Religion thread #58,934

[Torvald Von Mansee]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

EDIT: oops...teapont = teapot

dammit...could a mod change it?

[Betonov]

The reason organized religion merits outright hostility is that, unlike belief in Russell's teapot, religion is powerful, influential, tax-exempt and systematically passed on to children too young to defend themselves. Children are not compelled to spend their formative years memorizing loony books about teapots. Government-subsidized schools don't exclude children whose parents prefer the wrong shape of teapot. Teapot-believers don't stone teapot-unbelievers, teapot-apostates, teapot-heretics and teapot-blasphemers to death. Mothers don't warn their sons off marrying teapot-shiksas whose parents believe in three teapots rather than one. People who put the milk in first don't kneecap those who put the tea in first.

Good ol' Dawkins :DL

Now, the thread, what's it about, throw me a bone :hmmm:

(considering you have more than 1000 posts, I asume you're not a troll)

[August]

(considering you have more than 1000 posts, I asume you're not a troll)

Boy do you assume wrong! :DL

[Betonov]

Boy do you assume wrong! :DL

Errare humanum est :03:

Interesting link though

[frau kaleun]

Errare humanum est

http://t3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ05bTgSheZXy9SEtnvERKQRWKim0jGl BS7tFPmkSwltIKuhGd5ZA&t=1

[GoldenRivet]

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Russell%27s_Teapot

EDIT: oops...teapont = teapot

dammit...could a mod change it?

Prepare to be enlightened by the grace of a Christian man.

Click "Edit"

Click "Go Advanced"

Edit the title of the thread.

Click "Save"

Go forth and serve the lord. :up:

now my rebuttal

1. few people speak so frequently about God as Atheists do

2. What difference to the Atheist is it what other people believe?

3. Is any religion that is built around teaching a set of honorable core values all that bad no matter what it uses as examples of good human behavior?

[krashkart]

Go forth and serve the lord. :up:

I'll have my lord served medium rare, with a side of navy beans and cornbread. :D

[MH]

Heretics!!!
Behold coffee machine.


http://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ2HmtL4P3tPUouodba7DhIJmja0sC5x 6W6LIjmo6JkMddphHoJhA

[razark]

1. few people speak so frequently about God as Atheists do
Depends on which ones you're talking to on both sides of the fence.

2. What difference to the Atheist is it what other people believe?
It makes a difference when religious people use thier position to influence others. Look at Iran or Saudi Arabia or Northern Ireland.

Or Texas. According to the state constitution, a person cannot be elected Governor if that person is an atheist.

3. Is any religion that is built around teaching a set of honorable core values all that bad no matter what it uses as examples of good human behavior?
It depends on what one considers "honorable core values", and which particular values are taught and ignored.

[Sailor Steve]

GR's first two statements were adequately answered by Razark. Not being an atheist I try to contain my disagreements to arguments that are obviously fallacious, but the third one I think requires elaboration.

3. Is any religion that is built around teaching a set of honorable core values all that bad no matter what it uses as examples of good human behavior?
How many religions are actually built around a set of core values? The argument comes when said religions insist not on the values, but on absolute devotion to that which cannot be seen or proven.

[DarkFish]

I'll have the lord well done please, the raw version makes me puke.
1. few people speak so frequently about God as Atheists dodo they? my experience is that religious people are the ones that tend to force their ideas upon others.

2. What difference to the Atheist is it what other people believe?nothing. so why should it matter to christians what other people adhere to?

3. Is any religion that is built around teaching a set of honorable core values all that bad no matter what it uses as examples of good human behavior?those "core values" are the exact same values teached in atheism. The problem is all the religious crap that's teached (or rather, brainwashed) along with it.

[razark]

those "core values" are the exact same values teached in atheism.
Atheism does not have any "values", nor does it "teach" anything. Atheism is not a definition of a belief system or a set of beliefs or an outlook on life, the universe, and everything. Atheism is simply a statement on one single point of belief, namely whether or not any god or gods exist. It says nothing on any other belief or position.

I've seen atheists with all sorts of different values. I've seen liberal ones, conservative ones, ones that just don't care. Some have their own values, some have very traditional values that match very closely to what many theists hold.

[Ducimus]

Now, the thread, what's it about, throw me a bone :hmmm:


My guess is devote christian read something he didn't like, and this thread is his kneejerk reaction. The typo's, combined with the choice of words in the post title leads me to think he was upset, and mashed the post out in a hurry, which would support my theory that this thread was started as an emotional kneejerk reaction to something he read but didn't like.

Glossing down a few posts... and....

/facepalm

Christan's vs atheists boxing match, round 934,345,888, give or take a few thousand rounds of this BS being plastered on internet forums for freaking years. I used to get into these, but nowadays i fallback on the shoes's metaphore and leave it at that.

[MH]

those "core values" are the exact same values teached in atheism. The problem is all the religious crap that's teached (or rather, brainwashed) along with it.

Atheism has loads of crap extensions of core values as well the only good thing is that you are more open to choose your views.
Fact is you still can be indoctrinated by atheist education.

[Ducimus]

Obligatory collage of BS, to go along with the BS:
http://www.funnyforumpics.com/forums/this-thread-sucks/10/Thread-Crap-Religion.jpg

http://i7.photobucket.com/albums/y282/funkyninja/yayz.png

edit:
decided to scale back a little and just stick with the point i was trying to convey, sans my own personal punch's.

[MH]

I have the short version

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kv5315LiJC1qztelio1_500.jpg

[Ducimus]

I have the short version

http://29.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kv5315LiJC1qztelio1_500.jpg

So true.

[TLAM Strike]

My argument against organized religion is as follows...

Point a telescope at:
RA 2h 29m 06.7s
Dec: 0.158339 ± 0.000067

See that little blue star thingy?
That is a Galaxy like ours as old as the universe itself traveling at near the speed of light, how could something so awesome not be in that big book of creation of yours?

[August]

I'll have the lord well done please, the raw version makes me puke.

This is a prime example why I have little use for most atheists that i have encountered. They take every opportunity to spew their anti-religious invective hatred. It only poisons civilized discourse and promotes intolerance and division as much or more than any radical religious sect.

[GoldenRivet]

I think the problem is - across the board - religious, athiest, non denominational, liberal, democrat, conservative, republican, muslim, jew, black, white etc etc.... they all worry too damned much about the other guy's business.

[Castout]

This is a prime example why I have little use for most atheists that i have encountered. They take every opportunity to spew their anti-religious invective hatred. It only poisons civilized discourse and promotes intolerance and division as much or more than any radical religious sect.

Atheism is a belief and it's a religion.

But unfortunately a belief which can never be substantiated. . . . . .

If anyone wants to be an atheist could you please be an intelligent, rational and open minded one? Life is after all, about discovery. Most atheists unfortunately are full of hatred, rude, lacking empathy, even sometimes cruel, and intolerable of anything that's against their core belief. They view religions as a threat.

I don't view atheism as a threat. I'd befriend nice, good people whether they are atheists or otherwise.

Every time I testify : "I saw God when I was a kid". Many atheists had as if their beard was on fire. To them the statement is a threat to their belief. So in defense they would reply with insults, ridicule and name calling in return. Now if I preached God that I know merely from a book or from a friend's story then by all means just ignore it but if I TESTIFY by my own experience they should search, research and ask questions about the testimony to weigh it. But always because they are so frighten by the statement they will throw insults instead. This proved atheism is merely another belief. One which is embraced by many fanatic.

Don't get angry by this if you're a rational, intelligent, open minded, good hearted and good natured atheist. COMMON SENSE should be present in both believers and atheists. In it inquisitive, open minded mind, unafraid of possibilities, honest and open to the things he has been exposed too. Reserving judgment when aqppropriate and not jumping into conclusion simply out of fear and anger.

[GoldenRivet]

Most atheists unfortunately are full of hatred, rude, lacking empathy, even sometimes cruel, and intolerable of anything that's against their core belief. They view religions as a threat.


Thats because a fair number of them probably became atheists because they felt they got a raw deal at some point in life... and becoming atheists is just their way of rebelling against God.;)

and no you dont have to be a christian to be the governor of Texas, nor do you have to believe in the "Christian God" - you must however believe in the existence of a "supreme being"... many organizations that potentially place people in leadership positions have this requirement.

The Masonic Lodge for example.

personally, i dont go to church but perhaps once or twice a year, its just not my cup of tea... but i have weighed the evidence throughout my life, and i have struggled with the question as to whether or not some supreme creator exists.

based on my own experiences, i have seen and experienced more things that point to the existence of a creator vs. things that dont.

now - thats my opinion - im entitled to that in the least.

but because i have that opinion, some Atheist will waste metric tons of oxygen screaming in my face trying to convert me to believe otherwise.

kinda funny

[Ducimus]

The problem, the real core of the problem, is this weird thing about people. If they're a fan of something, they want to share their fandom. Or if their into something, then its the best thing to be into, because their into it.

Atheism vindictivness I think is borne from religious ramrodding. The problem is, they're not punching back at an equivalent level of the original punch, so to speak. So they end up being louder then the ------- who got them pissed off to begin with.

In the end, when it comes to religion, no matter what ones stance is on it, I think this is the best thought to adapt:

Whatever your stance is on religion, its a lot like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask anyone to wear your shoes.

edit: If people would just keep their ---- to themselves, the world would be a much nicer place.

[Castout]

Thats because a fair number of them probably became atheists because they felt they got a raw deal at some point in life... and becoming atheists is just their way of rebelling against God.;)

and no you dont have to be a christian to be the governor of Texas, nor do you have to believe in the "Christian God" - you must however believe in the existence of a "supreme being"... many organizations that potentially place people in leadership positions have this requirement.

The Masonic Lodge for example.

personally, i dont go to church but perhaps once or twice a year, its just not my cup of tea... but i have weighed the evidence throughout my life, and i have struggled with the question as to whether or not some supreme creator exists.

based on my own experiences, i have seen and experienced more things that point to the existence of a creator vs. things that dont.

now - thats my opinion - im entitled to that in the least.

but because i have that opinion, some Atheist will waste metric tons of oxygen screaming in my face trying to convert me to believe otherwise.

kinda funny

:DL

Indeed everyone is entitled to his OWN DISCOVERY, in his own time, through his own experience, to the best of his ability to know and understand, based on universal COMMON SENSE and HONESTY and an OPEN inquisitive MIND.

