patrick.net

Cloud says

I'm sorry, what was that...can't hear you? Bosnia.

As Stalin said, a few deaths is a tragedy, but hundreds is a statistic. I see you agree with him.

I'm sure all those dead Serbs agree with you that mentioning Croatian Catholic genocide is "Fucking Kidding Me".

Cloud says

Hitler was an atheist too.

Nope. Lapsed Catholic at worst. Mentioned God several times in Mein Kampf, and his very first treaty was with the Vatican. Prayers were said every year by the Catholic Church, officially, for the health of the Fuhrer, and this continued until his death in 1945.

Goebels however, was Excommunicated. For marrying a Protestant.

Cloud says

lover the cut and paste debate style...

Yep, took the numbers from around the web to refresh my memory. I'm sure I missed a lot. Doesn't make it any less valid, in fact, it's more so because you can check my assertions.

Of the top of my head, how many Hindus and Muslims killing each other in India/Pakistan/Bangladesh is another one I missed.

Cloud says

Um Hitler lied about everything and every treaty he made...

But his support from the Catholic Church is a FACT, not just my opinion.

Google is your friend.

Cloud says

They loved God and freedom.

These don't go together. Read the Bible, or any history of the middle ages.

You make my point - as religion weakens and becomes more liberal before finally being dispensed with, Freedom grows.

Judge by the Fruit. Religious countries and times suck balls. The less religion, the freer and more prosperous the people.

Cloud says

You are an alien to those who seek freedom.

Not really. The practice of abandoning all religion and embracing freedom is perfectly compatible.

For all your examples like Stalin/North Korea etc, equally if not more valid examples can be quoted for religious fanaticism as destroyer of civilizations as well. There's a lot more religious wars fought in the course of human history, so face the facts and stop spewing BS.

Cloud says

The atheists here on this site seemed to be saying there is a direct threat of a theocracy here in the US.

I would strongly urge you get educated on the evils of religion. You are totally ignorant about the kind of damage religion has done to this country.

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

Haven't you noticed the corelation between religion and dictatorship? Hitler used religion as a building block just like other dictators because the blind beleivers would listen to him as long as he wrapped his message in religion. Once his power and control was unquestioned or absolute, he no longer needed religion as much to maintain that power. the modern day version uses patriotism too.
North Korea and China don't need religion as the leaders/dictators have total control. But, if you follow their beginning of their dictatorship back far enough, you will find religion used as a justification or messaging to begin their climb to power.
It's called the "divine right", but where's the atheist version of that?

Thanks for reminding me about something, upisdown.

Stalin firmly embraced the Russian Orthodox Church during WW2 as a means of inspiring the country against the Nazis. He also unearthed many deeds of Russian noblemen from history who resisted the Swedes and the Teutonic Order.

Ironically the orthodox church is almost an exact copy of the catholic church right down to the costumes, goofy hats, and the exotic pageantry. The only visible difference is the beards, but maybe it's because of how cold it is in Russia compared to Italy.
Here in the US religion is referred to the same way with our political process with the constant references to a candidate's chosen religion. The most recent republican debate was centered mainly on fear and hate. Fear of imaginary actions and some real ones in regards to religous dogma and the need to purge "activist judges". Then there's the hatred of other religions and the ironic justification(the candiate's or mainstream religion) for that hatred. Would that explain why Mitt Romney is so despised within the republican party, because his religion isn't a mainstream religion?
Religion has always been about power and control of others, but what is funny is that people willingly accept and seek out/participate in their servitude.

thunderlips11 says

Here's some "mere skirmishes" where deaths were motivated at least in part by religious belief, or committed by those who consistently pumped their morality or the morality of their followers which they claimed stemmed from religion:
Hitler - Tens of Millions. Catholic Fascist.
Mussolini - Tens of Thousands of Eithiopians. Many Spaniards. Catholic Fascist.

my good man .... lol ... a slight stretch for the holidays, no?

To any pussy who says “There are no atheists in fox holes” from the comfort of their home having never been in a fox hole himself, I suggest that you keep your unfounded assertions to yourself when engage in conversation with any of the plethora of hard-core atheist bad-asses in our military that even a cursory Google search would reveal. Hell, I’ve heard that every member of Seal Team 6 was an atheist.

