# Atheist/Agnostic Poll: The Path You Traveled



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I've been wondering how other atheist/agnostics got to their worldview. I know they are different things but, for now, will not focus on the distinctions. 

So, did you get to your current understanding by a concious realization from a religious state or were you always this way?

It's difficult to design this poll, so I've tried to keep it somewhat clear.

Note, for early childhood, I would just consider that pre-worldview so I'm not trying to focus on changing from early childhood to a 'belief' unless you actually had strong early childhood beliefs to change from.

Basically, from as far back as you can remember having convictions about this, did you become atheist/agnostic from a different belief?


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

That's tad unclear - most people question childhood inculcation beginning around puberty and either abandon or stick with it.

Saying "always been this way" implies comparative knowledge as you have to be aware of what "not this way" consists of.

If 3 were changed from childhood family beliefs to atheism at puberty versus came to atheism as an adult that might be a more valid 

Yes it's a tricky wording as you are throwing agnostic/atheist fine gradations in too.

Better might be

Non religious family backround and consciously rejected any religion

Religious family backround and consciously rejected any religion

Don't think about it much - religion/non religion not a concern.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Those would be interesting but are a different question. Are you the 'other'? If so, I'd like to hear the story. Even if not, everybody's story of awareness of personal conviction/understanding in this matter could make for interesting sharing.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

What is Agnostic?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agnostic

What am I?
Well a sort of mish mash of things from a Celtic heritage:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celt

D


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

Technically speaking, the religion my parents belong to IS agnostic, although most followers do choose to believe in a god or gods (borrowed from another religion). 

So really, being agnostic myself does not change much, though my beliefs have evolved a more spiritual agnosticism, where I do personally believe that there exists a higher power, (which I don't define very strictly; I usually just refer to it the Universe) take comfort in that belief for myself, and acknowledge that it may be completely wrong but that's okay--believing in it works for me regardless. I'm naming this belief-system Sonalism; I think it has a nice ring to it. 

For me, belief in something such as a the Goddess of Wisdom, or Jehovah, or Science, or what-have-you is a way of personifying a belief in the Universe, which for me highlights the commonalities between many different belief systems--although believers of other things may not see it that way. If it works for you, great, if it doesn't, that's okay.


----------



## Strimkind (Mar 31, 2005)

Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.

Thats is how I've felt for a while now.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

I grew up in a non-religious home, never really knowing what religion was all about except that we weren't supposed to swear when my aunt was around.

In grade 4, a couple of guys pushed me up against the monkey bars at school holding an improvised weapon (sharpened piece of plastic) against my neck, and asked me what religion I was. I couldn't remember the name of any religious identity so I think I just said I didn't know. They laughed and went away.

Oddly enough, I don't remember ever viewing that event as traumatic in any way, but it got me very curious about religion and somehow made me want to belong to one.

Gradually I came to see that I had no need for religious identification (I could never make myself believe in a higher power), but I was extremely conscious about "offending" others with my lack of belief.

For many years, I remember lying when people ask about my religious identity because I was afraid of offending them!

Even when I learned about religion and affirmed my atheism, I still viewed religion as above criticism. I was certain that nobody should question people's beliefs.

Over the last year, I have become much more interested in religion and its affect on society. I am accumulating a library of books and video. I listen to a number of religious and atheist podcasts and internet radio shows (various perspectives on both sides, including many debates). I am reading the bible (slowly but surely). And I belong to a number of groups.

I see now how dangerous it is for rationalists to remain in the dark.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Technically speaking, the religion my parents belong to IS agnostic, although most followers do choose to believe in a god or gods (borrowed from another religion).


Agnosticism is not a religion. It is the view that nothing is or can be known about God, if one (or more) exists. More about definitions of atheism vs agnosticism: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html



Sonal said:


> ...I do personally believe that there exists a higher power, (which I don't define very strictly; I usually just refer to it the Universe)


There's a name for that. It's called "Pantheism".


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> I see now how dangerous it is for rationalists to remain in the dark.


Interesting quote - can you elaborate on that? Curious.


----------



## Sonal (Oct 2, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> Agnosticism is not a religion. It is the view that nothing is or can be known about God, if one (or more) exists. More about definitions of atheism vs agnosticism: http://www.philosophyofreligion.info/definitions.html


Yes, and technically speaking, Jainism holds that very view. Though in practice, most of its followers believe in Bhagwan, and pray to various Hindu gods--there is some distinction between Jainism in its core beliefs and Jainism as it is practiced by laypeople.

But it has been long said that Jainism is more of a way of living than a religion.



jasonwood said:


> There's a name for that. It's called "Pantheism".


I did some quick looking at Pantheism, and it does not accurately describe my beliefs--nothing in the description resonates with me. I don't necessarily believe that this higher power is imbued in all things, or that it isn't necessarily personal and separate. Sometimes I call it the Universe, sometimes God, sometimes a Supreme Being, and sometimes just Something.

More accurately, I would describe it as awareness of a spiritual force in my life without looking to closely at exactly what it is or where it comes from.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

A great discussion. I'd like to hear more from AS's story, because he's the quiet type. 

My story is dull: I've always been this way. From early questions of 'why this' or 'why that' or 'could God do this', I progressed directly from no personal position (beyond 'I like candy'  ) to atheism. I don't know what the future holds, but I'm sure it will seem like a good idea at the time.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Sonal said:


> Yes, and technically speaking, Jainism holds that very view. Though in practice, most of its followers believe in Bhagwan, and pray to various Hindu gods--there is some distinction between Jainism in its core beliefs and Jainism as it is practiced by laypeople.
> 
> But it has been long said that Jainism is more of a way of living than a religion.


Remember that I only said Agnosticism is not a religion. I did not say that you could not be agnostic and religious at the same time. There is lots of room for overlap between religious and agnostic, and agnostic and atheist.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Sonal said:


> More accurately, I would describe it as awareness of a spiritual force in my life without looking to closely at exactly what it is or where it comes from.


That would pretty much describe my beliefs but I also believe different forces act at different times in my life.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ArtistSeries said:


> Interesting quote - can you elaborate on that? Curious.


_I see now how dangerous it is for rationalists to remain in the dark._

It wasn't a quote. Just what spilled out of my mind. Maybe one day it'll become one!;-)

There's so much to be said about this, and what I would tell you depends on what your viewpoint is to begin with.

If you agree that religious extremism is bad, then I would start here...