It's not enough to believe
Your belief must take you to KNOWLEDGE and WITNESSING. Otherwise it is a VAIN belief WHATEVER THAT BELIEF IS. The journey is a whole lifetime of discovery and growth and enrichment. Within and otherwise.

[GoldenRivet]

@ Castout.... when God and the spiritual world and ghosts and the like are up for discussion i like to think of the following quote:

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

its true.

there are a lot of people who say there is no big foot or Sasquatch too... such people are closed off to the idea that man doesnt know everything.

[razark]

and no you dont have to be a christian to be the governor of Texas, nor do you have to believe in the "Christian God" - you must however believe in the existence of a "supreme being"... many organizations that potentially place people in leadership positions have this requirement.
I never claimed it required a Christian, only a theist.
Article I, Section 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as
a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.I'd say the context and capitalization makes it clear it's referring to a "Supreme Being" being a god, as opposed to a human.

[Sailor Steve]

Side-trip: I see that once again people are posting pictures of words they can't actually use on the forum. Getting around the rules is cute, but they are there and should be enforced.

[GoldenRivet]

Uhhhh

it says No religious test shall ever be required to hold office.

so where do you get that a person has to be a "theist"?

were not the Pharaohs supreme beings in their own right?

edit:

besides: i think supreme being literally means "some existence greater than one's self"

[razark]

it says No religious test shall ever be required to hold office.

so where do you get that a person has to be a "theist"?
Not exactly. It says "no religious test except this one".

were not the Pharaohs supreme beings in their own right?

edit:

besides: i think supreme being literally means "some existence greater than one's self"
I don't believe the pharaohs were. I believe they were simply standard humans. As I said, the context makes it clear that it means a religious "Supreme Being". You asked the question of why it would matter to an atheist what anyone else believed, I was simply pointing out an example.

Anyway, my view on religion is that a person is free to believe whatever they believe and to worship however they feel is right, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of someone else.

[GoldenRivet]

I don't believe the pharaohs were.

There used to be a whole race of people who might disagree :D

Anyway, my view on religion is that a person is free to believe whatever they believe and to worship however they feel is right, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of someone else.

mine as well

[razark]

mine as well
Well look at that. An atheist and a theist can come to a peaceful agreement about something. :DL

[Sailor Steve]

Why should acknowledging the existence of a supreme being, capitalized or not, be a requirement for public office? No atheist can hold public office? Sounds like a religious test to me.

[Castout]

@ Castout.... when God and the spiritual world and ghosts and the like are up for discussion i like to think of the following quote:

"There are more things in heaven and earth than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

its true.

there are a lot of people who say there is no big foot or Sasquatch too... such people are closed off to the idea that man doesnt know everything.

Umm that feels like a sarcasm to me but.

I wouldn't know about the quote truthfulness so it's meaningless to me. And I wasn't talking philosophy. What I wrote was practical.

Too many religious people are without common sense in their faith.
Too many atheists are without common sense either in their belief.

[Morts]

Atheism is a belief and it's a religion.
Nope, its a lack of

[Castout]

There used to be a whole race of people who might disagree :D



There are many claims in this world. Discovering which is true and which is false is what gives meaning in this life.

If one is in doubt one should only admit he doesn't know. If one chooses to believe he should turn his belief into knowing and knowledge of its truthfulness.

It's better to be a hardcore skeptic than a doubtful believer. Because the skeptic has his reasons not to believe while the doubtful believer has none to believe what he claims to believe.

That reason, that knowing, that revelation, however small MUST be there in every believer. The absence of which will turn them into a secular and an apostate or a radical/fanatic/extremist with time.

[Castout]

Nope, its a lack of


Atheism is the belief of the lack of God. It's a religion without ritual. Its core values is the belief that there is no God.

It is a belief that cannot be substantiated.

And will crumble to a man when the existence of God is known to that man on personal level.

Don't be angry, I'm just trying to bring a realization. I can tolerate atheism. In my honest opinion I know they are wrong but I can't possibly tell them otherwise and in my view it is their right to believe that there is no God. I do not believe there is God, I know there is God. I know some of God's characteristic from personal experience but aside from that I have little knowledge and understanding of God BUT I DO KNOW that God exists. I know the atheists haven't made the realization and it is their own right to hold on to their atheism. They cannot and will not even believe the testimony of people like me. So let them discover God themselves in their own time whatever their result be. I respect their belief but I demand atheists to respect other people belief. More because I know the truth in my belief. It is no longer a belief but the truth to me. I do not claim special anything with regard to God but I am here today still putting my faith in Lord God after the severe persecution I've gone through from some cruel unwise people because He is a living God.

My beliefs are no threat to any atheists and atheism is not a threat to me and my belief. So please do not hate believers as I do not hate atheists. More because I know the truth but with that truth I realize so few have made the realization of the truth, even among self proclaimed believers and clergymen and pastors. I may not know a lot but what I do know I know is true. I do not hate anybody's belief or the lack of belief. Aren't we all the same mankind after all? Born naked and to die without bringing anything?

[Betonov]

Atheism is a personal relation with reason. If you're a reasonable person for starters :03:

But then again, a reasonable theist is as reasonable as a reasonable atheist. It's the person that matters, not their belief or non-belief. Some atheists can be the same bigots and idiots than the most fundamental christians.

[GoldenRivet]

Castout

No sarcasm, just the point that there is more to the world than we will ever really know.

[AngusJS]

Atheism is a belief and it's a religion.For the billionth time: no, it isn't. Is having no belief in leprechauns a religion? How about unicorns? How about a lack of belief in a celestial teapot?

So you're saying that people who were not indoctrinated in a religion when they were young, and thus have no belief in any god, are actually religious?

If atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby, baldness is a hair style, and health is a disease. Saying it is one makes no sense. So why do you keep doing so?

Now if I preached God that I know merely from a book or from a friend's story then by all means just ignore it but if I TESTIFY by my own experience they should search, research and ask questions about the testimony to weigh it.The problem with testimony is that a lot of people testify to a lot of things. If you're going to make the extraordinary claim that you saw god (or were abducted by aliens, or that you channel beings from another dimension, etc.) then you'll have to give the extraordinary evidence to show that what you say is true.

But always because they are so frighten by the statement they will throw insults instead. This proved atheism is merely another belief.No, that doesn't prove anything of the sort.

1. few people speak so frequently about God as Atheists doIf the lunatics are running the asylum, then doesn't that warrant discussion?

it says No religious test shall ever be required to hold office.

so where do you get that a person has to be a "theist"?the·ism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theism) [thee-iz-uhhttp://sp.dictionary.com/dictstatic/dictionary/graphics/luna/thinsp.pngm]
---8211;noun 1. the belief in one god (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/god) as the (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/the) creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation ( distinguished from deism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/deism)).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods ( opposed to atheism (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheism)).It pretty obviously follows that one must be a theist to be governor (though if you use the more technical definition, then I suppose deists would be ok too - but then that would discriminate against polytheists, etc.).

Apparently, it never crossed their minds that atheists might want to participate in government.

So is this requirement just in your opinion?

[razark]

Atheism is the belief of the lack of God.
Close. Atheism is the lack of belief of gods.

Its core values is the belief that there is no God.
There is a difference in believing there is no God, and not believing there is a God. An atheist may hold either position.

Personally, I have had several claims to the existence of God presented to me. I have not found any that meet the burden of proof needed for me to believe them. However, I remain open to the possibility that there may be a god or gods out there, and I simply have no knowledge or evidence for it.

[Pisces]

...
Anyway, my view on religion is that a person is free to believe whatever they believe and to worship however they feel is right, so long as they do not infringe upon the rights of someone else.Amen!

A teapot I don't know, but I do believe there is a toolbag up there somewhere. ;)

[jumpy]

Belief or faith is all well and good, but the problem lies when other people presume to try and correct you in your own belief or faith.

If I had faith, I'd be inclined to continue with the message of peace and love and being decent to your fellow man, you don't need the apparatus of church or dogmatic clergy for that. God is in your head/heart not in church or books or proselytising.

However I do not believe in god, of the desert or otherwise. To me, god is a construct of a human need to understand and belong. If I had to choose a religion, it would probably be that practised by the ancient greeks; their gods were capricious and malevolent and merry and joyful, much like the people who created them. At least they appear to be honest with their intentions as deities.

Each to their own, so long as they keep it that way.

[Betonov]

A teapot I don't know, but I do believe there is a toolbag up there somewhere. ;)

There was a wee accident in our garage last year involving a flame welder, so I can say that your toolbag in the sky has been proven correct :DL

[TLAM Strike]

Amen!

A teapot I don't know, but I do believe there is a toolbag up there somewhere. ;)

At least that has some proof the back it up... (http://www.space.com/6160-backyard-skywatchers-find-tool-bag-lost-space.html)

[MH]

Castout

No sarcasm, just the point that there is more to the world than we will ever really know.

World is mysterious place and would be even more so if some people did not doubt it.
World is mysterious place so lets just stay in our huts and pray.
If any one says other ways just BEEP over it.

I have no problem in believing in GOD the problem is just the stuff people invent for themselves that comes with it.
Simply to keep themselves focus on the thing.

[August]

For the billionth time: no, it isn't. Is having no belief in leprechauns a religion? How about unicorns? How about a lack of belief in a celestial teapot?

Maybe it isn't a religion per se but it is just as intolerant as the worst of them. Ever see anyone here say that leprechauns make them puke? How about unicorns or even your celestial teapot?

[MH]

The main difference between religion and atheism is that religion dismisses certain facts about life by its ideology while in atheism its by choice.
Well...the choices may vary from country to country but i'm talking about ideal situations for both.

[TLAM Strike]

The main difference between religion and atheism is that religion dismisses certain facts about life by its ideology while in atheism its by choice.
Well...the choices may vary from country to country but i'm talking about ideal situations for both. People choose to believe in an ideology that dismisses facts while Atheism is the dismissal of items that lack proof.

[August]

People choose to believe in an ideology that dismisses facts while Atheism is the dismissal of items that lack proof.

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.

[Skybird]

It's not fair that you guys start playing without me! :stare:

On the matter, this thread's topic is religion, and I'm against it. :down:

Any questions?

[MH]

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.

Why should an atheist hate you for simple belief in supreme being?
Don't think so.....

[MH]

[QUOTE=Skybird;1663107]
On the matter, this thread's topic is religion, and I'm against it. :down:
[QUOTE]

Then prepare to die SINNER...

[Dowly]

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.

We don't hate believers, we might dislike some of them, you know, the loud
ones who's only response in any kind of discussion is "The books says so, end of".