The Military Association of Atheists and Freethinkers, MAAF, maintains a roster of Atheists in Foxholes, just in case there are any rumors that we don't exist. The next time you hear someone repeat that old myth, just send them here to see how atheists have served honorably in combat - always have, always will. And boy is that list long and distinguished. Feel free to pursue that list at your leisure, and feel free to have a nice big cup of shut-the-fuck-up about things you don't know.

And if that's not enough in itself, there's this nice quote from a U.S. Marine

I am writing to you about something that I seen on your web page. Looking at my Email address you can probably guess that I am a U.S. Marine, I am also an atheist, which can be kind of difficult sometimes with my mostly religious peers. With this being said, I have some experience with the foxhole conversions, but my view is a little different than most. Most of the conversions I have seen have been to atheism.

Not that this would be admitted or last after combat is over, but even the marines praying every night when we were in the rear weren't pleading for god's help in combat. They were acting just like atheists, ducking and covering, shooting back; trying to save themselves. Never once did I see someone stop and pray for help. They use religion do get them through day to day, but when it hits the fan so to speak, they don't take chances relying on god.

I particularly like the telling part at the end: They use religion do get them through day to day, but when it hits the fan so to speak, they don't take chances relying on god. Somehow when your ass in one the line, a M16 means a lot more than a prayer. And those guns don't spit out Communion wafers.

Maybe the bullshit about there being no atheists in the military comes from the fact that atheists are registered as "no religious preference" against their will because recruiters deliberately misregister atheists. Wow, if you refuse to count atheists, the total comes out to be zero. This shit would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

He also said “don’t be surprised if, when you’re in the Corps, no matter how many times you try to change it to Atheist, it comes back as No Rel Pref.”

Cloud says

The reason I can say your atheist friends have killed so many more, by the millions in the last hundred years is because Communism seeks the destruction of religion.

Okay Cloud, I've explained this before and I'll explain it again. Stalin didn't kill Kulaks for being nominally Orthodox or whatever. He killed them because they were a potential source of trouble down the road and they resisted collectivization. Same reason why Pol Pot killed people who wore glasses, they might be intellectuals and plot to overthrow his regime. Same reason why Blackjack Pershing rounded up random Pinoys and shot them whenever a US soldier was shot by a Filipino Freedom Fighter. The same reason why the Border Ruffians and the Freestaters were hacking each other to death in Kansas in the 1850s, for control.

Atheism doesn't propose that atheists are morally superior. Religion does promise that people are "New Men in Christ" or "The Chosen People". Atheism doesn't give cover for bad behavior, Religion does.

Cloud says

Thunderlips, why is this? Why would Uncle Joe Stalin, The Chinese atheists, Pol Pot, the dead North Korean who was well on his way to starving millions.... why do these killers

always want to wipe out religion, make it illegal and kill those who practice why?

For the same reason the Most Christian Monarchs, Ferdinand and Isabella, stamped out Islam in Spain and expelled the Jews.

For the same reason the Teutonic Order killed any Lithuanians who would not convert.

For the same reason Henry the 8th killed his own dissenters, protestant or catholic, depending on which side of the bed he woke up on.

They didn't want any place where resistance to their rule might collect and grow, and wanted all their subjects to follow the same religion as they did.

Cloud says

Why did all those "deists" put the words "endowed by our creator" in one of the, if not the, most important document this country has?

The Declaration of Independence isn't a document of governance, and not connected to this government, either. Furthermore the signatories of the DoI and those who attended the Constitutional Convention are not all the same batch of people. It's a document explaining why the colonies were revolting from Britain. The Continental Congress no longer exists and was replaced by the United States of America in 1792.

Also, if it was so important, why isn't in the Constitution itself, instead of "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

Cloud says

And yeah the Declaration is one of the most sacred and revered document this country has, if not "the" most.

How can you argue otherwise

Read my post. The Declaration of Independence is not a governance document, it gives the reasons for leaving the British Empire. It was not written by the United States Government set up in 1792. It was published at a meeting of the Continental Congress in 1776, 16 years before the USA was created.