What causes people to be extreme in their faith? We find it comforting to make ourselves believe that these people are perverting their religion, that all religions are "of peace". But comforting as it may be, this is not supported by facts. The "extremists" are the people who know the faith best. They don't cherry pick the good stuff like most of us do. They look at all of it. They're actions are perfectly justified when you realize that they really believe everything they're God wrote in their book.

Next you look at religious moderation. Moderation has been a natural course in Christianity because the bible is so internally inconsistent and contradictory that it's impossible to take everything literally. Unfortunately, it will be much harder to moderate Islam because the Koran is so much more coherent (note: I am not an expert in the Koran, yet, so I'm basing this on the opinion of others). Religious moderation is what allows us to have civilized existence, where we no longer burn witches and heretics, for example.

In that sense, moderation is good. The followers benefit from the comfort and inspiration they receive from their religion, yet they don't commit the horrible acts of cruelty demanded by the same religion. There is a nasty side to it though. Because the moderates demand such respect of faith-based talk, they create an environment where it's very easy for well intentioned people to become extreme in their faith, and they receive very little criticism. It is our high level of tolerance for religion that allows for extremism.

If there were no extremists, I'd really have no major issues with faith (although I do have a small problem with parents and schools who teach innocent children that they will burn in hell for all eternity if they do not have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ, but that's another story entirely. Back to the question...).

So if we can agree that religious extremism should end, and religious tolerance allows religious extremists to develop, should we not come out of the closet and encourage more debate on the topic of religion?

Remember that many religions people have no problem knocking on doors to convert you. 46% of Americans believe it is important to convert people to Christianity - 25% of Canadians say this (according to a study released today... http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=fa16ec9b-b5d8-4dc1-ab42-28e230259b8e&k=32635 .

There are other reasons to "come out".

Atheists are the least trusted group in America (below muslims, recent immigrants and homosexuals) according to a study released last month. They are also the group that parents are least likely to allow to marry their children, and the group people lease likely believe "share their vision of American society".

The fact is that most people believe that faith is required for morality. People need to understand that this is not so. There are, and there always were atheists in foxholes, atheists who give to charities, and atheists who volunteer their time for a good cause. In addition, atheists are the most underrepresented major group by religious identification in American jails. 6-14% of Americans are atheists, yet far less than 1% of the prison populations describe themselves that way (I posted more details about this elsewhere on ehMac).

Gays and Lesbians are now viewed much more positively in society, and it's because they came out of the closet. We need to do the same, for the same reason.

There is yet another reason.

Most of the major advancements we have made in our society are *in spite of* religion. Finding out the world was round. Ending slavery. Equal rights for women. Religious faith even made it difficult to develop the barometer, because the Church considered such work to be heretical. Few people know that we wouldn't have any legitimate medical science unless someone had the courage to rob graves in the middle of the night in order to dissect humans. And don't even get me started on creationism & "intelligent design".

Today we force terminally ill patients in unbearable pain to live out their life until it ends naturally. We don't even treat animals with that level of cruelty. And we are hampering medical research with great promise to heal the sick because we are concerned about creating a "soul" in a petrie dish, yet we have no problem experimenting with fully grown animals with working brains. 

When hurricane Katrina hit, president Bush declared a national day of prayer. That's one full day where people are doing absolutely nothing that will actually help the victims of the storm. Yet we do not challenge it.

We are atheists because we have taken a rational look at the world. We do not accept superstitious claims without evidence. We should be proud of this! Yet we hide. I don't understand.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Great post JW. Well put, worthy of much discussion and not exclusive of people disagreeing. This is the sort of thing I hope the internet will foster.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> We are atheists because we have taken a rational look at the world. We do not accept superstitious claims without evidence. We should be proud of this! Yet we hide. I don't understand.


Not all do and the study in Nature certainly puts us in bright company 



> The follow-up study reported in "Nature" reveals that the rate of belief is lower than eight decades ago. The latest survey involved 517 members of the National Academy of Sciences; half replied.* When queried about belief in "personal god," only 7% responded in the affirmative, while 72.2% expressed "personal disbelief," and 20.8% expressed "doubt or agnosticis*


 http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/news/file002.html

The growing numbers in Canada expressing "no religion" is also a coming out party long overdue. The next census should be a real eye opener.


----------



## SkyHook (Jan 23, 2001)

.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> Not all do


Well, if I understand you correctly (that not all atheists are rational and reject superstition), then yeah, that's true. Many theists believe that atheists just "say" they don't believe in God, while in fact they are just angry at God. I'm sure there are a few people that fall under that category. I'm talking about the group that use reason to come to their conclusions about the nature of the universe.



MacDoc said:


> The growing numbers in Canada expressing "no religion" is also a coming out party long overdue. The next census should be a real eye opener.


I'm not entirely convinced that this is evidence we are getting less religious. It used to be that everyone identified with a religion regardless of whether they believe. There is a huge number of people that go to church and identify with a religion because they enjoy the community, or the mythology, without really taking it too seriously.

It's just now that people are starting to understand the concept of atheism, humanism, rationalism, etc, and are beginning to identify with one or more of those groups. That doesn't mean their religiosity has changed, just how they define it.

Also, a lot of people identify with a religion because of tradition. I believe roughly half of Jews call themselves a "Secular Jew".

It seems religion has a cycle. It goes up and down. When its dangerous, people rebel and moderate it. When it gets moderated, people increase "tolerance" and it starts to get dangerous again. Look at the United States. Look at some of the quotes of the first few presidents on the topic of religion. No president could get away with that stuff today. The country is far more religious. Now look at Europe. They are far less religious, yet there are politicians trying to pass laws to curb free speech and criminalize blasphemy!

A more appropriate measure of changing religiosity would be answers to specific questions, such as, "Do you agree that through the life, death and resurrection of Jesus, God provided the way for the forgiveness of sins?"

I too am very interested about what this census will tell us about the topic.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Not all athiests hide and fewer are doing so.



> I'm talking about the group that use reason to come to their conclusions about the nature of the universe.


so am I


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

SkyHook said:


> Tough to even read this thread as if it matters. Good Friday I told a guy to piss off who was trying to give me a bible at the bus stop. I only feel pity for people who require beliefs of any kind to get through the complexity we live in. Swearing at him was simply my disapproval for urban dwellers who think it's their right to impose on my presence.


No reason to be disrespectful. Now this guy is even more convinced that you need to find Jesus. It probably only strengthens his view that he's doing an important duty. He's probably praying for you right now!

Seriously. If I didn't have time, I'd be polite and say no thank you and mention that I don't believe in God. If I had more time, I'd try to have a rational discussion with him. Ask him to address your reasons for denying his faith. If you know what you're talking about it might give him something to think about.