And it works both ways, many believers dislike atheists, because we are contradicting
what "the book" says (with, you know, those little things called proven facts :O:).


And as we all know, these threads go on and on in circle, so I'll just move to the sidelines with some popcorn now. :O:

[Skybird]

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.
We do not "hate" you. Truth is we do not even care for the music you play at home. Keep the volume such that we or others must not listen three floors down on the street what you are playing, and do not make public offices, schools and the public space playing your tunes, and you will not even realise that we also are living in your neighbourhood.

As long as we must not realise by the loudness of your music that you are around the neighbourhood, too, that is.

Keep those music boxes quiet, don't annoy the neighbours with noise. That's all.

[August]

Why should an atheist hate you for simple belief in supreme being?
Don't think so.....

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?

[krashkart]

Any questions?


I have a question:

Did you know that Slyco saved me over 50% on my car insurance? :yeah:
And I don't even own a car! How cool is that? :DL
.
..
...
....
.....
Waitaminnit... (car insurance + no car = ???) :hmmm:
Should I get life insurance, too? :D

[razark]

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?
A lot of atheists are reacting to what they've personally experienced.

I have personally had people tell me that I can't be trusted, or that I'm evil, or that I'm not worthy of being an American because I'm an atheist. When I first met my wife's family on her father's side (who she hadn't seen in 20 years or so), they asked her if I beat her, simply because I'm an atheist.

I had a boss at one of my previous jobs that flat out told me that he'd be keeping an eye on me, since I was new and "don't have God in your life", and he was quite clear that he looked down on another employee that was also an atheist.


Many of us don't care that you believe, or what you believe. We only wish to be let alone, to live our lives without the baggage that comes with not being like the majority. A lot of us have had to put up with being pushed around because we have different beliefs. Some have decided that they have come to the point where they're ready to start pushing back. When someone stands up and says "Stop", they get labeled as a militant atheist.

But what it really comes down to for a vast majority is: let us be, and we'll let you be.

[MH]

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?


Not insulting religion in sort of hard i think.
Anything that contradict or criticizes religious view can be seen as an insult or contradiction to xyz teachings.



With muslims you can see it taken to extreme......islam is a good magnifying lab.
Not saying that islam is the same as christianity.

[krashkart]

But what it really comes down to for a vast majority is: let us be, and we'll let you be.


Which most rational religious folk will do (or "should do") without even thinking about it. "To each his own" has always been my understanding. :yep:

[Bakkels]

The problem, the real core of the problem, is this weird thing about people. If they're a fan of something, they want to share their fandom. Or if their into something, then its the best thing to be into, because their into it.

Atheism vindictivness I think is borne from religious ramrodding. The problem is, they're not punching back at an equivalent level of the original punch, so to speak. So they end up being louder then the ------- who got them pissed off to begin with.

In the end, when it comes to religion, no matter what ones stance is on it, I think this is the best thought to adapt:

Whatever your stance is on religion, its a lot like a lift in your shoes. If it makes you feel better, fine. Just don't ask anyone to wear your shoes.

edit: If people would just keep their ---- to themselves, the world would be a much nicer place.

Wait, what's this... I agree with Ducimus? Well I guess I do! :O:
Seriously though, I think your last sentence nails it.
I don't believe in (a) God, but I also can't say I'm an atheist; I can't prove he doesn't exist, so I can't be sure.
But I gotta agree with what some people already said here; some Atheists can be just as aggressive in bringing their point across.
Like Ducimus said, people need to keep their beliefs for themselves. The only time I feel the need to argue about religion is when it interferes with politics. Aside from that, I say live and let live.

[mookiemookie]

A lot of atheists are reacting to what they've personally experienced.

I have personally had people tell me that I can't be trusted, or that I'm evil, or that I'm not worthy of being an American because I'm an atheist. When I first met my wife's family on her father's side (who she hadn't seen in 20 years or so), they asked her if I beat her, simply because I'm an atheist.

I had a boss at one of my previous jobs that flat out told me that he'd be keeping an eye on me, since I was new and "don't have God in your life", and he was quite clear that he looked down on another employee that was also an atheist.


Excellent points. And yes, I've experienced this sort of treatment as well. I'm actually agnostic, but to most Christians it's the same thing. And it does tend to put a chip on your shoulder.

[krashkart]

A chip that can be let go of... until another one comes along to muck up the works. :O:

[August]

I have personally had people tell me that I can't be trusted, or that I'm evil, or that I'm not worthy of being an American because I'm an atheist. When I first met my wife's family on her father's side (who she hadn't seen in 20 years or so), they asked her if I beat her, simply because I'm an atheist.

I had a boss at one of my previous jobs that flat out told me that he'd be keeping an eye on me, since I was new and "don't have God in your life", and he was quite clear that he looked down on another employee that was also an atheist.

And I have had people tell me that just because I believe in God that i'm some kind of loony tunes and all sorts of other rude and insulting things. Is that any different than your experience?

I ask because I can manage to have these discussions without resorting to such invective. It seems some of your Atheist colleagues just can't do that.

[Sailor Steve]

If one is in doubt one should only admit he doesn't know. If one chooses to believe he should turn his belief into knowing and knowledge of its truthfulness.
But how does one "know" that which cannot be shown?

It's better to be a hardcore skeptic than a doubtful believer. Because the skeptic has his reasons not to believe while the doubtful believer has none to believe what he claims to believe.
But a believer without doubts is a fanatic by nature. Nothing can ever be perfectly known, so doubts are imperative to any rational thinker. A agree with your summation, but not with the conclusion.

That reason, that knowing, that revelation, however small MUST be there in every believer. The absence of which will turn them into a secular and an apostate or a radical/fanatic/extremist with time.
But "knowing" something that can't be fully known involves a denial of reason, not an embracing of it.

Atheism is the belief of the lack of God. It's a religion without ritual. Its core values is the belief that there is no God.

It is a belief that cannot be substantiated.
True only in the sense that the existence of God cannot be disproved. If something can be neither proved nor disproved, is it wiser to believe or to disbelieve? I do neither, because I don't know. Unfortunately I don't see that the believer does either. I used to believe, but I came to realize that I could see no reason to.

And will crumble to a man when the existence of God is known to that man on personal level.
And that will crumble to a man when he realizes that there is every chance that all of his "personal knowledge" has no empirical verification, and may be real or may be his imagination, and that there is no way to actually know.

I do not believe there is God, I know there is God. I know some of God's characteristic from personal experience but aside from that I have little knowledge and understanding of God BUT I DO KNOW that God exists.
How? What exactly is your experience? That which is truly known can be proven. If it can't be proven then it's only belief, not knowledge. I'm not trying to dismiss your experience, because I don't know that you're not right. But I don't know that you are, either, and I would to have some observable reason to believe you. Testimony is nice, but so far you haven't really given any. Saying "I testify that God is real" is like standing up in court and saying "I testify that the defendant is guilty". You haven't really testified to witnessing a specific event, only that your belief is real and that the other guy's isn't.

[Jimbuna]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif

[razark]

I don't believe in (a) God, but I also can't say I'm an atheist; I can't prove he doesn't exist, so I can't be sure.
Atheism addresses what you believe: If you don't believe a god exists, you are an atheist. If you believe a god exists, you are a theist.

Agnosticism addresses what you know: If you hold that you cannot know for certain whether or not god exists, you are agnostic. If you hold that the question of gods' existence can be known, you are gnostic.

If you know god doesn't exist, you would be a gnostic atheist. If you believe god exists but that it can't be proven, you would be an agnostic theist. There is a distinction, but in common usage it gets largely misused.

[Sailor Steve]

The arguments about who shows more hatred, believers or nonbelievers, is fruitless for the simple reason that we are dealing with people. No, atheism is not a religion, but it's easy to see it that way because some atheists do indeed act like religious fanatics. As mentioned earlier, it seems to be part of our nature to take what we believe and turn it into an object of adoration, even if our belief is in lack of belief. It doesn't make atheism itself a religion any more that it makes it wrong. And that is also part of our nature, to assume that if we can prove something we disagree with wrong then that of necessity makes our belief right.

This is the mistake that Christians specifically make on a regular basis, thinking that if they can show one single flaw in atheism (or evolution) then they must be right, and that concept defies logic and reason. To reiterate, while it's true that some atheists do indeed act like religious followers, that doesn't automatically make the concept itself a religion, which requires actual following and worship.

[FIREWALL]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif

If you share your popcorn Jim. I'll share my beer to wash it down with. :haha:

[razark]

And I have had people tell me that just because I believe in God that i'm some kind of loony tunes and all sorts of other rude and insulting things. Is that any different than your experience?
I honestly can't answer that. I've only really seen it from one side. My gut reaction is to say that there is a definite bias one way, but I'm sure my view is colored by my own experiences, and making an objective assessment is beyond my abilities. I will say there are morons on both sides that try to push their views.

I ask because I can manage to have these discussions without resorting to such invective. It seems some of your Atheist colleagues just can't do that.
I must admit, some of the replies I considered earlier were more along the lines of AngusJS. If my day had been going worse, it could very well have been a lot like that (including the stamps and baldness).

But that wouldn't get us anywhere. I'm quite happy to discuss/debate theology and specifics, but that really doesn't go well online. I've been involved in enough discussions on forums to know it wouldn't get us anywhere. I'd scream at you, you'd scream at me, and at the end of it, neither one of us would believe any different, but our opinions of each other (and the spectators' opinions of both of us) would drop. As long we're not attacking each other or advocating restrictions to anyone's rights, a calm discussion can bring a lot more understanding to everyone.

[Skybird]

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?
Atheists, all those that I knew or know, do not declare their atheism like any idoelogy, because it is none. It is the absence of it. Don'T know how it is where oyu live, but over here, we see and hear the church or some Islamic group or the Vatikan constantly banging the drum on how right they are and how oh and how hey. They claim a right founded in their belief or tradition to be given access to public spaces, opportunity to transform communal and legislative structures to their liking, and priviliges that they do not deserve.

No wonder then that atheists react with counter-pushing. People do not and must not actively or passively fall back and compromise their own way of living for the benfit of relgions that they do not believe in. Freedom to practice religion must also mean freedom FROM religion, else you end up with relgious supression. The freedom of relgious people end where their oractciing limits the freedom of others who share not their belief. Verursacherprinzip.

Keep thy religion to thyself. Anything truly devine would speak to you in the silence of your heart'S inner soul anyway. So why that noise you make in the outside world?

