By that logic, no one should ever discuss anything for want of keeping peace with those who see an opposing point of view. I imagine that this would specifically apply to topical discussion involving matter that is held in near religious conviction by it's participants, as in politics, economics, diplomacy and global terrorism. In fact, I'll make a point of reminding you of this the next time you begin to rail against Islam which, given how frequently it occurs, will probably be sometime later today. :O:

Let the religious guys have their thread. I said that I think it is a bad idea, but I also say the same thing about politics and that doesn't seem to stop anyone, you included. As long as no one is breaking any rules, then all is well and you can just avoid clicking on the thread if it bothers you. That's what I do.

@ Lance

I do not start discussions where I try to convince others of my religious convictions. Criticism of a relgion, Islam in case of your reference, is something different in this case, because mainly it effects fields of politics and our societies, and I would give a damn for Islam if people falling for it just would keep it a private issue that they do not want to effect society. Unfortunately, the islamic agenda is being driven into our societies day in day out, it does not differ between plitics and religion. Thus, it inevitably always is politics, and to me, it is more politics than religion.

If you want to compare me to Castout's virtuous preaching that he intends as a form of missionising, you would need to show me where I start threads on atheism and trying to missionise people into it. I don't, and in a longer ago past at best started a thread on Pat Condell - and even this is long ago.

But I react to people reserving the right that they may sing their religious song and the neighbourhood just has to listen to it each time they do. so if they show up on the scene, so do I, and when they keep private what is a private thing anyway, then I stay put, too. The magic word is: reciprocity. Save me from you relgious sermoins, and I save you from my atheist criticsm. Bring your sermon upon us and upon me, and I am going after you. That simple. because in a scular society like ours, many people think like I do - and do not want to be bothered by other people's religous mission time and again. Like I also do not want to listen to your radio time and again - so the hell keep the volumen at a levbel where others must not listen to your music, too.

It is illogical to label atheism a religion. You want to give it a bad name: that of religion. But atheism is no relgion. It is the rejection of theistic relgion, and the demand for evidence for theistic claims. You could as well conclude that refusing to learn how to drive a car is a form of car driving. It is absurd.

Neon Samurai brought it to the point when calling it "sermonising". I reserve the right to deand that your freedom of speech ends where you demand me to listen to your sermon even if I do not want that, so that you imply that I must leave the public place/space, because you claim it for yourself. That is kind of an abuse of free speech. Also, it is known by now where religious threads lead to - right onto that track we are now on, again.

If I would do like this on atheism, and launch threads on it time and again, you would not so much call it free speech, but me trying to dominate the forum and driving people away in disgust. Having a discussion on religious implications of some matters, is one thing, for example if discussing the impact of scientific insight on human history and culture and how it changed it. But "sermonising" is something different. Talking about religion in a context that is not religion in itself, is one thing. Propagating religion and why it is so nice to believe in this deity or that goddess, makes missionising the name of the game - and that is something very different than just "talking about religion".

In other words: keep your radio volume such that it does not bother your neighboiurs.And if you park a pickup loaded with that certain brown smelly stuff in the street, don't be surprised if some neigbours become the more upset the longer you wait to remove it again. Missionising means to push religion into the public space - and then it is not religious only anymore but becomes politics, and claim for social influence and power and effcting secular soceity. I do not wish any relgion to shape and form secular societies. Becasue that is the explciti end of secularism - but my freedom and our freedom is worth a thousand times more than any religion's desires or claims for untouchability. and that is why defending freedom can lead to situations where even offending religion can become a moral obligation and a civil duty, if you are serous about freedom.

Keep thy religion to thyself. That's where it belongs - and nowhere else.

@ Castout and Jumpy: Please reread the forum rules on swearing, psedo-swearing and *********.

A belief in global conspiracies and claiming the existance of non existant legislation fits all the criteria.

Thats that failed comedian Sky repeatedly links to when he isn't doing any of his other frequently repeated links or adding another obsessive signature to the bottom of his posts as he isn't preachy on his prolesytising subjects as he has read lots of books which makes him just correct and not at all sermonising.
I do wish he would link to another "Blacks and Muslims are evil" page again as that really illustrates the ugly truth of his own chosen faith.

The rules state that the use of asterisk as part of the naughty word is against the rules. As in trying to circumvent the filter. Don't see anything about saying **** for example as the filter will censor it anywho.


If you find one, please let me know. :O:

And I know as much, I read all your anti-Islam posts. My point was that in addressing politics, you bring up religion; critically, perhaps, but you still bring it up. So in essence you're saying that it is acceptable to decry a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion, but it is not acceptable to promote, or even discuss, a religion for reasons other than that it is a religion. In this I am not referring to Castout's post, just trying to ascertain your criterion.
I'll just take your word for it on the "thread" thing.
However, you missionize against religion (even if you don't call it missionizing "for" aetheism) as evidenced by your first post in this thread. You openly mock it through that picture alone. In other threads, you generate long cases against it, and then you insist that people of religion should be silent, just as you are doing here. In no other area of discussion is this considered acceptable except for hacking and the like.