There's lots of these types of debates on the "Atheist Experience" podcast (recordings from a live call-in cable TV show from Texas) if you need help with your arguments. Former fundamentalist Christian Matt Dillihunty, a Bible expert, is usually on the show, and people always call in to try to show them why they're wrong.


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

SINC said:


> I also believe different forces act at different times in my life.


OK... ok. I'll put the voodoo doll down now.


Just Kidding


----------



## da_jonesy (Jun 26, 2003)

jasonwood said:


> Remember that I only said Agnosticism is not a religion. I did not say that you could not be agnostic and religious at the same time. There is lots of room for overlap between religious and agnostic, and agnostic and atheist.


I think you missed her point. Jainism follows very closely to Agnosticism. In Jainism, very rarely can anyone know the true meaning of the universe/existence/god. 

The ultimate goal in that religion is the search for that understanding. Mind you search may be the wrong word to use... Practice is probably a better word. It is in a way very close to Buddhist thought (even though it is a much much older faith than Buddhism).


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Beej said:


> Great post JW. Well put, worthy of much discussion and not exclusive of people disagreeing. This is the sort of thing I hope the internet will foster.


Great point. The internet is making a huge difference on this subject. It's making it far easier to join with other like-minded individuals and to learn all the issues.

First, there's tons of web sites and forums. I imagine those have been there for a while. But now it's even better...

There are blogs. There are podcasts. There are 24hr radio stations (freethoughtmedia & freethoughtradio). And there are local groups with email lists, such as the Humanist Association of Canada.

There's even a store where you can get everything from Darwin Fish to "Wash Away Your Sins Body Wash" "In-The-Shower-Cleansing-Power for Liars, Cheaters & Wrong-doers!" http://www.evolvefish.com/


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> There's just enough religion in the world to make men hate one another but not enough to love


Louis Cyphre - Angel Heart


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

For those who'd like some fodder for their discussions/arguments, or those who simply want to study the alternatives to theism and religion in general: 

_(All books listed below are from AK Press - http://www.akpress.com/ - There's lots more!...)

_ <table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> May The Farce Be With You: A Lighthearted Look At Why God Does Not Exist *-* _April Pederson_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> From murky miracles, to paradoxical prayer, an illogical heaven to evolution, April debunks the fallacy of the big guy upstairs, in words and pictures. Witty, irreverent, and intelligent. </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Atheism: A Reader *-* _S.T. Joshi (Editor)_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> As the editor states in his introduction, a volume like this shouldn't be necessary. But given that religion and the belief in God still persists, and permeates all aspects of our life, this is an excellent collection ... </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> The Crimes Of Jehovah *-* _Mark Mirabello (Editor)_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> "I don't know if God exists, but it would be better for his reputation if he didn't." [Jules Renard] If you have any doubts of the truth of that statement, this pamphlet ... clearly demonstrates - through dozens of biblical passages - that Jehovah, the god of the Old Testament, is cruel, vindictive, inconsistent, and remarkably juvenile... </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> The Dark Side Of Christian History *-* _Helen Ellerbe_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Over a period of almost two millennia, the Christian Church has oppressed and brutalized millions of individuals in an attempt to control and contain spirituality. This book reveals in painstaking detail the tragedies, sorrows and injustices inflicted upon humanity by the Church. "This is simply a book that everyone must sit down and read. At a time when the so called 'religious right' ... </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Pagan Christs *-* _Joseph McCabe_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> If you harbor any doubts that Christianity is anything oither than a mishmash of myths and repressive teachings borrowed from other ancient superstitions, this pamphlet will lay those doubts to rest. </td></tr></tbody></table>
 <table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Atheism: The Case Against God *-* _George Smith_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Not only the case against, but a comprehensive demolition job. With painstaking scholarship and rigorous arguments, Smith examines, dissects and refutes the myriad 'proofs' offered by the sophisticated professional theologian and the average religious layman alike. "It is not my purpose to convert people to atheism...(but to) demonstrate that the belief in God is irrational to the point of absurdity... </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Does God Exist? *-* _Sebastian Faure_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Well, what do you think? Not only is he not omnipresent, he's not there at all! An atheist classic. </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Thumbscrew & Rack *-* _George MacDonald_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> A well illustrated examination of the instruments of torture utilized by organized Christianity to honor the God of Love and to convince unbelievers of the truth and beauty of the One True Faith. </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> The Forgery Of The Old Testament And Other Essays *-* _Joseph McCabe_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> Is the creation story in Genesis nothing more than a botched version of a Babylonian myth? Is 'free will' illusory? ... In these three classic essays - 'The Myth Of Immortality,' 'Lies Of Religious Literature' and the title piece - McCabe exposes the inconsistencies, absurdities, and outright mendacity that lie behind the most revered texts and 'truths' of Christianity. With ... </td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top"> Heretic's Guide To The Bible *-* _Chaz Bufe (Editor)_</td> </tr> <tr> <td align="center" valign="top" width="50">    </td><td align="left" valign="top"> A series of quotes from the Bible itself, pointing out, in its own words, its cruelty, sadism, insanity, irrationality and sexism. A bestseller! </td></tr></tbody></table>Happy Easter! 

<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">
</td> </tr> </tbody></table>


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

*More books on religion and atheism*



SoyMac said:


> For those who'd like some fodder for their discussions/arguments, or those who simply want to study the alternatives to theism and religion in general:


Let's not forget....