An evergreen, often played, often linked by me, and still so good:

Why do atheists care for religion? (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w4fQA9mt-Mg)

Step onto a ssnake, and get bitten. Anger a Lama, and it spits at you. Beat a dog, and see it attacking you. Expect non-believers to limit their freedoms for the benefit of the freedom that your religion demands for itself, and don't be surprised if they get pissed. What is so difficult to understand in that? Your freedom ends where you start to limit that of the other. The other's tolerance for you ends, where you do not tolerate him.

[Growler]

May I introduce Secular Humanism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism)?

This is probably the closest description of where I stand.

I've read this thread, and seen a lot of people whom I consider colleagues and friends chime in with their thoughts. Some of those thoughts I agree with; others, were we sitting at a bar or a coffee joint, would lead to, what I think would be a tremendously fun discussion.

Religion is not for me. Belief in a Supreme Creator does not fit with my view of the world. It's what works for me.

I was raised in a strict Catholic household in a Catholic neighborhood, went to Catholic schools. When my parents split up, I was ten. Once word of the divorce got round the community, my sister and I became social pariahs from that day forward, largely due to the Catholic parents passing judgement on my family's situation, and passing that judgement along to their kids. Our parents were divorced, which the Catholic church didn't take a real cheery view on, which somehow made us kids less worthy of Christian kindness, rather than more in need of it. It didn't end with our peers; the good Sisters that ran the school were equally determined to punish us for our parents' transgressions. For whatever reasons, we were to be subjugated rather than saved.

OK, fast forward thirty years. As an adult, I understand things a little better. Every religion, every faith, is comprised of people. People are, inevitably, going to screw things up. We can't help it. Also, like any other religious structure, there are those who preach the words, and those who perform the words. I lived in a community that loudly preached, but poorly performed. I've seen the other side of that, where the community was outwardly very religiously quiet - probably due to the sheer exhaustion of working their tails off to help their neighbors.

I worked with a fellow who once told me, "Did you ever notice that the people who speak the loudest about being 'Good Christians"... aren't?" I have never found reason not to disagree with him on that thought. And the same holds true for any religion in the place of Christian.

I've explored many religions, with varying intensity. One of those I looked at introduced me to the concept of the Wiccan Rede. I don't hold with it; much of it is spellcasting and other silliness. But the final lines are nothing more than a re-telling of the timeless Golden Rule: "Do unto others as you would have done unto you." The Wiccan Rede closes with, "An[sic] Ye Harm None, Do What Ye Will." I don't follow any faith, but those words are pretty clear enough, and good practice.

Are there militant believers of every stripe? Absolutely. Those who seek to impose their beliefs upon others, and who seek to legitimize those beliefs by way of legislation, are a clear and present danger to the safety of ALL religions and ALL faiths in any given country. Sharia law as the law of a land should terrify any reasonable human being. Christian law as the law of a land should do the same. Religion is a PERSONAL choice, and should remain in the purvey of individuals. It is not the responsibility of the state to mandate religion.

[AVGWarhawk]

http://img396.imageshack.us/img396/6942/popcorncowtx0.gif


:yep:

[AVGWarhawk]

Religion is a PERSONAL choice


:yep:

[MH]

Are there militant believers of every stripe? Absolutely. Those who seek to impose their beliefs upon others, and who seek to legitimize those beliefs by way of legislation, are a clear and present danger to the safety of ALL religions and ALL faiths in any given country. Sharia law as the law of a land should terrify any reasonable human being. Christian law as the law of a land should do the same. Religion is a PERSONAL choice, and should remain in the purvey of individuals. It is not the responsibility of the state to mandate religion.

:salute:

[TLAM Strike]

The way I see it simple belief in a supreme being does not dismiss any facts and atheists are usually too wrapped up in their hatred of believers to see anything beyond the red haze over their eyes.

All depends on what supreme being belief system one subscribes too doesn't it? If your religion says that the earth is the floor of the universe, and the sky is a celing held up by pillars at the edge of the earth and the moon is the source of light at night then simply your religion is wrong and dismisses facts now known.

The critical question must be not weather or not god exists but do you have proof or are you endeavoring to get proof? The majority of believers I've encountered simply point to a book and say "here is the proof", or say "Yea I saw him! ... but no one else did". While science gives us something to look at and figure the origin of the universe and life that does not rely on some old book or someones word on it but a repeatable, verifiable experiment. Until someone can locate, categorize and analyze it I say it exits purely in the realm of the theoretical.

As for atheists hating believers I can only comment as to my self on that account in that I have never hated someone for what I feel is a misguided belief. Only in their actions would I find disdain.

[Platapus]

I remember we had this Captain who said that he thought that non-christians should not be allowed to serve in the military. :har:

[Safe-Keeper]

If you're right then why the constant stream of invective? Can atheists not declare their atheism without insulting religion?Impossible, I'm afraid. It's the same way all white people are violent racists, Americans are all fat, and men are all sex offenders who prey on little girls. It's how we roll.

(/irony)

[Skybird]

Science, being conducted reasonably and responsibly, does not claim to know the answer to "Why", but it is good in examining the question of "How".

Religion does not care for either examing the question of "Why" or "How", it just raises claims and afterwards present them as facts, unchecked, and declares it a virtue to just blindly believe.

And in my opinion, quites ome of those smart minds science has seen, and quite some of those atheists, are anti-theistic, but not anti-religion. Atheism does not mean to be anti-spiritual. There are religions that are coming along without theistic concepts.

Christian mystics mentioned what they called the divine spark in creation, and i everything that exists, and you can see that much of what the tried to point at, often by saying what "it" is not, indicates they thought that God is not to be seen as a separate entitiy and creator of what exoists, but to be expressed in all that exists and thus every single part of creation IS God, or the divine. Buddhists would call it the Buddha-essence in all and everything. But originally, by Buddha'S teachings, Buddhism is a non-theistic or atheistic religion.

For theistic fundamentalists, claiming the above of course is nothing but heresy and blasphemy. They want their own little deity-in-the-pocket to make deals with when they feel sad, that is comfortable and feeds the illusion of being safe. To tell them that you and me and themj and all and everything actually is God, is often a reason for them to attack. "Do you now take it upon you to declare yourself a God?"

Not really. Not "a god", but "the God" :DL, and not just me, but everything that I perceive and believe to be "existing".

What were those last words at the ending of this great movie, "A thin red line"? - Oh my soul, look out through my eyes, look at all those things you've made, all things shining."

The gardener is just a dream the garden dreams.

[Jimbuna]

If you share your popcorn Jim. I'll share my beer to wash it down with. :haha:

Your on

http://img682.imageshack.us/img682/2884/drunkcob.gif

:yep:

:03:

[August]

Lets not confuse belief in a God with adherence to a religion. They are not the same thing. Religion attempts to define what is essentially undefinable. I am a believer, but I am not religious.

[Sailor Steve]

Good point. There are believers who aren't religious and non-believers who are.

[August]

Good point. There are believers who aren't religious and non-believers who are.

Yeah and the latter is responsible for religions negative image.

[CCIP]

Yeah and the latter is responsible for religions negative image.

Now that's an awfully hypocritical (not applying to you personally, but rather the lack of criticism to one side in this issue generally) thing to say. :down:

Religions do more than enough disservice to themselves without anyone haranguing them from the outside.

[Platapus]

Lets not confuse belief in a God with adherence to a religion. They are not the same thing. Religion attempts to define what is essentially undefinable. I am a believer, but I am not religious.

Organized Religion -- Any time you try to organize anything (Religion, Baseball game, Internet forum...) you have to start establishing rules and standards. Soon the organization becomes more important than that which is organized.

What we need is organized religion, not organized religion. If you catch my drift.

[Aramike]

As an atheist, everytime this discussion emerges I am startled by a simple observation:

Most theists tend to write measured, reasonable responses which disagrees with those with the notion of God or gods, and most atheists respond back with intolerance and accusations blaming damned near all the world's woes on religion.

In fact, that brand of athiest is better described as antitheist, and I suspect that their ranting and ravings about tolerance only exist in service of covering up their own inadaquecies about their inability to change from their own intolerance.

[August]

Now that's an awfully hypocritical (not applying to you personally, but rather the lack of criticism to one side in this issue generally) thing to say. :down:

It's hypocritical that unbelievers posing as members of a church have done damage to the churches reputation? How again?

Religions do more than enough disservice to themselves without anyone haranguing them from the outside.

I think you misunderstood. I didn't say unbelievers from the outside of the church. I'm talking about those who would use the trappings of a church to further their own cause.

[krashkart]

Religions do more than enough disservice to themselves without anyone haranguing them from the outside.


It depends largely upon the individual, I think. Some are more hardcore than others in their quest for spiritual purity.



Edit:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9jVoroHx3IU

:)

[August]

As an atheist, everytime this discussion emerges I am startled by a simple observation:

Most theists tend to write measured, reasonable responses which disagrees with those with the notion of God or gods, and most atheists respond back with intolerance and accusations blaming damned near all the world's woes on religion.

In fact, that brand of athiest is better described as antitheist, and I suspect that their ranting and ravings about tolerance only exist in service of covering up their own inadaquecies about their inability to change from their own intolerance.

Mike thank you for understanding. I guess you're proof that not all Atheists are that way. Anti-theist is a good way to describe them.

[CCIP]

Oh, my apologies. I did get you wrong!

That said, occasionally the believing believers also get misguided pretty badly. But in general, I agree with you in that case.

[Platapus]

As an atheist, everytime this discussion emerges I am startled by a simple observation:

Most theists tend to write measured, reasonable responses which disagrees with those with the notion of God or gods, and most atheists respond back with intolerance and accusations blaming damned near all the world's woes on religion.

In fact, that brand of athiest is better described as antitheist, and I suspect that their ranting and ravings about tolerance only exist in service of covering up their own inadaquecies about their inability to change from their own intolerance.

I find intolerant posts coming from both sides. One thing to keep in mind is that on the Internets Tubes you will not be getting an accurate population participating in theological discussions. Many atheists wont even participate because they have nothing to prove nor a desire to persuade.

As an atheist, I rarely participate in religious discussions. It is not my bag, but, as an atheist, I have no desire to mock theists nor a desire to attempt to "convert" any theists.

The "atheists" you read mocking religion are either insecure in their beliefs (just like theists that feel they have to proclaim their faith) or they are just trolling jerks trying to stir things up.

I like to think that a "true" atheist is tolerant and understanding of other people's religions.

But then religion is a very emotional topic and people act/post emotionally on it.