Here again, you actively proselytize against religion, despite your purported platform of reciprocity. The thread title is "Religious Poll". It seems to me that such a thread would hold interest only for people who wanted to know something about a religious poll. Unlike a loud radio, you did not have to listen to it. But you went in anyway for the sole purpose of attacking religion.

I don't want to give aetheism a bad name, and if I did, I wouldn't choose religion. In any case, it is kind of like a religion because it is a belief based entirely upon faith in the non-existence of a higher power, when really, nobody knows either way. Atheism has a guess. It's a pretty convincing guess to many, but it's still a guess.

By that logic, all books and internet content within your sight or hearing that you are not interested in are abridgements of free speech. You don't have to read them. Sometimes, people like to discuss religion. If you don't, don't. If you want to attack religion, fine. Just don't tell people to keep their opinions to themselves simply because you don't want to hear them.

As if religion had ever dominated this forum. I've seen some threads that lasted a while, but secular events tend to dominate this forum. Besides, how often do people ever change their minds about anything here? Are you afraid they're going to start a church?:DL

Oh, I'm serious about freedom, and that includes freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. We can discuss that when I have more energy to type if you wish.

For the time being, I apologize for the sermonizing of others. I don't preach to you (other than to annoy you at times:DL) so I hope you'll continue to talk with me. Feel free to respond to anything above, I'm ready.

I don't care what anyone believes, its there choice. However most faiths request that their members spread their message and by telling them to keep it to themselves infringes on their faith.

Those that believe have just as much right to voice it as those who do not and if they can not respect others views how can they expect anyone to respect their point of view?

I believe that there is something greater than that which we can see, hear, touch or measure. I have had situations in my life that have caused me to have this faith, just as i am sure others have had things cause them to believe otherwise, neither side has the right to silence the other because it does not fit in with our own feelings.

I can't force my views onto anyone else, nor would i want to. We must each find our own path through this life, but no one can force me to believe that the faith that has given me comfort in times of hopelessness should be kept to myself because it can not be proven by current science. There are many times throughout history that both science and faith was proven wrong.

I can respect the choice of those who do not believe in God and there right to speak of it, why is it so hard for them to respect the faith of others?

How we choose to live is based on what is in our own hearts and minds and none of us will really know who is right or wrong until that last breath leaves our bodies.

He has as much right to talk about what he wants as you do. Nobody is making you click on his threads.

Atheism is a lack of belief in the supernatural, not a claim that the supernatural can not exist. There is a difference there as the former dows not involve any guesswork while the later does.

Oh, rly? Please describe the nature of the universe then.

I am reacting to relgious poeple making claims and sermons in name ofn their relgion. And I said that I reserve the right to react to them. If people would not try to push their faith into the public sphere and make others aware of how much they are in love with their deity(ies), then you would not hear me cojmplaijng about religion. My problem with does not start before others do not show up and think it is a good idea to missionise for it.

Click on my name, profile, and there is the option to show all threads started by me. then see hoa many threads you find that have been started by me to propagate atheism. ;)

Since last new year'S eve, I have started/initiated 146 threads. I just checked the first three pages with results for what threats I have started. Threads started on christianity, atheism, church, mocking religion: zero. rien. nada. not a single one. none. Threads I started on Islam since Decembre last years: 3; one on a cartoonist shot, one with a "reprint" of an old essay of mine, one on the French football team. So these three even were not even intended to illuminate islam itself, but where motivated by events that cannot escape to be seen in context with Islam. there are also several poltical threads, where one cannot escape to link to islam as well. As I said: Islam IS politics, much more and more troublesome than the churches cause political mess these days. islam is a political ideology more than anything else.

You will not see me doing such a poll on atheism, nor have I ever done that. But I claim the right to react to people making the first step to bring relgion into the public sphere. And that is the case if you start a thread on religion. Possibly I would have just red the thread without reacting - but that was only before I reached Castout's posting with the sermon of his.

Ypou see, the porblem with pro-reilgious people is that they claim the public sphere for themselves, like naturally. they actively engage and go after other people trying to bring them under their religious umbrella. The claim the free speech for doing so - but when people not sharing their views start to fell distorubed and nerved becasue they do not want to leave the public space they are in just becasue the relgious have made it a platform for themselves - then suddenly the sky is falling, and it is claimed harassement and lacking tolerance. In brief: the rlegious then accuse antirelgious people of doing what the relgious often explicitly do themselves. I reject to accept this happening, here, and in real life as well. and I made serveal early remarks in this thread and in others as well begging for the "other side" to not poush further then i would not need to take opposing stand and the way this thread is going now could be avoided. But no, it is religion that must be pushed, the prwachign started, inevitably the reminder came in that I am free to leave the place to that, and in general, it is free speech anyway, isn't it? Well, then you also have to live with people taking the opposite stand for the sake of balance. It is a bad habit of mine from real life to not fall back from religions' claims to get special status unopposed and without being criticised.