<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">
The End of Faith - Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason*-*_Sam Harris
_</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" width="50"> 
</td><td align="left" valign="top">
The End of Faith: Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris is a genuinely frightening book about terrorism, and the central role played by religion in justifying and rewarding it. Others blame “extremists” who “distort” the “true” message of religion. Harris goes to the root of the problem: religion itself. Even moderate religion is a menace, because it leads us to respect and “cherish the idea that certain fantastic propositions can be believed without evidence”. Why do men like Bin Laden commit their hideous cruelties? The answer is that they “actually believe what they say they believe”. Read Sam Harris and wake up. – Richard Dawkins, The Guardian
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">
The God Who Wasn't There*-*_Brian Flemming
_</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" width="50"> 
</td><td align="left" valign="top">
In this provocative, critically acclaimed documentary, you will discover:
The early founders of Christianity seem wholly unaware of the idea of a human Jesus.
The Jesus of the Gospels bears a striking resemblance to other ancient heroes and the figureheads of pagan savior cults.
Contemporary Christians are largely ignorant of the origins of their religion.
Fundamentalism is as strong today as it ever has been, with an alarming 44% of Americans believing Jesus will return to earth in their lifetimes.
And God simply isn't there.
</td></tr></tbody></table>
<table cellpadding="4" cellspacing="0" width="95%"><tbody>
<tr><td colspan="2" valign="top">
The Gospel of the Flying Spaghetti Monster*-*_Bobby Henderson
_</td></tr><tr><td align="center" valign="top" width="50"> 
</td><td align="left" valign="top">
Behold the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM), today’s fastest growing carbohydrate-based religion. According to church founder Bobby Henderson, the universe and all life within it were created by a mystical and divine being: the Flying Spaghetti Monster. What drives the FSM’s devout followers, a.k.a. Pastafarians? Some say it’s the assuring touch from the FSM’s “noodly appendage.” Then there are those who love the worship service, which is conducted in pirate talk and attended by congregants in dashing buccaneer garb. Still others are drawn to the Church’s flimsy moral standards, religious holidays every Friday, or the fact that Pastafarian heaven is way cooler: Does your heaven have a Stripper Factory and a Beer Volcano? Intelligent Design has finally met its match–and it has nothing to do with apes or the Olive Garden of Eden.Within these pages, Bobby Henderson outlines the true facts– dispelling such malicious myths as evolution (“only a theory”), science (“only a lot of theories”), and whether we’re really descended from apes (fact: Humans share 95 percent of their DNA with chimpanzees, but they share 99.9 percent with pirates!)
</td></tr></tbody></table>


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacDoc said:


> The growing numbers in Canada expressing "no religion" is also a coming out party long overdue. The next census should be a real eye opener.


Unfortunately, the question is only asked every 10 years, so we'll have to wait another 5. Strange policy, eh?


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

Lots and lots of books. 

Wow... and some people complain about people of faith prostelizing.


----------



## Lawrence (Mar 11, 2003)

A creationist approach:

http://www.apath.org/creating_religion.html

D


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> _
> We are atheists because we have taken a rational look at the world. We do not accept superstitious claims without evidence. We should be proud of this! Yet we hide. I don't understand._


_
Wow! I was over in the conspiracy part of the forum when I thought maybe I should mentioned what we of the ehMac world think of the church and bible (if you want really want to talk conspiracy) I might ruffle too many feathers. Not!_


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

ehMax said:


> Lots and lots of books.
> 
> Wow... and some people complain about people of faith prostelizing.


You think this is proselytising?
Have you ever had an atheist knock on your door to try to convert you to atheism?
Have you ever seen an atheist "leader" mobilise hundreds of thousands of citizens to attempt to influence government policy on social issues?
Do you tune in regularly to programs on the public airwaves, and in fact entire television and radio networks devoted to atheism and spreading the word?

But you think writing books based on research by open, questioning minds is proselytising? Or in any way comes even remotely close to the constant propaganda attack that we are under, mainly from Christians in the West?

I don't think I've found any of the titles listed above in a hotel room drawer.

Maybe I missed a subtle joke in your post. I have been known to do that.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Speaking of proselytizing, I just read a great article:

http://www.azstarnet.com/allheadlines/125152



> Atheism is a liberating world view
> 
> Atheists are "seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public," according to a national survey conducted by the University of Minnesota.
> 
> ...


----------



## SoyMac (Apr 16, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> ....it is therefore time for atheists to "come out of the closet" and shout out loud ...


No way. Man!
Have you seen what Christians do to unbelievers?! Crusades, Inquisitian, the U.S. Army...
I'm staying quietly inside my closet. With my laptop.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

Worst Christian response to my view that there is no god:
"Prove it!"
Geez!


----------



## ehMax (Feb 17, 2000)

SoyMac said:


> Maybe I missed a subtle joke in your post. I have been known to do that.


You think? :lmao:


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Though I'm neither atheist or agnostic, I think atheists do a far better job of framing their arguments than do most religious people. Logic works well to cast doubt on religious ideas, but isn't an easy--or often appropriate--tool for the religious to use in support of their religion. 

As a Christian libertarian, my synthesis is that, since logic can't be used well to "prove" the tenets of Christianity, then there is little sense in trying to use reason and logic to convince others to become Christians. If a "feeling" or a sense of personal revelation convinces someone that Christianity works for them, then it's OK to at least offer to share that with someone else who wants to listen, in hopes that this person may also be led to a similar revelation. If the other person ain't interested, by all means stop talking.

I find so-called "proofs" of God's existence disappointing: 

"If the air we breathe was only 1% different, we wouldn't exist here...When I see a child with its mother or a golden sunset...there are no atheists in foxholes...."

The libertarian in me also prevents me from using force of any kind to compel anyone to do as I do--or to harm anyone on behalf of that belief.

I actually think Christianity and Libertarianism make a good team...kind of stops the excesses before they start.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> As a Christian libertarian, my synthesis is that, since logic can't be used well to "prove" the tenets of Christianity, then there is little sense in trying to use reason and logic to convince others to become Christians. If a "feeling" or a sense of personal revelation convinces someone that Christianity works for them, then it's OK to at least offer to share that with someone else who wants to listen, in hopes that this person may also be led to a similar revelation. If the other person ain't interested, by all means stop talking.
> .....
> I atually think Christianity and Libertarianism make a good team...kind of stops the excesses before they start.


:clap: 
.....
There is much potential there (Western philosophy was developed with Christianity and against it; the 'with' is often ignored and treated as a 'despite'). Still, much contention.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

I was raised RC, started faltering in my late pre-teens when I started contemplating what we were taught about unbaptized babies (i.e. they go to hell ... or purgatory ... or limbo ... never have been able to keep the last two straight) -- couldn't figure out how a "loving God" could not allow these babies to live long enough to be baptized (because God *does* control all this, right?) and then penalize them for it.

I lurched along in a sort of half-a**ed way for many years thereafter, attending church mostly on Christmas (and occasionally Easter) ... then came the huge pederasty scandal. That finished me with organized religion for good. 

I'm not sure what I am now -- "befuddled agnostic" might cover it.  Actually I'm probably closest to Sonal's and Strimkind's POV:


> Agnostic spiritualism—the view that there may or may not be a god (or gods), while maintaining a general personal belief in a spiritual aspect of reality, particularly without distinct religious basis, or adherence to any established doctrine or dogma.


As for church attendance and suchlike, I tend to follow my sadly now-deceased grandfather's view: "If God wants me, He knows where I am."