[Skybird]

Spirituality: being intelligent and self-aware enough to realise one'S own mortality and thus asking where one comes from, where one goes when dying, and how much time one has. This can but must not necessarily lead to theistic believing.

Those who seek just comfort and a safe feeling, tend to go with believing. Those feeling a burning desire to know, tend to stay away from religious dogmas, but trying to find out themselves. Dogmas don'T want to be analysed and questioned. They want obedience and conformity.

Religion: the attempt of actively giving a man-made meaning to life and man-made answers to the existential questions of Why?, Where from?, Where to? and How long?, in form of symbols that in a mythological manner represent the condensate of a tradiiton of earlier tales on egeneration has given to the next generation. Such tales can be theistic by content, or not. They are unavailable for reasonable examination to confirm their claims. Typically, believeing them in a literal, word-for-word manner is a characteristic for both theiostic and non-theistic religions by which the emerging hierarchy of profiteers (institutions, priests) ground their power and influence over people.

Thus, spirituality and relgion are antagonists. You cannot be both. The one is wanting to learn oneself by own experience and not taking just somebody's word for anything. The other is not seeing the need to verify claims in any way, but just believing them. There is a fundamental difference in quality.

Mystic traditions of Christianity, Chan/Zen-Buddhism, also atheism as far as the atheist in question does not deny a desire to understand the fundamentals of his existence, can be understood as "spirituality". Churches, sects, fundamentalists of all religious traditions, orthodox Judaism and Islam, various culture-specific schools of Buddhism that replaced Buddha's teaching with a whole pantheon of deities and figure-based manifestations of "Buddha-qualities", are just religion.

The truth is utmost simple, and utmost direct. It'S all around you, it is in you, it all is one, and it is only your own terms and ideas and thoughts keeping your awareness from realising this, it is the darkness of those names and conceptions your mind constantly invents that cloud your mind. Thus, as Huang-Po put it: "free yourself of everything. There is nothing that could be gained and so nothing needs to be just believed in order to acchieve "it".

That is hardly a "religion". That is life, and a state of mind in which to meet it as well as death.

[Skybird]

As an atheist, everytime this discussion emerges I am startled by a simple observation:

Most theists tend to write measured, reasonable responses which disagrees with those with the notion of God or gods, and most atheists respond back with intolerance and accusations blaming damned near all the world's woes on religion.

In fact, that brand of athiest is better described as antitheist, and I suspect that their ranting and ravings about tolerance only exist in service of covering up their own inadaquecies about their inability to change from their own intolerance.
By experience I would describe it exactly the other way around. Whenever I witness a fight between relgious and atheists people over here, in the media, in real life situation, it is that atheists defend themselves against claims and edemands directed at them to tolerate the special additional rights relgions demand becasue they are oh so religious. To me, one of the best arguments against religions is - the behaviour of self-claimed religious people itself, and their tendency to constantly stick their nose into other people'S business for which they do not have to mind at all.

In a secular state, where there is freedom of relgion, there necessarily also is freedom from relgion. Any cult's or religion'S freedom ends where it starts to limit the freedoms of those not sharing their dogma. That is true for Islam. Ands that is true for Christian churches and fundamentalists alike. Where any relgion claims that by its believes it has the duty to missionise and turn over the community, all I can say: fight it and bring it to a halt before you end up living in a theocracy. And ALL religions have the inherent drive to establoish themselves as theocracies. They vary only in the level of aggressiveness by which they pursue that intention.

[Sailor Steve]

Yeah and the latter is responsible for religions negative image.
So you don't think that thousands of years of butchery in the name of whatever god has anything to do with that negative image?

[August]

That said, occasionally the believing believers also get misguided pretty badly.

Well anyone can be misguided, religious or not, believer or not, but you do bring up the point that in a group, such as a congregation, their misguidance can be magnified by both their numbers and also their commitment to their cause. I still think that a majority of the time the ringleaders are more sociopath than true believers though.

Besides, what constitutes a religion is a pretty wide range of organization types. You can't talk about say the Westboro Baptists and the Roman Catholic Church like they were the same exact thing. There are just too many differences in too many areas to make the comparison.

[August]

So you don't think that thousands of years of butchery in the name of whatever god has anything to do with that negative image?


Sure it does. But who usually orchestrates such butchery? A true believer or those driven by greed and personal power?

[AngusJS]

Maybe it isn't a religion per se but it is just as intolerant as the worst of them.I guess you could try and compare fundamentalist Islam with atheism, to see which is more intolerant, but atheism has no doctrine, no commandments, no dogma, etc., and thus does not and cannot compel anyone to be intolerant of anything. You'd just be comparing apples and oranges.

Ever see anyone here say that leprechauns make them puke?Please, please read the Old Testament, read about all the divine infanticide, genocide and ecocide, and then say there is nothing stomach churning about it.

[August]

Please, please read the Old Testament, read about all the divine infanticide, genocide and ecocide, and then say there is nothing stomach churning about it.

If you'll go back you'll note that the original quote had nothing to do with passages from a book but was aimed God directly. Apples and oranges yourself.

[TLAM Strike]

Please, please read the Old Testament, read about all the divine infanticide, genocide and ecocide, and then say there is nothing stomach churning about it. Yea we really need to send some Navy SEALs out there to find this "God" guy and haul his butt in front of the Hague. He has a lot to answer for... :03:

[AngusJS]

If you'll go back you'll note that the original quote had nothing to do with passages from a book but was aimed God directly. Apples and oranges yourself.Guess who commanded/perpetrated those things. What does that say about that entity?

[August]

Guess who commanded/perpetrated those things. What does that say about that entity?

It says that even God can be misquoted.

Angus if you don't believe in God then it's hypocritical of you to imply that a book written by men contains the words of God.

[Growler]

I think I'll go to bed now, with this last thought:

People, theists and atheists, could do better.

[Sailor Steve]

Sure it does. But who usually orchestrates such butchery? A true believer or those driven by greed and personal power?
I don't argue that, because you're right. I'm just saying that I don't think you can blame the atheists for all that negative image.

[krashkart]

I don't hate religion for what has been done in its name so much as I dislike the things that have been done in its name.

[CCIP]

I don't hate religion for what has been done in its name so much as I dislike the things that have been done in its name.

Let's also not forget, though, that a lot of good things have also been done in the name of religion.

Otherwise, I often side with atheists, and then surprise people with the announcement that I personally see myself as Christian. I think Schleiermacher's defenses of religion sum it up best for me - that religion is NOT and never should be a set of moral or metaphysical rules. Instead all it is is just that feeling of dependence on something that's great and infinite, something beyond yourself. You can't justify it, but you don't need to. If you only believe that one thing and follow it through, you don't need anything else - because it reasonably leads to things that many Christians mistake for God-given laws, rules and obligations. You don't need to tell someone that they shouldn't lie, cheat and steal if they have a more general sense of responsibility for the world and a relationship with not just the present, but something that's there for all time. And in that view, texts and moral rules are not the source of beliefs - but just their historical consequences that should, perhaps, be taken with a grain of salt, because they appeared in very different times and to very different people than we are. You have to learn to get past that and draw the real lessons from the essence of the teaching. And in the case of Christianity, I believe that essence is very, very simple, very powerful, and 100% personal on a human level. Unlike so many other religions, the core message of the religion has no preconditions for being received, requires no rituals, nor asks you to give up your individual self. Christianity is the religion of the poor sinner, not because every Christian needs to be a poor sinner, but because its 'price of admission' is one that even the most impoverished of us can easily afford. And that's the beauty of it, I guess.

[frau kaleun]

religion is NOT and never should be a set of moral or metaphysical rules. Instead all it is is just that feeling of dependence on something that's great and infinite, something beyond yourself. You can't justify it, but you don't need to. If you only believe that one thing and follow it through, you don't need anything else - because it reasonably leads to things that many Christians mistake for God-given laws, rules and obligations. You don't need to tell someone that they shouldn't lie, cheat and steal if they have a more general sense of responsibility for the world and a relationship with not just the present, but something that's there for all time.

Bolded for truth. :yeah: :rock:

[Aramike]

The anti-theist crowd always argues against religion using the same bogus, circular argument which never addresses the real problem. Ironically, while they don't believe in an form of deity, their argument actually implies the existance of one.

PEOPLE are responsible for atrocities, not religion. Do you really think that people would not attempt to control, subvert, and subjucate one another in insanely cruel ways regardless of religion? Hell, according to YOU, people invented the tool of religion in order to do so. So either religion was there and humans merely grasped it as a tool (implying god) or it was not there and humans created it in order to achieve other ends (implying that religion is NOT the problem but that the humans created it to serve their goals which would have existed regardless of religion).

At the end of the day, blaming religion for the atrocities committed under its banner is akin to blaming blades for murder. The blade was just a tool - not only has it been used to kill, but it has saved lives through surgury, cut materials to create the world around us, carves our Thanksgiving turkey, etc.

In much the same way, while religion has been perverted in many cases, it has also been used to accomplish much good - feeding and sheltering the homeless, outreach missions to medicate and educate sick children in the 3rd world, helped to create a basic sense of morality which secularism has built upon in many ways. Furthermore, it has provided a sense of positive oversight to people who otherwise need it but cannot have it provided to them. And while that oversight can certainly be used for evil it also can be used for good.

Judging by the differences between today and the dark ages, religion in general has evolved as a tool much for the positive, much like the blade of the sword has evolved into a scalpel.

[Sailor Steve]

All of the above is true, but I too would like to add an opposite point.

The anti-theist crowd always argues against religion using the same bogus, circular argument which never addresses the real problem. Ironically, while they don't believe in an form of deity, their argument actually implies the existance of one.
At the same time Christians often fail to make the distinction between atheists and "anti-theists", as you so well put it. Not all atheists hate Christianity or any other religion. The ones who do the hating get all the attention.

I'm curious, though. What is the circular argument, and how does it imply the existence of a deity? They also accuse believers of circular argument, and with some justification.

[Aramike]

At the same time Christians often fail to make the distinction between atheists and "anti-theists", as you so well put it. Not all atheists hate Christianity or any other religion. The ones who do the hating get all the attention.I agree with it, but quite frankly I see far more of the overt religion-hating from anti-theists than I see atheist-hating from Christians.I'm curious, though. What is the circular argument, and how does it imply the existence of a deity? They also accuse believers of circular argument, and with some justification. Heh, I wish I was an artist because I would draw the recycle symbol with the following text at the end of each arrow.