Atheism is the natural state, to which religion adds an artifical effort of adding soemthing to it by making a c,laim that it just - well, that it just claims. no leaf of a tree, no animal, no drop of water and not cloud in the sky cares for relgion'S made by homo sapines. No supernova and no black hole, no star and no pkanet, no proton and no electron knows or cares for claims made by relgion, nor is it effected by such claims. So, relgion is the cause of something artifical that is uniquly attached to humans, and humans alone. that mans, this quaolity it adds to the forms of existence, called "god", is to be proven by religion, because relgion causes the disoute - not nature, or a way of human thinking not following the concept of religion. the burden of evei9dence mis upt to relgion, jot to atheism. And this - the claim, and thus the burden of evidence - is what sets athei9sm and relgion apart. If oyu mean athei9sm is drivejn fanatically by some so that it compares in style to relgion, then you may have a point with some people who may be fanatics indeed. But atheism is not like that by nature and real origin. atheism just says: you say there is a god, well if you want to convince me you have to come up with evidence, and if you cannot, then I leave thing the way they are and will not subscribe to your claim nor will I sit and watch you trying to turn over society to depend un your unporven claims and hallucinations. And that is not fanatism at all.

You may remember that I strictly differ between spirituality, and religion. Man is a reflective creature capable to put itself into question, and to wonderabout its own existence. that is what is his spirituality, it is a modus operandi of our life. It is the reason why we search and research, why we try to leanr and find out, try to discover and widen our knowledge. Religion claims to know ultimatel final answers whose concepts it never has tested and refuses to ever test. Both could not be more apart.

I relate to my last diuscissio0n with Steve where I defended my opinion that any freedom and tolerance that does not know limits (in the face of tolerating that which tries to destroy tolerance by absuing freedom) necessrily and ultimately must lead to the destriuction of freedom. I am in rejection of absolute freedom concepts, therefore. where the other uses his freedom to destroy freedom, the fun and joking is ending for me.

What this nthread and my early recommendation to skip it comes down to, is this: every action has reaction. In case of relgious threats the pattern and utcome is known by experience, and it hardly will result in new insights or anything pleasurable for anyone. So I fail to see the need of having another threat on it. If it were a political issue that has seen new develoepments recently, pokay, then there would be soemthign new. But this religious versus atheists thing is - the same procedure as everytime, without anything new at all.

So why?

Damn, I forgot the clock.

Guys, guys, guys... If you didn't want to get into a debate about religion, rightly or wrongly, then don't answer to a thread titled Religious Poll!

Personally, I thought it was a deep and meaningful discussion about Pope John Paul II, but I guess that was the wrong pole :O: Ooh, I'm a gonna burn tonight.

Ye Gads!
 

Of course it is everyones personal right to believe what they wish to believe, However, I strongly disagree that metaphysical thinking should be in any way involved in government or primary education as is very much the case over most of the world. Present day politicians cannot be seen to be 'unreligious' dare I say ATHEIST whatever they may really believe because 1 thing they definitely believe (and almost certainly it is true) is that they will lose a vast amount of support from the religious masses. This coupled with the biblical creationist nonsense (and all the others too, Judaism/Islam/insert religion of your choice here) that is taught to children who are too young to make rational judgements about it for themselves angers me greatly. This is not the dark ages anymore. We have scientific method, and vast amounts of evidence that strongly suggests that 'GOD' in the form of a intelligent creator entity who is omniprescient and/or omnipotent or for that matter ever has or had a single thought about humanity or anything else is a hopeless infantile fantasy. Yes, the universe is a deeply mystical and awe inspiring place with unfathomable depths of beauty and emptiness, serenity and violence, and I like to think there is a sort of saturating background energy (not in any way to be considered a conscious entity) that makes everything 'be' or 'go' but it does not need gods/devils/afterlives to be this way, at least not for me.

Truthfully, even with all our evidence we will never be able to say for 100% certain that god does not exist. No. What we can say is 99.999999% certain god does not exist. Are you really gonna go with that 0.000001%? seems sort of like betting on a blind, lame, 3 legged horse with a 20 stone jockey to win the grand national no? Still there's nothing quite like a non-existent pantheon of deities and demons to pass the buck on to is there, otherwise we'd have to admit that we, human beings ourselves, are actually the ones responsible for all the great blundering attrocities we continue to commit. Heaven forbid! :o

Ooops I've gone and said it now. (cringes back from the metaphysical rotten tomatos undoubtedly heading this way...)

You'd think that would be easy enough...

I'm not seeing how his definition and your challenge are related.