Whoops, almost forgot ... thanks for the book suggestions and links!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

SoyMac said:


> No way. Man!
> Have you seen what Christians do to unbelievers?! Crusades, Inquisitian, the U.S. Army...
> I'm staying quietly inside my closet. With my laptop.


The U.S. Army? LOL!!! I know you're desperate for some example of Christian violence in the past few centuries but thats a bit of a stretch don't you think? I think your pretty safe unless your afraid of little old ladies volunteering at the hospital or the food banks.

Cheers 
MacGuiver


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah......sure



> A climate of fierce hostility toward gays was palpable in the days after the assault. While Shepard lay dying in a Fort Collins, Colorado, hospital, a college homecoming parade that passed near the hospital included a float that carried a scarecrow on which were painted the words, "I'm gay." *Antigay picketers turned out for Shepard's funeral, led by Kansas minister Fred Phelps. They held posters saying, "Matt in Hell" and "No Tears for Queers," and several picketers, including Phelps, carried signs that said, "AIDS Cures ****.*" (Shepard did not, however, have AIDS.)
> 
> This kind of treatment of gays has not been confined to cowboy country. Assaults on gays have been on the rise throughout the nation, even in presumably safe places like New York City's Greenwich Village and Chicago's North Halsted area. Antigay assaults are up 81 percent in New York City this year, and they more than doubled in Chicago from 1996 to 1997. Shephard is not the only gay person who has been killed simply for being who he is.


and of course the KKK hasn't been around for centuries either.


























Perhaps a review of *recent* history is warranted.....if you dare.

http://www.withoutsanctuary.org/ 

••••
Then of course there is this....



> Lord's Resistance Army
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
> 
> 
> ...


Centuries eh........more like..minutes.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think MacGuiver was saying that calling the U.S. Army an example of Christian violence was a stretch...as is calling the KKK a Christian organization. And although some Christians kill some gays, random stats like those you present don't illuminate the relationship. They merely show that there was an increase in the number of SOME people killing SOME gay people.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Athiesm has a great record in the 20th century. Sort of. Almost. Well, some people do very bad things; whatever banner they may choose to hoist.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I think it's an advantage of being an atheist/agnostic--nobody writes a headline saying "Atheist kills five." It's easier to find out which church a murderer might have attended than finding out he's an atheist.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Well, some people do very bad things; whatever banner they may choose to hoist.


........or not hoist.

1%ers exist across the spectrum Mengele to Jones to Davidian....to Stalin's goons the list is long.

Not many Nobel scientists in that group however....perhaps heeding them about real human issues instead of angel counting might be a step in the right direction.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Macfury said:


> I think it's an advantage of being an atheist/agnostic--nobody writes a headline saying "Atheist kills five." It's easier to find out which church a murderer might have attended than finding out he's an atheist.


I'm not sure what you're saying here... I've never seen "Church goer kills five" or "Christian kills 5". So why would you expect "Atheist kills five".

I have seen headlines such as "women kills child for God", but this is different because the motive for the killing is based in religion. You can't have a crime based on atheism because atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Remember, we only believe in one less Gods than you do!

If you are implying that atheists have more than their share of crime, there is no evidence to support that.

15.58% of Canadian Prisoners identified as "No Religion" (the actual names used included "None", "Atheist" or "Agnostic") in 2005.

In the 2001 Census, 16.2% of Canadians did the same (some additional options came up such as "Free Thinker" and "Humanist", but that should not affect the result because if there were any prisoners who wished to identify under those titles, they would have been added. This figure was a 43.9% increase over the census 10 years ago. If this rate is steady, then you would expect the current % of population to report "no religion" to be 19.44%.

So people with no religious identification are 19.44% of the population, and 15.58% of the prison population. They are substantially underrepresented!


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

MacDoc said:


> ........or not hoist.
> 
> 1%ers exist across the spectrum Mengele to Jones to Davidian....to Stalin's goons the list is long.
> 
> Not many Nobel scientists in that group however....perhaps heeding them about real human issues instead of angel counting might be a step in the right direction.


Real human issues?
Who's running the homeless shelters, food banks, nursing homes, foreign relief agencies, hospitals, schools, orphanages etc. etc.? I do know one thing, may of those programs and institutions would not exist today had it not been for the very "angel counters" you blame for the woes of mankind. 

Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Jason: It was an attempt at humour. I was trying to say that it's easier to identify a member of an organized group, rather than an unorganized one and that newspapers are more likely to identify criminals based on some handle they can grab. While it might not appear in the headline, the article about some depraved killer will usually quote someone as saying "He was a churchgoer...I can hardly believe it." But you never get: "Well, that atheist never went to church--I would have predicted this." 

But that small disparity between people with no religious affiliation and their representation in prison populations? It's because those atheistic creeps have no conscience. They never turn themselves in, set up other gang members to take the fall when possible and they can tell falsehoods in court without setting off lie detectors. They're a bad lot all right--and they're better equipped to get away with it. Most unsolved crimes are committed by atheists.

^^^^
JOKE


----------



## MacGuiver (Sep 6, 2002)

jasonwood said:


> I'm not sure what you're saying here... I've never seen "Church goer kills five" or "Christian kills 5". So why would you expect "Atheist kills five".
> 
> I have seen headlines such as "women kills child for God", but this is different because the motive for the killing is based in religion. You can't have a crime based on atheism because atheism isn't a belief, it's a lack of belief. Remember, we only believe in one less Gods than you do!
> 
> ...


Jason the problem with your numbers is this. Its true that 80% of those inmates may identify themselves with a religion, but I'd argue a high percentage of them really have no religion at all. Lots of people today claim to be catholic or protestant yet they've never stepped foot in a church. They have absolutely no knowledge of their religion nor do they practice it. When polled on issues of faith they fall inline with secular society and are at odds with the religion they profess. But yeah mom and dad or granny were Catholic, Lutheran, United etc. so they carry the label with them but not the faith. So you really can't point a finger and say religion made these people worse than atheists since religion may have had little or no influence on the decisions they made in life. 
If someone asked me my nationality I would say french. My last name is french, my grandparents were french but thats where it ends. I don't speak the language nor do I partake in French culture yet I would still identify myself as French. A religion survey would be affected just the same. 