Circular Anti-Theist Argument:


Religion corrupts humans.
Humans do evil things because of corrupting religion.
Because there is no god humans have to create religion.
See step 1.
Seems to me that corrupt humans corrupt other humans, and religion is merely the tool they use.

[MH]

http://thenormalmachine.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/contradiction.jpg?w=480&h=480

[Sailor Steve]

I agree with it, but quite frankly I see far more of the overt religion-hating from anti-theists than I see atheist-hating from Christians.
Possibly, but it's also an observed phenomenon that we see what we want to. The religion-haters see the centuries of religious hatred of not only unbelievers but also believers who don't believe the "right way". I know, you already addressed that, and rightly, but I'm not trying to bring it up again so much as point out the "anti's" reasons, however justified or not they may be.

Heh, I wish I was an artist because I would draw the recycle symbol with the following text at the end of each arrow.
And of course that's been done with Christian reasoning as well. We've all seen that chart, so I won't bring it up again.

Seems to me that corrupt humans corrupt other humans, and religion is merely the tool they use.

Very, very true. No argument there.

[Aramike]

And of course that's been done with Christian reasoning as well. We've all seen that chart, so I won't bring it up again.Of course, I'm not arguing otherwise. If someone wants to have a decent, peaceful discussion as to the logic of the existance of any deity, I'll clearly be on the atheist side of the line.

My point only intends to cover the nearly militant, anti-theist stance, and perhaps to show them some anologue between what they claim and the claims of their opponents whom they so fiercely hate.

Frankly, I think religion should remain a deep and personal decision, and human decency should allow those who ascribe to faith to be able to do so without open resistance from other ideologies. Often the argument is that, in the case of Christianity, proselytizing is an intrusion upon those who don't share that faith.

I think that's bogus and the biggest load of crap ever handed down as "rational" thinking. We are subject to messages of all different natures every single day - to imply that one in particular is intrusive because it is that which we most strongly disagree with is disingenuous. Freedom of speech works every which way.

Anti-theists certainly have as much right to spread their message as Christians do. And I have a right to call it like I see it - the anti-theist message is intolerant and hostile. I don't sense either from Jehova's Witnesses knocking at my door.

[sidslotm]

"there are no athiests in foxholes"

[MH]

"there are no athiests in foxholes"

Then foxholes are definitive prove that god exists.
Go figure....:03:

[Schroeder]

"there are no athiests in foxholes"
So there it is the proof....that everybody wishes to be protected from harm in a desperate situation. Good old instincts, but nothing divine.

[joegrundman]

"there are no athiests in foxholes"

"..is an argument against foxholes, not an argument against atheism"

[joegrundman]

Circular Anti-Theist Argument:


Religion corrupts humans.
Humans do evil things because of corrupting religion.
Because there is no god humans have to create religion.
See step 1.
Seems to me that corrupt humans corrupt other humans, and religion is merely the tool they use.

This is not an example of a circular argument

[Fish]

Fact is you still can be indoctrinated by atheist education.


Can you give me some atheists indoctrinations?

[August]

Can you give me some atheists indoctrinations?

Off the top of my head:

"Faith is believing in that which I know ain't so." - Mark Twain
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Marx
"All thinking men are atheists" - Hemmingway
"Nothing could be more idiotic and absurd than the doctrine of the trinity." - Ingersoll

[MH]

Off the top of my head:

"Faith is believing in that which I know ain't so." - Mark Twain
"Religion is the opiate of the masses" - Marx
"All thinking men are atheists" - Hemmingway
"Nothing could be more idiotic and absurd than the doctrine of the trinity." - Ingersoll

Agree....:salute:

Down to how to interpret history or poetry and so on.
Take Socialism Capitalism Fascism Communism just choose.

[Betonov]

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_tW0D_jgB6MA/SWM239I8P9I/AAAAAAAACEo/n1oBnC_Nsck/s400/if-you-could-reason-wth-religious-people-there-would-be-no-religious-people-house-500x375.jpg

One of my favourites, even if it is from a fictional character.:DL

[MH]

Try to reason with left wing radical lol

[Betonov]

try to reason with a right wing radical.

A right wing radical goes so much right and a left wing radical goes so much left, that they both meet on the other side of the world, proving that all radicals are the same idiots

[Sailor Steve]

Frankly, I think religion should remain a deep and personal decision, and human decency should allow those who ascribe to faith to be able to do so without open resistance from other ideologies. Often the argument is that, in the case of Christianity, proselytizing is an intrusion upon those who don't share that faith.

I think that's bogus and the biggest load of crap ever handed down as "rational" thinking. We are subject to messages of all different natures every single day - to imply that one in particular is intrusive because it is that which we most strongly disagree with is disingenuous. Freedom of speech works every which way.
Yes it does. On the pro-Christian side, logic dictates that they cannot be quiet. If indeed they're right, then God wants them to try to save everybody, and they are compelled to try, by the same Divine Love they believe saved them. It's a conundrum that cannot be solved.

A right wing radical goes so much right and a left wing radical goes so much left, that they both meet on the other side of the world, proving that all radicals are the same idiots
Unfortunately both are convinced they are centrists and the other is the true radical, and neither can see it, so they end up making wisecracks at the other side, never knowing how they look to everyone else.

[MH]

A right wing radical goes so much right and a left wing radical goes so much left, that they both meet on the other side of the world, proving that all radicals are the same idiots

Exactly.....
The point is religion has its shades as well.
There is an difference between believing that god created universe or believing that earth is flat.
I im not religius myself but...

Existence of God

“The human mind is not capable of grasping the Universe. We are like a little child entering a huge library. The walls are covered to the ceilings with books in many different tongues. The child knows that someone must have written these books. It does not know who or how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. But the child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books - a mysterious order which it does not comprehend, but only dimly suspects.”
Albert Einstein

[Betonov]

Yes. We should start making a difference betwen religion and personal belief (atheism is not a religion, but it is a personal belief).

Here's one before I go to sleep

http://www.heavingdeadcats.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/the_judeochristianmuslimgod_jpg.jpg

Peace everyone, don't panic and good night :03:

[Platapus]

One of my favourite Napoleon quotes

"Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich"

He did have a way with the phrase. :har:

No one ever claimed that Nappy was a sensitive sort. :nope:

But on the other hand I also favour

God was always invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time — life and death — stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out. - Richard Feynman. :yep:

[MH]

"Religion is what keeps the poor man from murdering the rich"



Good one:D

[Aramike]

Yes it does. On the pro-Christian side, logic dictates that they cannot be quiet. If indeed they're right, then God wants them to try to save everybody, and they are compelled to try, by the same Divine Love they believe saved them. It's a conundrum that cannot be solved.Proselytizing is no more of an intrusion than some guy panhandling, a political bumper sticker, a guy shouting "beer here" at a ball game, etc.

If you don't like certain things, you ignore them. And while the same is certainly true regarding anti-theists, my entire point is that the anti-theist is generally more rude and hostile.

[AngusJS]

It says that even God can be misquoted.So god's message is important enough to transmit to humanity, but not so important as to bother ensuring that it is transmitted clearly? I guess god's omnipotence comes and goes.

Are just the negative things misquotes?

Angus if you don't believe in God then it's hypocritical of you to imply that a book written by men contains the words of God.No, actually it isn't. Hundreds of millions of people think that the bible contains the word of god. Hundreds of millions of people believe that god actually did those things. I'm dealing with god inside that belief system. I'm saying that if what they are saying is true, then that god is disgusting, and that god's ability to make someone puke would be justified.

The reason why you don't hear anyone say the same thing about leprechauns or teapots, is because neither have ever been implicated in mass murder.

If that's not your concept of god, bully for you. But know that you are at odds with a large amount, if not the majority, of Christian thought for the past two millennia. And if you're not basing your concept on anything as concrete, then I wonder how you know that god was misquoted, that god is sugar and spice and everything nice, and would never do what hundreds of millions of people believe he did.

Indeed, theism's great strength is its ability to play 3 card monty using the god idea - always keeping it safely beyond criticism by shifting the goal posts and changing the relevant attributes as dictated by the situation.

It's easy to do that with things that don't exist. Just saying. :DL

[MH]

So god's message is important enough to transmit to humanity, but not so important as to bother ensuring that it is transmitted clearly? I guess god's omnipotence comes and goes.

Are just the negative things misquotes?

No, actually it isn't. Hundreds of millions of people think that the bible contains the word of god. Hundreds of millions of people believe that god actually did those things. I'm dealing with god inside that belief system. I'm saying that if what they are saying is true, then any good person should find that god disgusting, and god's ability to make someone puke would be justified.

The reason why you don't hear anyone say the same thing about leprechauns or teapots, is because neither have ever been implicated in mass murder.

If that's not your concept of god, bully for you. But know that you are at odds with a large amount, if not the majority, of Christian thought for the past two millennia. And if you're not basing your concept on anything as concrete, then I wonder how you know that god was misquoted, that god is sugar and spice and everything nice, and would never do what hundreds of millions of people believe he did.

Indeed, theism's great strength is its ability to play 3 card monty using the god idea - always keeping it safely beyond criticism by shifting the goal posts and changing the relevant attributes as dictated by the situation.

It's easy to do that with things that don't exist. Just saying. :DL

It really simple....
Everything bad that happens is test of fate.
Every thing good its god mercy.

God thinks in his gods BIG HUGE way so he cant be judged for killing few millions here or there because he has this HUGE plan.
Thats 2 cent theology i get to hear from time to time...


Sound kind of familiar
:D

[August]

Are just the negative things misquotes?

Gods message is clear enough Angus and you don't need a three thousand year old book to understand it if your heart is open to hear it.

[MH]

Gods message is clear enough Angus and you don't need a three thousand year old book to understand it if your heart is open to hear it.

If you heart is open you don't need a book to be good person.
That's why in Judaism you have many fraction that sometimes oppose themselves.The same in Christianity i guess.
Because bible is written as it its written people interpret it to their heart desire.

[Bakkels]

Gods message is clear enough Angus and you don't need a three thousand year old book to understand it if your heart is open to hear it.

Ah crap. I didn't want to post in this thread anymore. But this I can relate to, or at least, respect.
I don't believe in (a) God, and although I don't see God's message, I rather like the notion that this is somewhat of a personal quest.
I mean, we all (atheists, christians, jews, muslim or buddhist) think about who we are and why we're here. Or at least I hope we all do. And it's your own business which answer you believe to be correct.

[August]

Because bible is written as it its written people interpret it to their heart desire.

