sir are then unique among christians. Having resolved all the contradictions and vague passages.

So, then...

Do "real" christians love their families? Can true followers of christ drink a pint of Drano and be OK?

http://www.lifeongoldplates.com/2010/02/review-chris-hedges-when-atheism.html