Cheers
MacGuiver


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Macfury said:


> Jason: It was an attempt at humour. I was trying to say that it's easier to identify a member of an organized group, rather than an unorganized one and that newspapers are more likely to identify criminals based on some handle they can grab. While it might not appear in the headline, the article about some depraved killer will usually quote someone as saying "He was a churchgoer...I can hardly believe it." But you never get: "Well, that atheist never went to church--I would have predicted this."
> 
> But that small disparity between people with no religious affiliation and their representation in prison populations? It's because those atheistic creeps have no conscience. They never turn themselves in, set up other gang members to take the fall when possible and they can tell falsehoods in court without setting off lie detectors. They're a bad lot all right--and they're better equipped to get away with it. Most unsolved crimes are committed by atheists.
> 
> ...


lol... got it!


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

MacGuiver said:


> Jason the problem with your numbers is this. Its true that 80% of those inmates may identify themselves with a religion, but I'd argue a high percentage of them really have no religion at all. Lots of people today claim to be catholic or protestant yet they've never stepped foot in a church. They have absolutely no knowledge of their religion nor do they practice it. When polled on issues of faith they fall inline with secular society and are at odds with the religion they profess. But yeah mom and dad or granny were Catholic, Lutheran, United etc. so they carry the label with them but not the faith. So you really can't point a finger and say religion made these people worse than atheists since religion may have had little or no influence on the decisions they made in life.
> If someone asked me my nationality I would say french. My last name is french, my grandparents were french but thats where it ends. I don't speak the language nor do I partake in French culture yet I would still identify myself as French. A religion survey would be affected just the same.


I see no reason to expect the results would be skewed in Prison but not in the Census. You're right, a lot of people identify themselves with a religion they do not practise, but that doesn't affect the numbers, comparatively, because it's the same question asked of prisoners and the population.

Also, the point wasn't that religion drives people to crime. The point was that atheism is not linked to immorality as so many people believe. I hear questions all the time on my podcasts such as "If there was no God, what's to stop me from beating my wife?". If these people need threat of eternal damnation to stop them from committing horrendous crimes, then I'm all for keeping them in church, but they sure have a twisted idea of what it's like to be an atheist.

People who think morality comes from God are even more annoying, because it's just wrong. How many of the commandments are actually in law? 2? We think the bible is good because we only read the good stuff, but there's plenty of endorsement of what we now consider immoral acts.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

jasonwood said:


> We think the bible is good because we only read the good stuff, but there's plenty of endorsement of what we now consider immoral acts.


Just curious: how many of these immoral acts are specifically endorsed and how much of the "endorsement" is in the minds of people who choose to interpret the verses to support what they wanted to do in the first place?


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

There is endorsement and instruction for the Israeli armies to cut open the bellies of pregnant women, and to dash enemy infants on the rocks. On the face of it, it is an endorsement of what we now consider cruel. However, we don't truly know the level of acceptable military violence against civilians during the time--only that it was much worse for civilians. It may have been de rigeur.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ComputerIdiot said:


> Just curious: how many of these immoral acts are specifically endorsed and how much of the "endorsement" is in the minds of people who choose to interpret the verses to support what they wanted to do in the first place?


There are hundreds of places in the Bible where you are given very specific instructions on how to deal with various "acts" (many of which are now considered acceptable), including by stoning, killing, and burning. In these cases, I find it hard to believe the arguments against literal interpretation. It's quite clear that a literal interpretation was intended.

Then there are the massacres committed by God himself. If that's not an endorsement, I don't know what is.

Here's a good place to start:
http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/long.html

I was reading about slavery in the Bible recently ( http://www.whywontgodhealamputees.com/god13.htm ), specifically about the instructions given on how to "mark" a slave, "he shall bring him to the door or the doorpost; and his master shall bore his ear through with an awl; and he shall serve him for life." The Christian responses I found on the web are thoroughly unimpressive. They argue that this is only after the slave is given the chance to go free, but I say it wasn't much of a choice given that if the slave chose to go free, he would be forced to leave his family behind!

When you have wording like this: "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property," how do you argue for a symbolic meaning???? It's very specific and it's clear that a literal interpretation was intended.

There are hundreds of examples like this.


----------



## ComputerIdiot (Jan 8, 2004)

Macfury: Nice. Unfortunately that was probably standard operating procedure in warfare -- still often is, Geneva Convention and so on notwithstanding.

Jasonwood: Reread my post, will you? I wasn't "arguing" for or against anything; I was merely asking, as I thought I made clear by my preface "Just curious." My knowledge of the Bible is minimal at best, through no fault of several years of RC schools, where each day was started with a Bible reading -- which is where I learned to catnap with my eyes open. 

I will, however, be happy to argue that the "slaughters by God" were more likely natural catastrophes which were interpreted by the true believers as being God's handiwork.


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

I'm an athiest.

I think I relate religion to spending a few hours attending church, not necessarily reading the bible word for word.
I attended Anglican church every Sunday till the age of 11, and never became devoutly attached to attending. My mother on the other hand, became heavily involved with the church, and infact, became an ordained minister when I was 16. She never pressured me to attend church, she welcomed a good debate with Jehovah's Witnesses on a weekend (actually convincing a few of them to change religion), but aside from a quick prayer at dinner, biblical cards on my birthday or quick 'God bless' on the phone, leaves me to make my own views on things.

I just don't like attending Anglican/Catholic churches. Services are dull, attendees are old, quirky, or looking for some way to gain forgiveness for their judgemental views, or ongoing bad acts behind their religious veil. Religion is still no excuse for poor manners, or poor morals. At least thats what 20 years of pot luck suppers, services, parishoners phone calls and visits at the house, and late afternoons counting collection plates have taught me anyway...

I still haven't seen 'a miracle'. Just so many times I've heard the phrase that 'god has a plan, and works in odd ways'.

I dunno... I thank my mother for what I believe has made me less accepting of religion, and more accepting of the world at large. Science, Darwin and The Beatles explain plenty enough to me.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

ComputerIdiot said:


> Jasonwood: Reread my post, will you? I wasn't "arguing" for or against anything; I was merely asking, as I thought I made clear by my preface "Just curious." My knowledge of the Bible is minimal at best, through no fault of several years of RC schools, where each day was started with a Bible reading -- which is where I learned to catnap with my eyes open.


Sorry, I thought you were implying that the people today who commit horrible acts in the name of religion, are perverting what the religion actually says. There is little evidence of this. Homosexuality is a good example. The bible makes it quite clear what you do to these people (you kill them). If anything, those who go around saying homosexuality is wrong are taking a moderate view.



ComputerIdiot said:


> I will, however, be happy to argue that the "slaughters by God" were more likely natural catastrophes which were interpreted by the true believers as being God's handiwork.