The Constitution is the governance document of the United States of America.

The Declaration of Independence has no force of law. A congressional resolution calling December 21st Chocolate Chip Cookie Celebration Day has more weight.
Cloud says

Ok let's say I agree all evil comes from the religious.

You can agree with yourself. I didn't say that ALL evil comes from Religion.

Cloud says

First of all Clint, I would not ever strongly urge you to do anything. Again, feeling bad about taking Dan to the woodshed?

FYI - Dan and I were simply mutually exchanging ideas. The purpose of any debate is to try and get to the truth, not win (in the literal sense of the word 'win').

Secondly, I was strongly urging you to get educated on the evils of religion purely because you were stating stuff like how Bill O Reilly states on fox news. "they hate us for our freedom" kind of crap. The strong urge is because of your ignorance, that's all. It is up to you whether to consider it or leave it.

Cloud says

Are there any leaders you respect in our country's history?
Cause if you can murmur a few...as hard as that might be, I will show you, in all probablilty, a Christian.

Did I say all Christians are evil? I think if religion mixes up with politics, you end up getting evil things. There's literal proof in front of our very eyes for this.

Cloud says

Let's back up....maybe you are a liberal and think our country sucks and is evil... in which case we can not agree on anything.

I am simply a guy interested in getting to the truth, regardless of political views. I suggest that once you stop arguing for/against either side (liberal/conservative), you'll start seeing the importance of getting to the truth as well.

Cloud says

This is why most of the US military are religious are conservative and FIGHT not for religion but for freedom that provides the right to practice religion.

OK. Simple question: Why did US wage war on Iraq? Was it because Iraq was interfering with the US's rights to practice religion?

Cloud says

Ok? And I said the Declaration of Indenpendence is the one of the most important documents to this country.

And I explained the Declaration of Independence has no legal force.

Cloud says

For you and your friends, you (you actually believe yourself to be God) think man is the measure of all things and therefore can change anything according to fashion, fancy AND DECREE. You are also part of the relativism movement.

I can prove men exist. There is no verifiable evidence for God existing. The Bible and Religious Canon is chock full of decrees, fancy, and fashion. Case in point: The huge difference in tone and style of God between the New and Old Testaments.

Cloud says

They can not be changed by no man.

Speaking of decrees and "Can be changed by no man":

When I go to the Sizzler, I see Bible Fearers munching down on Lobster, Crabs, Shrimp, Cheeseburgers, and Pork. So much for not eating anything that creepeth or crawleth on the floor of the sea. You shall not seeth a goat in it's mother's milk (no cheese with meat), and certainly no pork. Jesus said not a jot or tittle should pass away from the Law until ALL has been fufilled. All Biblical prophecy has not been fulfilled, the end time has not yet happened.

Yet Paul, a MAN who was not God, decreed that Greeks and Syrians could be Christians and eat pork, the exact opposite of what Jesus said just a few years earlier.

Cloud says

Did I say it is because of religion that they put themselves on the line for our freedoms? No.

But I do believe there is a correlation.

Muslim fanatics put their lives on the line when they suicide bomb a school for teaching girls how to read. I also see a correlation.

Cloud says

They believed in God and declared our rights are from him.

Great. Find me guarantees of freedom of religion, freedom of speech, warrants and fair trials in the Bible.

You know like:

"And if a man sayseth something, no king nor judge nor Priest may violate his person." - Book of Beetlebum Ezekajediah 5:14

So when the Government violates rights, God zaps Government officials with a bolt of lightening? How is it that Kim Jong-Il ruled for so long? Maybe God was at lunch, I mean, if a day in God's time is thousands of years, I suppose a lunch is a century or so.

If Rights can be taken away, aren't they more like privileges, you can have them as long as the government says it's safe to have them?

Make a list of every chopped off head in the name of Christianity, done to someone based on their appearence, name, and/or bloodline. I do not know of one.

now, make a list of every chopped off head in the name of islam/type A or type B, for the same reasons. I happen to know of only 37, but you can do your own search.

compare the lists.

thunderlips11 says

Atheists don't claim that being atheist makes you morally superior, though we like to think the elimination of religion will provide more moral clarity rather than acts of evil committed in the name of Dogma.