Pretty much. I think what many people fail to realize is the Bible is not a history book. It is a collection of stories that are designed to teach moral lessons. As such it is far closer to a work like Aesops Fables than a factual accounting of historical events.

[MH]

Pretty much. I think what many people fail to realize is the Bible is not a history book. It is a collection of stories that are designed to teach moral lessons. As such it is far closer to a work like Aesops Fables than a factual accounting of historical events.

I agree to that.
There are some big heads to whom its pleasure to listen when they talk philosophy/theology and moral issues drown from biblical stories and some that you want puke.
The big heads are always left with lots of dilemmas and questions.

[Skybird]

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Beyond-All-Words-Enlightenment/dp/080483086X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1305424454&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Yourself-Everything-Christian-Enlightenment/dp/0804819890/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1305424454&sr=8-2

I met the author several times, he has had quite an impact in my life, and kicked my butt to make me open my eyes, and offering my own meditation courses for several years. He runs a Zendo in Wiesbaden. When I met him, except the TaoTe King I threw away most literature, if not all, that I had about Zen and Christian mystic and Taoism.

These speeches and books are eye-openers. Pick up a copy, or not. Uncompromsinjg and uncomfortable as they are, they are not for everybody. The simply truth about people is that most do not want to find out a truth by their own effort - they comfortably just want to get confirmation that what they instead simply believe about gods and religions, is the right thing, so that they must not take the effort to rethink and change themselves. Buddha said so repeatedly, and so did Jesus as well repeatedly - most people just prefer to pass on this option, or get lost in their own maze of religious illusions.

Well, heaven and hell are states of minds, and we create them all by ourselves. And it may be that especially keen believers take as heaven what actually is no heaven at all, but is at best a dead end - but it is cosy because they must not leave the warmth of the nest they grew fond of.

[MH]

http://www.amazon.com/Zen-Beyond-All-Words-Enlightenment/dp/080483086X/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1305424454&sr=8-3

http://www.amazon.com/Free-Yourself-Everything-Christian-Enlightenment/dp/0804819890/ref=sr_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1305424454&sr=8-2

I met the author several times, he has had quite an impact in my life, and kicked my butt to make me open my eyes, and offering my own meditation courses for several years. He runs a Zendo in Wiesbaden. When I met him, except the TaoTe King I threw away most literature, if not all, that I had about Zen and Christian mystic and Taoism.

These speeches and books are eye-openers. Pick up a copy, or not. Uncompromsinjg and uncomfortable as they are, they are not for everybody. The simply truth about people is that most do not want to find out a truth by their own effort - they comfortably just want to get confirmation that what they instead simply believe about gods and religions, is the right thing, so that they must not take the effort to rethink and change themselves. Buddha said so repeatedly, and so did Jesus as well repeatedly - most people just prefer to pass on this option, or get lost in their own maze of religious illusions.

Well, heaven and hell are states of minds, and we create them all by ourselves. And it may be that especially keen believers take as heaven what actually is no heaven at all, but is at best a dead end - but it is cosy because they must not leave the warmth of the nest they grew fond of.

What ever makes you feel good.

Did not know you are spiritual one.
Religion hater he he.:D
If it was for me i would probably run to a Rabi.:03:


The above is not meant in offensive way.

[Penguin]

What was the fancy term again for those who believe that it doesn't matter to our life if a deity exists or not?

"there are no athiests in foxholes"
Really?

Check out our Atheists in Foxholes (http://www.militaryatheists.org/expaif.html)
The old cliché denying atheists in foxholes is most certainly not true. Many MAAF members are decorated combat veterans while many more serve throughout the world as submariners, infantry officers, and in a myriad of other dangerous assignments. Some of our members have published their military profiles here. A recent demographic study conducted by MAAF finds nontheists and others of no stated faith group constitute nearly one-quarter of the military. Those who identify specifically as Atheist outnumber Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims, and Jews. The density of nontheism within the military exceeds that of the general population. MAAF encourages its members and potential members to take heart in these findings and build communities in their units. There are atheists in foxholes, and to say otherwise is untrue and discriminatory. Journalists and all others are encouraged to simply choose another aphorism to add variety to their comments. Nontheistic service members do not deserve to have their valor besmirched simply for a turn of phrase.

http://www.militaryatheists.org/

[Castout]

People need to be able to differentiate between religion, God, beliefs, faith, formal ritualistic prayer or heart felt prayer, being mindful of motives and conscience or simply adherence to formal religious laws/rituals.

Religion doesn't equal to God. God stands alone from any religion. The experience of God is always personal whether in individual level, family or simply a group of people.

And I just want to TESTIFY that God is REAL and UNIVERSAL whether one admits that or otherwise, whether one knows Him or otherwise. Any one man who claims he or she is enlightened and says that there is no God is either a liar and or a fool. I know this words mean nothing to you but I still write it so that you can remember when the time comes for you to know God.

God may not be for everyone . . . . . . . the fact that most people have no clue about God and that every person who has lived(except Christ) has no natural knowledge of God it is only logical to say that God is not for everyone and not for most to know. So go about your business. God is out of reach to most people. Or to be more accurate, most people have made themselves out of reach(unworthy) of the knowledge of God. We are dust in the wind. We are nothing, undeserving to know pure, greatest love, compassion and mercy. So there is God but you don't have to believe in Him, He doesn't demand that and if he had demanded it, that why do you still not believe? So he must have not demanded faith and even obedience. So there is God but go back to your own business and whatever beliefs you CHOOSE to believe. Life is too short to hate something you don't even know or understand. Go about your business. And most importantly. BE HAPPY whatever the condition is.

[MH]

So shell be writen so shell be done.

[Castout]

So shell be writen so shell be done.

:06:
Proper English: So shall it be written and so shall it be done.


Though you must have meant sarcasm somewhat but please write it right.

[CCIP]

And I just want to TESTIFY that God is REAL and UNIVERSAL whether one admits that or otherwise, whether one knows Him or otherwise. Any one man who claims he or she is enlightened and says that there is no God is either a liar and or a fool. I know this words mean nothing to you but I still write it so that you can remember when the time comes for you to know God.

Ah, but therein lies the paradox and one of the real difficulties here: in terms of REAL and UNIVERSAL, you can only TESTIFY your own experience, but never 'reality' or 'universality' as such. If God is an individual pursuit, then as an individual you can't ever testify outside of your own field of experience, which precludes anything that's universal by default. Human experience can't adequately get at anything universal, and no amount of testimony will do anyone any good. In that sense, I wish that's another thing that I wish religious/spiritual people conceded: there's always a chance that what they see is universal is something that only comes to them, and may come in a very different form to others. If you believe God is something everyone has to have a personal relationship with, then you have to acknowledge that the experience of God can be completely different from one person to the next. If present at all. Otherwise, this becomes not about God universal but about proving your own little version of it as right.

The good news, though, is that a truly universal God can perfectly well speak on his own behalf and doesn't need spokespersons to do his bidding.

[Castout]

Ah, but therein lies the paradox and one of the real difficulties here: in terms of REAL and UNIVERSAL, you can only TESTIFY your own experience, but never 'reality' or 'universality' as such. If God is an individual pursuit, then as an individual you can't ever testify outside of your own field of experience, which precludes anything that's universal by default. Human experience can't adequately get at anything universal, and no amount of testimony will do anyone any good. In that sense, I wish that's another thing that I wish religious/spiritual people conceded: there's always a chance that what they see is universal is something that only comes to them, and may come in a very different form to others. If you believe God is something everyone has to have a personal relationship with, then you have to acknowledge that the experience of God can be completely different from one person to the next. If present at all. Otherwise, this becomes not about God universal but about proving your own little version of it as right.

The good news, though, is that a truly universal God can perfectly well speak on his own behalf and doesn't need spokespersons to do his bidding.


You assumed human experience is needed to know UNIVERSAL God. It takes a divine experience from the part of God to know God. No man can reach God. You don't get to God, God get to you.

I'm not claiming to be a spokesperson and never did. So where did you take that weird conclusion from. You assumed too much. And as a witness I'm obligated to tell anyone my testimony for reason I've stated above.

My own version of God huh so you judged me based on what? based on the words I've written? To prove have I not written that I don't intend what I wrote to convince anyone and for the sole purpose of what I've stated instead. You passed a judgment on me. Okay.

I assumed you appointed yourself to be the judge of another person experience. Well since everybody can do whatever they wish I can't possibly object so I must accept your judgement. I think it is unwise and false but I must accept it nonetheless. After all what has been given cannot be taken back.

[CCIP]

I'm not judging at all, just pointing out an argumentative flaw that many people in religion sadly abuse. I'm not saying that you're abusing it in this case, but it's exactly that kind of universalist logic that causes people to force interpretations on others. Everyone has access to the same sort of spiritual stuff, but you have to be wary about interpreting an individual experience of it as the 'right' one. In principle, if you look up my previous post in this thread, you'll see that I more or less agree with your views.

[Skybird]

People need to be able to differentiate between religion, God, beliefs, faith, formal ritualistic prayer or heart felt prayer, being mindful of motives and conscience or simply adherence to formal religious laws/rituals.

Religion doesn't equal to God. God stands alone from any religion. The experience of God is always personal whether in individual level, family or simply a group of people.

And I just want to TESTIFY that God is REAL and UNIVERSAL whether one admits that or otherwise, whether one knows Him or otherwise. Any one man who claims he or she is enlightened and says that there is no God is either a liar and or a fool. I know this words mean nothing to you but I still write it so that you can remember when the time comes for you to know God.

God may not be for everyone . . . . . . . the fact that most people have no clue about God and that every person who has lived(except Christ) has no natural knowledge of God it is only logical to say that God is not for everyone and not for most to know. So go about your business. God is out of reach to most people. Or to be more accurate, most people have made themselves out of reach(unworthy) of the knowledge of God. We are dust in the wind. We are nothing, undeserving to know pure, greatest love, compassion and mercy. So there is God but you don't have to believe in Him, He doesn't demand that and if he had demanded it, that why do you still not believe? So he must have not demanded faith and even obedience. So there is God but go back to your own business and whatever beliefs you CHOOSE to believe. Life is too short to hate something you don't even know or understand. Go about your business. And most importantly. BE HAPPY whatever the condition is.

And there you just have head-jumped into the trap again that your dualistic mind has set up for you!

Ease the heavy load in your head so that it becomes much lighter. It improves your balance by lowering the centre of gravity.

All - probably inadequate - translations by me, from my German copies.