Sure, but then you admit that the bible is the work of men who were trying to explain a world they didn't understand. If you believe the bible is the word of God, you can't make such arguments.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

I've been staying out of this thread, since I don't have time to read everything, and I thought it was about atheism. Interesting stuff, Jason. The little of it I read is certainly accurate. Are you aware, however, that there are many significantly sized Christian bodies that don't take the Bible to be literally true in ever detail? The Bible "says" many things, often contradicting itself. I would quarrely slightly with you thesis that there is only one thing being said. In any event, I, and many others, would point out that the Scriptures were usually understood to be evolving and changing documents, and that while our ancestors suddenly decreed otherwise in 325, that doesn't mean they were right .

Edit - I really don't belong in this thread, and I'm inclined to delete my post. Can we simply say that if anyone is interested in persuing this, we could start another thread?


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

You are hereby excommunicated.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

RevMatt said:


> ...there are many significantly sized Christian bodies that don't take the Bible to be literally true in ever detail? The Bible "says" many things, often contradicting itself. I would quarrely slightly with you thesis that there is only one thing being said. In any event, I, and many others, would point out that the Scriptures were usually understood to be evolving and changing documents, and that while our ancestors suddenly decreed otherwise in 325, that doesn't mean they were right .
> 
> Edit - I really don't belong in this thread, and I'm inclined to delete my post. Can we simply say that if anyone is interested in persuing this, we could start another thread?


This threat has "evolved" quote a bit, but if someone wants to create a new thread for this topic in particular, I won't argue.

We are lucky that the bible is self-contradictory in so many ways. That is what allowed us to moderate it, which is what enables us to live in a society that is civil. Unfortunately, other religions whose "books" are much more coherent are not so lucky, and people are still being put to death for heresy and a multitude of other "crimes" around the world.

That said, I have mixed feelings about moderate Christianity. On one hand, I'm glad they're not fundamentalists, but on the other hand, it doesn't seem to make any sense. I mean, how can you claim the bible has authority when you only believe the parts you choose to believe? Why bother with the whole thing to begin with?

I'd be totally okay with people calling themselves Christians, and going to church because they enjoy the mythology. But these are the same people who send their children to Sunday school (because they are so deluded with the idea that religion is "good"), where they are taught that they will burn for eternity if they don't have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ. That's scary stuff when you're a kid, so you shouldn't be surprised when some kids really believe it and become influential people like Pat Robertson and Fred Phelps.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> This threat has "evolved" quote a bit


The threat of atheism?


----------



## jicon (Jan 12, 2005)

Beej said:


> The threat of atheism?


Zing!


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> The threat of atheism?


Appears that way to some apparently....Im sure flat earthers had similar intimations of the mortality of a meme held dear and Galileo seemed to have touched similar nerves in ranks papal. .


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

It probably would be good to start another thread, but I do agree with RevMatt that not every Christian takes the Bible as a literal and thoroughly coherent book. Ecclesiastes takes a decidely pessimistic worldview that's inconsistent with the views of other Biblical writers--but it's there anyway. And I don't doubt the compilers of the embryonic Bible (pe-King James) understood the disparity in views.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Council_of_Nicaea

Neat stuff.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Yeah reminds me of this neat stuff too.

http://ancienthistory.about.com/cs/hippocrates/a/hippocraticmeds.htm

Humorous, irrelevant.


----------



## JCCanuck (Apr 17, 2005)

It seems the general consent in this topic of religion that not all Christians take the bible literally. I do not go with that belief. To be what I call a true Christian you must have a firm belief in the bible and its words literally. I have very many Christian friends and I would say 99% of them take the bible seriously, with very little variation. All of them believe in Adam and Eve right up to the second coming of Christ. 
People like Pat Robertson I find very scary as a political "Christian".


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

JCCanuck said:


> It seems the general consent in this topic of religion that not all Christians take the bible literally. I do not go with that belief. To be what I call a true Christian you must have a firm belief in the bible and its words literally. I have very many Christian friends and I would say 99% of them take the bible seriously, with very little variation. All of them believe in Adam and Eve right up to the second coming of Christ.
> People like Pat Robertson I find very scary as a political "Christian".


I agree. A non-literal interpretation of the bible is good for society, but it's not intellectually honest. It's really hard to justify a non-literal interpretation unless you regard it all as myth and simply enjoy the mythology.

When you start picking and choosing what you believe (eg: Jesus is the son of God, but you won't burn for eternity if you don't believe in him), it gets really hard to justify your position.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Canuck: Taking the Bible literally, though, is extremely difficult, because you have to know the intention behind each statement to do so. It's not a technical manual, and it's hard to be 100% sure we know what the Bible is saying 100% of the time to take it literally.

On the other hand, it's an antirely different statement to say that the Bible is 100% valid. Or that you believe everything that's in it, is there because God wants it there.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

The Bible is a tome of ancient wisdom, story-telling and social design. Like all ancient knowledge, sometimes it's very wrong for today's world and other times it gets at basic observations that still apply. BYOB - bring your own brain.

Fables and mythology, even those with historical basis, can be helpful to think about, especially if they have been passed along for so long. That doesn't mean you should bet on the tortise.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

Test your knowledge of the bible:

http://www.ffrf.org/quiz/bquiz.php

I got a "passing grade".


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

They've figured us out!

From a Catholic school teacher in Ontario:



> ...why are some people atheists? Because they have not yet learned to say "please" and "thank-you".


http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/education/ed0100.html


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Thanks for that Jason.
Please, next time, not so much sarcasm....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I didn't know where to put this, but I did find it to be a worthwhile read, so I'm putting it here because of the second last paragraph. Either way, observations on politics from, love him or hate, someone who has seen it from the inside.

http://www.warrenkinsella.com/musings.htm

.......
What's my point? My point is that the rhetoric about the separation of church and state is overblown. Precisely the same kinds of people fill the church pews and the leather-lined legislature seats, with the only difference being that the latter get more ink than the former. But both exhibit symptoms of the same virus, which is rank, stomach-churning hypocrisy. 
........


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

The so-called separation of church and state is largely an effort to prevent a government from establishing a state religion, a la the Church of England. The terms has largely lost its meaning.


----------



## BerlinerCa (Nov 22, 2005)

*The Atheist's Nightmare...*

Here it is-undiputable proof that God exists.

http://www.devilducky.com/media/44860/

Matthew 8,25. 'And he saith unto them, why are ye fearful, O ye of little faith? 

And no BJ jokes allowed....