Very well said thunderlips.

Bap33 says

I submit that God made it very clear - all mankind falls short of God's metering stick

You don't need to quote the bible to us. Most of us have also read Romans 3:23. Christians love to use that verse as a convenient way to explain how they can be so devout, yet commit atrocities anyway.

Cloud says

After they take the guns; they destroy the churches.

you're an idiot cloud. No one is coming for your guns. I'm a gun owner (a dam good shot), I've actively carried a firearm for most of my adult life. I'm also an avid hunter, and, OMG!! An atheist.

No one is coming for your guns man, so you can settle down, turn off the Glenn B radio station for a minute, go out side and get a breath of fresh air.

Cloud says

By the way, Atheists will fight for nobody because they believe in nothing...it is why the communist dictators want people to be Atheists.

You are a complete idiot!! There are many athests serving in the US military. Do they not count?

Bap33 says

Make a list of every chopped off head in the name of Christianity, done to someone based on their appearence, name, and/or bloodline. I do not know of one.

how about bullshit accusations of being a witch. I noticed you conveniently left that out.

ReasonNotFaith says

how about bullshit accusations of being a witch. I noticed you conveniently left that out.

http://patrick.net/?p=1205939

Cloud says

Not sure why you think you are helping your point by saying the Founding Fathers were deists?

Because it's the truth. You should try reading sometime. It's enlightening.

The founding fathers are no saints. They had plenty of problems and they screwed up plenty of times when setting up the country including doing things they knew were wrong and would cause major problems in the future like allowing slavery.

We should definitely know what the founding fathers did and understand why they did it. We should read their papers and analyze them. But we should not accept the founding fathers' words as dogma. They were a hypothesis to be tested. And the test has been partly a success, but also greatly a failure.

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

Cloud says

Dan, listen to me....it means they are believers...do you get it? Wow.

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

Dan8267 says

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

Yep, a step in the right direction, not the end of all progress.

It's interesting that people of religious mindsets like to pick certain points and say "Okay, we're stopping here. Nothing much to be added or removed from this point here."

Dan8267 says

The Federalist Papers, the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence are just steps towards building a truly just and sustainable society. They should not be anchors.

I disagree. The Constitution allows for a "reset" by the people, removing a Gov that does things wrong, like what the Obamanauts pull with executive order and abuse of the judiciary, stuff like that. We are supposed to throw the bums out and rebuild. I know we cant now because we have a national army instead of local malitia, and we have voters who enjoy the welfare system. (I don't mean those on welfare, as I don't think they are a strong voting block, but, rather those people that make their living by servicing those on welfare, or make a living that is enhanced due to the welfare system.)

Anyways, I would like to see just a few limits placed on the voting system:
1) photo and finger print to get a voting license (works for driving).
2) a scaled system that weights votes against the voters score on a basic IQ test, given in English, that has some basic American history, gov, and law, as well as math and logic. This way, all of the more intelligent people will have a weighted advantage in the polls, resulting in a better selection process.
3) Voting day and tax-return day should be the same day, with voting done on the back of the tax return. Ofcourse, this works alot beter in my perfect world of a flat tax on income paid by each and every tax payer, where each taxpayer would see the amount they are sending to Gov right before they vote for a person. Maybe allow folks to pick where their taxes are used, by percentage. Just simple division of the tax income pile into, lets say, Military - Welfare(all forms) - Schools - EPA - Prisons. And each voter could put their taxes where they want to see them used, avoiding lobbys and political monsters. Any way to do that?

thunderlips11 says

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

yep. that is correct.

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

Dan, listen to me....it means they are believers...do you get it? Wow.

Evidently Cloud doesn't realize that I've long since "ignored" him and therefore can't listen to him unless someone else quotes him. Too bad.

thunderlips11 says

In a "Great Architect" or "Unmoved Mover" who set the world in motion and then withdrew. A very different concept than a personal savior 1/3 of a God who offers eternal salvation, marks everybody's sins and behaviors, and metes out punishment and reward in this life and the afterlife.