Therefore, I am the cause of myself according to my essential being which is eternal, but not according to my developing appearance, which is temporal. And therefore, I am unborn, and according to that I never can die. By the way of not being born I have existed since all times, and I do exist now, and will exist forever. What I am by the way of my developing appearance will die and will be ruined, because it is mortal; therefore it will be shattered by time. - Meister Eckehard


Letting go all ideas of God and all religious thoughts one is fond of, is an absolute prerequisite for true mystical experience. But experience has shown that the letting go of personal idols and religious symbols is especially difficult for those, whose personality structure shows the strongest egocentricity and focussing on themselves. They are afraid to lose everything, and therefore they cling to their small, mortal self with all their might. When one is looking closer to it, one will recognize that most people are not about a living experience of the divine essence, but are more about a maintaining of their personal ideas of God they are fond of, and about wallowing religious feelings. But true mystic has nothing to do with emotional rapture and inappropriate holiness, these belong to the realm of mysticism, which only is a distortion of true and pure mystic. Man in general tends to fooling himself and looking for a short-cut, a religion of superficial consolation, an ideal world without problems and challenges, where everything falls into its correct place. The clinging to superficial forms and religious practices is one of the greatest dangers on the spiritual way. They are shackles which bind us to signs and symbols which actually should only show us the way inwards. Therefore every symbol shows towards something that is be-yond itself and that cannot be named or displayed. To go beyond religious signs and symbols therefore does not mean to refuse these symbols, but to strive for what they are pointing at. - Zensho Wolfgang Kopp


The law of Buddha does not need endeavours. It consists of the ordinary life and has no goal: to sh!t and to piss, getting dressed, eating and sleeping when one is tired. The simple-minded may laugh about me the wise know about it. My friends, I tell you: there is no Buddha, no teaching, no training, and no insight. What are you chasing for so bitterly? Do you want to put a second head on top of your own, you blind idiots? Your head is exactly where it should be. What are you missing, then? - Lin Chi (jap. Rinzai)


The One Essence that could be known,
Is not the Essence of the Unknowable.
The idea that could be imagined,
Is not the image of the Eternal.
Nameless is the all-One, is inner essence.
Known by names is the all-Many, is outer form.
Resting without desires means to learn the invis-ible inside.
Acting with desires means to stay by the limited outside.
All-the-One and all-the-Many are of the same origin,
Different only in appearance and name.
What they have in common is the wonder of being.
The secret of this wonder
Is the gate to all understanding.
- Tao Te King -


While he entered the assembly hall, master Huang-Po said: The possession of many kinds of knowledge does not compare to giving up searching for them. That is the best of all things. There are no different kinds of mind, and there are no teachings that could be expressed in words. Since there is nothing more to say, the assembly is closed. - Huang Po


As long as we do not have true self-knowledge, our wish to act rightly often creates nothing but problems. Because in our blindness we act within a world that by its appearance we still perceive as a dualistic one, and with our well-meant good deeds we try hard to give expression only to one of the two poles in every pair of opposites. What we consider to be of light, we try to make everlasting, and we reject what we believe is of darkness. But by that we behave exactly like the being that we believe we are: our ego has polarized ourselves as being good, by that it keeps on to increase the dualism and the imagined polarity in the world as we see it.

[AngusJS]

Gods message is clear enough Angus and you don't need a three thousand year old book to understand it if your heart is open to hear it.Then why do people keep hearing different things? You'd think that after so many millennia, and so many listeners, we'd have reached a consensus. But that's not the case.

How do you hear it?

How can you tell that it isn't you saying that? How can you tell that it isn't some other being saying that?

[August]

Then why do people keep hearing different things? You'd think that after so many millennia, and so many listeners, we'd have reached a consensus. But that's not the case.

How do you hear it?

How can you tell that it isn't you saying that? How can you tell that it isn't some other being saying that?

You must seek those answers from within your own heart Angus.

[Platapus]

http://www.militaryatheists.org/

Awesome! :yeah:

I am going to check those guy out. Thanks for posting that. :salute:

[Skybird]

Then why do people keep hearing different things? You'd think that after so many millennia, and so many listeners, we'd have reached a consensus. But that's not the case.

How do you hear it?

How can you tell that it isn't you saying that? How can you tell that it isn't some other being saying that?

Religions often have an outer, an exoteric face, and a hidden, more secret, esoteric tradition. On the exoteric level, they seem to differ a whole lot, but on the inner, esoteric level, what is being taught by a Jesus of Nazareth does not differ from what Buddha expressed in different lingual symbols of his different cultural tradition, and Zen/Chan and Christian mystic do not give me the impression of really being two different things. Both have transcended the meaning of the self and of enlightenment/God/Buddha nature.

It's just that when you say "christianity" today, you either mean the church and its dogma, or an understanding of "God" that even when rejecting the church still clings to a personalised conception that makes "God" a subject of its own. Same in Buddhism, many schools got distracted in rites and rituals and ways of practicing that support and foster the hierachic structures of some superimposed organisations claiming to act on behalf of the followers, but in fact acting on behalf of the members of said hierarchy.

This is not what Buddha has taught, and this is not what Jesus has taught.

If somebody thinks he has found the love of "God" or has found Buddhist "enlightenment", he already is dualsiing again, and if he is capable to feel like that only during a church session or a sesshin in a Zendo, but not in the noise and quarrels of the everday life in the everday world, then in fact he has not gained or acchieved anything, and does not own things and ideas, but gets owned them. And a lot of dmaage gets done this way, keeping people stuck in dead ends without them being able to realise it. The best advise I have given students time and again is: do not seek any practicing, do not try to be "spiritual" or "good", just live your life, be determined where needed and be kind were possible, and always put your heart and mind into what you are doing. That is more precious and valuable than any rites and prayers.

Compare this (Huang-Po, Buddhist)
Reject all that you have acquired, as if it were only a bed that had been set up for you during illness. Only when you have given up all perception and awareness, only when you have freed yourself from the complete range of dualistic concepts, you will finally gain the name of a supersensory Buddha. Therefore it is written: Your bows are in vain. Dont put your trust into such ceremonies. Give up such false beliefs

to that (Jesus)

Another disciple said to him, Lord, first let me go and bury my father. But Jesus told him, Follow me, and let the dead bury their own dead. (Matthew 8,21-22);

and these two (Christian mystic)

Man shall see God in all things, and shall accustom his soul to always see God in his soul, in his striving, and in his love. Take care of how you are turned towards God when you are in the church, or in your cabin: keep up the same mood and carry it amongst the crowd, the hustle and the dissimilarity. [...] In all your works you shall have a steady soul, and a steady confidence, and a steady love for God. If you were that serene, no one could hinder you to be aware of God s presence at all times. - Meister Eckhart]


Before everything else, he shall let go himself, for then he has let go everything. Forsooth, if a man would let go a kingdom or all world, but would keep himself, in reality he would not had let go anything. But if he lets go himself, whatever it is that he keeps then, may it be honour or wealth or whatever, he has letting go everything. [---8230;] We shall own as if we had nothing, but still having all things. The one does not have any possessions, who does not desire and does not want anything, neither for himself nor for all what is besides him. - Meister Eckhart

Who was Huang Po? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Huangbo_Xiyun)

Who was Meister Eckhart? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meister_Eckhart)


19th century philosopher Schopenhauer compared Eckhart's views to the teachings of Indian, Christian, and Islamic mystics and ascetics:

If we turn from the forms, produced by external circumstances, and go to the root of things, we shall find that Sakyamuni and Meister Eckhart teach the same thing; only that the former dared to express his ideas plainly and positively, whereas Eckhart is obliged to clothe them in the garment of the Christian myth, and to adapt his expressions thereto.

---8211; Schopenhauer, The World as Will and Representation, Vol. II, Ch. XLVIII
.

[Torplexed]

Awesome! :yeah:

I am going to check those guy out. Thanks for posting that. :salute:

You'd probably like this site too.

http://www.rationalskepticism.org/atheists-in-foxholes/

[Platapus]

Any one man who claims he or she is enlightened and says that there is no God is either a liar and or a fool.


Why wouldn't the reverse be true also? Any one who claims he or she is enlightened and says that there is a god is either a liar and or a fool.

What evidence supports one hypothesis and refutes the other?

Can both hypotheses be true? Can both be false?

Can there be a third hypotheses that refutes both?

[MH]

You assumed human experience is needed to know UNIVERSAL God. It takes a divine experience from the part of God to know God. No man can reach God. You don't get to God, God get to you.

I'm not claiming to be a spokesperson and never did. So where did you take that weird conclusion from. You assumed too much. And as a witness I'm obligated to tell anyone my testimony for reason I've stated above.

My own version of God huh so you judged me based on what? based on the words I've written? To prove have I not written that I don't intend what I wrote to convince anyone and for the sole purpose of what I've stated instead. You passed a judgment on me. Okay.

I assumed you appointed yourself to be the judge of another person experience. Well since everybody can do whatever they wish I can't possibly object so I must accept your judgement. I think it is unwise and false but I must accept it nonetheless. After all what has been given cannot be taken back.

Hey Castout you have real talent.
Instead of proving your point in this thread you should go straight for the book as such blessed man you are.
It does not seem that any one will convince you but you convinced many......

[razark]

You assumed human experience is needed to know UNIVERSAL God. It takes a divine experience from the part of God to know God. No man can reach God. You don't get to God, God get to you.
So, God chooses who to reveal himself to and I cannot, on my own, gain direct knowledge of him?

Yet earlier you say:
Any one man who... says that there is no God is either a liar and or a fool.
So, you call me a liar and a fool for not knowing God, knowledge that can only come from God.

Therefore, I am a fool for God choosing for me not to believe in him?


If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what evidence would convince me, and he has the power to show it to me. Therefore, the fact that he has not done so would be evidence that he wishes for me to not believe in him.

That's why personal testimony and anecdotal evidence make poor tools for converting people.

[MH]

If God is omniscient and omnipotent, he knows what evidence would convince me, and he has the power to show it to me. Therefore, the fact that he has not done so would be evidence that he wishes for me to not believe in him.

That's why personal testimony and anecdotal evidence make poor tools for converting people.

No self respecting religious figure(Rabi or Priest) will claim such a thing now days.
Its more your choice to turn to god by your free will.
Its up to you how you live your life but usually there some minimal requirements.
At the end you are judged not necessary by the strict religious life you had and what strict rules you followed.
its more the over roll how you did as human being.
Actually this solves all the Almighty free will issue...but well the believing is up to you.
No hard convincing.