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Great link....made me laugh :clap:

In the "some people will believe anything" vein - another from the same site.

http://www.devilducky.com/media/44894/

••

Scary part is you often can't tell the parody religious sites from the serious ones


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Hoo-boy. I was enjoying it because I thought it was a spoof created by a Christian organization. Then I found out...it was not...a spoof..


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> In the "some people will believe anything" vein


See numerous ehmac threads.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

You'd almost think that little film was an oblique sort of support for evolution...


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

jasonwood said:


> Sorry, I thought you were implying that the people today who commit horrible acts in the name of religion, are perverting what the religion actually says. There is little evidence of this. Homosexuality is a good example. The bible makes it quite clear what you do to these people (you kill them). If anything, those who go around saying homosexuality is wrong are taking a moderate view.
> 
> .



Just wondering if you had a verse & chapter that supports this statement...


----------



## Jeremy Banks (Nov 13, 2006)

I was raised sorta-Christian, sorta-Agnostic, and as I've actually grown to think about it, it just seemed to me beliving in something without any supporting evidence wasn't something I could do. However, I also don't feel that science properly explains everything either. I belive science is true, but that it's not all that is true.


----------



## William (Jan 5, 2004)

The following reasoning will not appeal to everyone. In my view, however, it goes to the root of the matter. 

The world in which we live and of which we are part is the only measure of the meaning that “reality” and “world” may be reasonably and veridically given; it is the only standard of what “reality” means, because it is the only source of our concept of "reality."

Concepts such as “immaterial being,” “transcendent reality,” “another world,” and the like, are literally meaningless. They are empty of meaning, since they designate nothing that we have observed anywhere at any time. To force them to mean anything it is necessary to invent such meaning. And such invention is achieved within our minds by the simple expedient of asserting the contradictory of the reality we do encounter in the world. And so, believers believe in a world-that-is-not-the-world; a reality-that-does-not-mean-what-“reality”-means; a reality-that-is-the-opposite-of-“reality;” a world-that-is-real-but-is-not-the-real-world.

William


----------



## kevs~just kevs (Mar 21, 2005)

William said:


> a reality-that-does-not-mean-what-“reality”-means; a reality-that-is-the-opposite-of-“reality;” a world-that-is-real-but-is-not-the-real-world.
> 
> William



But it's this "reality that isn't real" that keeps most people going in this truly messed up world we live in. If what we see now in the world really is all that we have to look forward to then what is the point? To live 70-80 yrs and die? That really stinks...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

kevs~just kevs said:


> But it's this "reality that isn't real" that keeps most people going in this truly messed up world we live in.


All the more reason to fix it, rather than hoping some magical sky-daddy will show up some day and set everything right.



> If what we see now in the world really is all that we have to look forward to then what is the point? To live 70-80 yrs and die? That really stinks...


Firstly, what makes you think there _is_ a point? Just because you want something to be true doesn't mean that it is.

Secondly, I'd rather exist and have a chance to learn about the universe, have relationships, create new knowledge, improve the lives of others, and otherwise create my own meaning, than not exist at all. However, I will grant you that some lives are probably so full of pain and hopelessness that their non-existence would've been preferable, which is why under some circumstances, abortion can be the lesser of two evils, and under some circumstances, euthanasia can be ethically justified.

cheers


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

*This thread reminds me of a great cartoon*

Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of (or a URL for) the cartoon, so I'll have to describe it (which is obviously not as funny).

In the first panel, it's a scene from the primordial soup, with primitive unicellular organisms floating about. All the little cells have thought balloons saying "Eat. Survive. Reproduce."

In the second panel, it's a scene from the Cambrian oceans, with all sorts of primitive plants and animals, each with a thought balloon saying "Eat. Survive. Reproduce."

The third panel is a jungle scene, with birds, monkeys, prowling preadators, flowers, insects etc., all with thought balloons saying "Eat. Survive. Reproduce."

The final panel is a scene from a university campus, with students scurrying between classes carrying books, and one student, with a philosophy textbook under his arm, has a thought balloon saying "What's it all about?"

:lmao: 

cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> I also don't feel that science properly explains everything either


Neither does any honest scientist which is why gravity, flight and evolution to name but a few remain "theories".
Works in progress which is the "observation, thesis, antithesis" pattern of science which is forever ongoing.

Some things we know enough to make good use of......I'll take the engineer over the witch doctor in elevator design thankyou.

••

The "is that all there is" - the existentialist valley of despair.
One answer is suicide.....my answer and others have found it as well ......."it is what I make of it".....the ultimate freedom to create the world you want.

My observational answer to you........what MAGNIFICENT universe it is....regardless of human malfeasance it is a world and universe of wonders..including between your ears and between people.
Look in a child's or lover's eyes......or sunset or through the lens of one the most wondrous machines of science










.....if that's not enough....you have my sympathy if not my understanding,


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Bryanc - one variation - seems there may be a number out there


----------



## martman (May 5, 2005)

I was raised an Atheist / Unitarian-Universalist. Lots of us around Southern Ontario.


----------



## jasonwood (Oct 19, 2003)

kevs~just kevs said:


> But it's this "reality that isn't real" that keeps most people going in this truly messed up world we live in. If what we see now in the world really is all that we have to look forward to then what is the point? To live 70-80 yrs and die? That really stinks...


Why must there be a prescribed reason for existance. Can we not give meaning to our own existance?

I cannot agree that it (religion) really keeps most people going. In many cases, I think it actively prevents them from using their time here on earth wisely. Many people are so pre-occupied with the next life, that they completely waste this one.

I believe that if people really knew that this was their only life, they would make a real effort to make a positive contribution right here and now.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

> Can we not give meaning to our own existance?


 :clap:

Exactly.
For some reason some people do not feel up to that and want a "recipe".
"Freedom 55" for your life.
Part is genetic, part tribal and part early misconceptions - planted as dogma or as "protection".
Then you grow up and find it's all not revolving around you and your prince or princess crown is a bit of tinfoil.

Some get by that, others seem to wait for round two in the next life and glome on to whatever soothes their angst best.

It is what we as individuals make of it........and what outlook we bring.

A glorious sunset to a sour person is just a pollution indicator.

To others is can mean a wide range of things form a remembered romance to good weather ahead to just plain appreciation of natures beauty.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> A glorious sunset to a sour person is just a pollution indicator.
> 
> To others is can mean a wide range of things form a remembered romance to good weather ahead to just plain appreciation of natures beauty.


There were glorious sunsets long before there was pollution, and you likely can't blame global warming for them either. Now what?


----------