True, a "Clock Maker God" that created the universe and then stopped interacting with it is a materially different kind of being than the Standard Monotheist God (SMG). As long as such a god does not meet any of the three criteria of SMG (all powerful, all knowing, all good), then in effect the belief in Clock Maker God (CMG) is like the belief in unicorns. I can't disprove such an entity, but there is absolutely no reason to believe in such an entity either.

Also, CMG can't be the god of any religion in all of history. After CMG doesn't give us commandments, and probably doesn't know of our existence. Of course, if CMG does know of our existence, then CMG must have observed us, and therefore CMG leaves an observable trace on the universe. In other words, if CMG actually does exist and interacts with our universe at all since the Big Bang then we can observe CMG's effects on the universe just like any other object. CMG must obey the laws of physics to exist.

However, since CMG isn't much of a god, at least no more than you or I am. CMG had little to no freedom in choosing how to create the universe. CMG can't be all powerful or all knowing since he has to obey the laws of physics. I'd even argue that CMG can't be all good as that criteria isn't even workable (for reasons I haven't presented, but that's a whole other big discussion).

So, why would anyone call CMG a god? He could just be Sheldon Cooper creating a universe inside a laboratory. It is perhaps a great achievement, but hardly worthy of the title god.

Would you worship this guy?

CMG can't hear your prayers, probably doesn't even know you exist as our universe is huge compare to us, and couldn't do much to help you even if he was aware of you. CMG can't give you immortality, but he might "love" you as much as any scientist loves something growing in a petri dish. I don't think CMG is anyone's idea of god.

Finally, Clock Maker God really doesn't answer any important questions. After all, CMG would be the result of evolution on some other planet in some other universe. By assuming CMG's existence, all you've accomplished is introducing one level of indirection.

That said, Sheldon Cooper does rock.

Cloud says

And it doesn't matter any how.

Ofcourse you're right, the only thing that matters is what you want us to believe our history is, not what it actually is... I'm onto your game.

Bap33 says

like what the Obamanauts pull with executive order and abuse of the judiciary, stuff like that.

I suppose you're going to claim Bush never did any of that...

Lively chat here eh...

One might try to suggest that without religions that they'd be no moral code. But yet most major religions have the redemption of sin. Confession,ten days of repentance in judism and I think with Islam it might be during the Hajj.

But if sin can be forgiven without any real taxing on the individual then it isn't exactly that much of a deterrent now is it?

If we make the argument that God is supposed to be a nice and loving God then how does that explain murder, rape, assault, war, starvation etc. If a God has the ability to do anything then technically none of these would exist if the purpose was solely love and being nice.

An argument can be made that dictators want people to be atheists but that does not mean that atheists themselves are dicators or followers for that matter. For the same reason that monarchies didn't exactly like followers of the pope. If you make the argument of infallibility then who is your leader? The preference was simply made to avoid a conflict. The same reason why religions tend to split is the potential for a dual leadership.

mdovell says

One might try to suggest that without religions that they'd be no moral code.

One would have to be an utter fool to suggest or believe that. If anything, religion keeps people from developing an adequate moral code.

mdovell says

An argument can be made that dictators want people to be atheists

With the extremely rare exception of Stalin and the other Russian/Chinese Communists, dictators throughout history had strongly preferred people be religious to the point of executing anyone who didn't show ample religious fever.

Religious people are much easier to control than free-thinking atheists. If you control the dogma, you control the church and all of its followers. Dictators love religion. It's the most useful form of population mind control.

You're the cool aid drinker, Cloud. You embrace a religion that is designed to control you, and it does it's job nicely. It's so effective, that it causes yo to vote against your own self interest in elections. Talk about cool aid...

ReasonNotFaith says

It's so effective, that it causes yo to vote against your own self interest in elections.

In all fairness, it is ok to vote against your own self-interest if you are voting in the interest of society as a whole. I frequently vote against my own self-interest. I'm for a carbon tax on fossil fuels. I was against lowering taxes during the Bush administration -- I wanted the surplus to be used to pay down the debt. I'm always against military actions that kill foreigners in order to secure cheap fuel and other assets that support the U.S. economy.

The problem with people who join the Tea Party is that when they vote against their own interests, they aren't voting nobly for something that helps society at large, but rather something that's in the selfish interest of the ruling class.

Dan8267 says

Would you worship this guy?

Priceless. Maybe God is Sheldon. Although if he was, we'd all reproduce asexually.

Cloud says

"We are endowed by our CREATOR certain unalienable rights...?"

Apparently, we aren't. Man thought up these rules... and man is taking them away.

Where are the North Korean's unalienable rights? Or a Bahraini's? Or a Chinese?

when they handed over their weapons, they handed over their freedom and their ability to exersize their God given rights.

Like, your God given right to draw another breath. What secures it?
No, not the law. The law does nothing but tell the bad guys what is not allowed, and the good guys what is.
Threat of harm secures American's rights. Trouble is, the bad guys want to remove the voter's most effective means known to secure their rights.

One other thing, those peoples still have rulers and do not know God.
no God, no freedom
Know God, Know Freedom --- (worked for Rev. Dr. MLK Jr.)

Cloud says

Good is not defined and re-defined by man moron.

Ah, that explains WW2. I mean, there are no Christians in Holland, Belgium, Poland, Czech Republic, etc. So their rights were taken away by God when the Wehrmacht invaded. Was Hitler God's agent?

thunderlips11 says

Cloud says

Good is not defined and re-defined by man moron.

The fuck it ain't. Only someone as dumb as Cloud would say something like that.

Even theft is a word that has been defined differently over the ages. For example...

If you walk into a stranger's garden and eat your fill of apples from his apple tree, is that stealing? In our society, the answer would be yes. In the ancient Middle East, the answer is a resounding no. For in that culture, a person has a right to eat his fill of the fruit that comes ultimately from god. What one does not have the right to do is to leave the garden carrying any apples. However, you are perfectly in your right to eat as many apples as you can while in someone else's garden. Even what constitutes theft varies from culture to culture.

Man redefines good and evil all the time. Try explaining the concept of intellectual property to someone in the Bronze Age.

My spiritual beliefs or lack there of, start with the following as an axiom (or postulate if you prefer):

If there is a God, it (or he or she or ?) is nothing like the literal interpretation of fundamentalist Christians (or child's view in most non-fundamentalist Christian churchs).

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for atheists like Dan or TL or Dawkins to understand. Maybe they do understand it, or they make empty assertions such as "that's not a belief in God then," the reason being that they are really stuck on fighting that view, and simply don't want to ponder the more typical adult non-fundamentalist view (see Einstein quote at the end of this post).

I mean I really get it. Any teenager with an IQ over 80 can make up cartoons or memes for http://www.reddit.com/r/atheism/ and then congratulate themselves for their courage and brilliance.

thunderlips11 says

Dan8267 says

Agnosticism is atheism for pussies.

Yep. It's a polite way of avoiding having to take an unpopular stand.

I sometimes have had far more respect for your intelligence and insights than I do here (can't win em all).

see axiom above.

I'm pretty sure that you are intelligent enough, that if you wanted to learn about what "spirituality" might entail if considering possibilities outside the binary choice of either absolute belief in fundamentalist Christianity and it's literal biblical interpretation OR total rejection of the existence of God (having of course only only one possible definition - the same literal fundamentalist view), you could.

Many people spend a lot of time exploring philosophy and learning about other traditions such as Zen Buddhism or contemplating a possible view of God as reflected in nature (see Emerson and Thoreau), and in the very existence of intelligence (such as our consciousness). It's a personal thing that people have to figure out for themselves or not.

As for religion, I like what CL said very concisely in another thread.

CL says

Certainly subject to corruption, abuse, and institutional self-promotion.

or what wthrfrk80 said in still another thread:
wthrfrk80 says

Religion happens. It exists. Get over it.

If you understand my axiom above then it's clear the arguing is either a semantics problem or maybe some people are a little "stuck," in a sort of recovering state. Einstein said it far more thoughtfully than I ever could (from a letter that Albert Einstein wrote):

Einstein responded on September 28, 1949:
I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth. I prefer an attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our own being.

The only reason I participate in this conversation, maybe two reasons. One, sharing my truth which is:

"I don't know."

But also sharing my point of view about religion, which is:

1) The harm done in the name of religion, is not a proof that we would have done better without religion.

2) With a choice between a world with religion (hopefully more evolved eventually), and a world where everyone believes there is no God and no benefit to religion, I clearly and strongly favor the former.

marcus says

If there is a God, it (or he or she or ?) is nothing like the literal interpretation of fundamentalist Christians (or child's view in most non-fundamentalist Christian churchs).

I'm not sure why this is so difficult for atheists like Dan or TL or Dawkins to understand.

I do agree with you. If there is a God, then It is not likely a personal Paternalistic-type God. Furthermore, there may be more than one. However, there is no evidence for Theism.

A wise man once said that as long as God has a place to hide, people will believe in him. I think we're coming to the end of that. There are now better (but not yet adequate) explanations for how the universe was created that do not involve Theism of any kind.

The religious beliefs that may be closest to what many physicists are now postulating about the origins of the universe are aspects of Hinduism that formulate that the multiverse is incredibly ancient, almost an organism in it's own right, with no end and no beginning.

When I think about this stuff, I experience a kind of Spiritualism, for lack of a better word. I look up at the night sky and imagine one day being able to formulate a method of bridging the vast distances and checking out entire new solar systems. But even that is tepid relative to the size of the galaxy, universe, and possibility that the universe itself is just a tiny piece of a massive, unimaginably vast megaverse.

I feel perception of vast, ever-changing awesome WHOA.

marcus says

I sometimes have had far more respect for your intelligence and insights than I do here (can't win em all).

I enjoy all your posts, although I don't usually agree with the ones here.

Though I don't understand why you are so protective of religion.

It doesn't seem that having a majority of the population identifying with atheism leads to negative consequences. In fact, the best outcomes worldwide are in countries with substantial atheist populations.

thunderlips11 says

There are now better (but not yet adequate) explanations for how the universe was created that do not involve Theism of any kind.

For me the existence of something that may be called God ( "a deity" is far more specific, implying a supernatural being - deity is your word not mine. Mystics usually use words like the ineffable or beyond description), is totally independent of the creation question.

Put differently, for me, belief in "God" if "he" exists has nothing to do with answering the question where did the universe come from. This is another hang up of atheists, who are so busy formulating straw man arguments. ( I know they aren't straw men for fundamentalists or children of non-fundamentalist Christian religions).

I'm not so protective of religion in all cases. I would agree that it's unfortunate that we have so many fundamentalists in this country who fit the atheists description, and even more disappointing that most of them are by default gullible buyers of the right wing political party line. Unfortunate that even now, and even in the U.S., religion is used by politicians to control people.

But I also love the truth. And I think that it's a huge leap to go from this observation, or from observations about Islamic fascists, to an absolute generalization that all religion is evil, or to denying the integral and often positive role that religion has played in most cultures and their development.

Just as people say we get the government we deserve, maybe another truth is that we get the religion we deserve. It may seem that religion is holding us back, when really it is collective stupidity that's holding us back. Our religions are only as sophisticated and evolved as what we're ready for.

What do you think would happen to our government if a lot of the people who are fighting to argue for atheism were fighting instead to make Christianity more Christian. Fighting that Christian beliefs really focused on Jesus' teachings. (note: I'm not suggesting thats what needs to happen - just making a point)

Instead, we end up with more nonreligious and or atheists and too high a percentage of practicing religious people being fundamentalists. It feels to me like just another divide and concur.

thunderlips11 says

In fact, the best outcomes worldwide are in countries with substantial atheist populations.

I think you may confuse atheist with nonreligious. And you may also confuse it with agnostic. I think the God that you and probably Dan also reject is one strict definition of God as the Deity who created the universe or the deity of the literally interpreted bible.

In other words we are closer than it would seem, differing in semantics, but you guys seem to have an emotional charge behind fighting that one specific limited definition of God. That's what I don't understand.

In your case you sort of acknowledge being able to entertain more nuanced views of God, but then at the same time call me a pussy for considering myself an agnostic ( if not on the believer side of agnostic), rather than fessing up to being an atheist.