New Aestheism movements

[Punish_her]

Astheism isn't really anything new, and people have a right to believe whatever they want, but my problem with athesits lie in their arguments. The old, convincing athesists were the existentialists mainly, who used philosophical groundings and even religious texts themselves to argue that people should go their own way.
The current attitude among atheists is mch more akin to nihilists: we can't prove God exists with science, so he doesn't exist; therefore, fuck it, I'll do what I want.
To me it seems simple and arrogant

[Thorne]

Astheism isn't really anything new, and people have a right to believe whatever they want, but my problem with athesits lie in their arguments. The old, convincing athesists were the existentialists mainly, who used philosophical groundings and even religious texts themselves to argue that people should go their own way.
Which is essentially what the New Atheists are saying. No special treatment for religions and no special treatment for atheists. No religious restrictions for running for office, as some states still support. No religious basis for laws. Everybody treated the same, with dignity and fairness.


The current attitude among atheists is mch more akin to nihilists: we can't prove God exists with science, so he doesn't exist
Not true! We are saying that, despite thousands of years of trying, theists have not been able to provide any real, testable, concrete evidence for the existence of their gods. We know that there is no way to prove that gods do not exist. We also know that there is no valid reason for believing that they do.


therefore, fuck it, I'll do what I want.
As opposed to those "good" Christians who can do whatever the fuck they want because Jesus will forgive them?


To me it seems simple and arrogant
Live a good life, treat people fairly, be a good person, but don't believe in God? YOU'RE GOING TO HELL!

Steal, rape and murder indiscriminately, but accept Jesus on your deathbed? WELCOME TO HEAVEN!

Yeah, that sounds like arrogance to me.

[Masika]

Astheism isn't really anything new, and people have a right to believe whatever they want, but my problem with athesits lie in their arguments. The old, convincing athesists were the existentialists mainly, who used philosophical groundings and even religious texts themselves to argue that people should go their own way.
The current attitude among atheists is mch more akin to nihilists: we can't prove God exists with science, so he doesn't exist; therefore, fuck it, I'll do what I want.
To me it seems simple and arrogant

My current argument, as an atheist, is that we are done. Religion, in and of itself, is/has been used to manipulate and control the population. It has no place in the public sphere. It has no place in government.

It is not the job of the atheist to prove that God does not exist. It is the job of the believer to prove that God does. Thus far there has not been an argument presented that cannot be taken out. It can be done with text and science.

[Thorne]

My current argument, as an atheist, is that we are done. Religion, in and of itself, is/has been used to manipulate and control the population. It has no place in the public sphere. It has no place in government.
I agree! Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief in gods. Any gods. Atheists may have other beliefs, which have nothing to do with the existence, or not, of gods. Just as Christians, or Jews, or Muslims can have other beliefs aside from their gods. The difference is that atheists do NOT try to force their beliefs on others. We DO try to prevent theists from forcing their beliefs upon us.


It is not the job of the atheist to prove that God does not exist. It is the job of the believer to prove that God does.
This is a big problem with theists. Especially those who, for example, declare the Bible to be inerrant. Some of these people will argue and complain that evolution is false, they will deny any evidence which supports evolution, they will twist evidence to try to make it fit their preconceived belief systems, then complain when we don't accept their assertions about their god. If they refuse to accept real, documented, verifiable, falsifiable evidence about something as real as evolution, why should we be expected to accept their imagined, poorly documented, unverifiable, unfalsifiable assertions about mystical beings?

[Alchemystic]

I have no problem with atheism or atheists, but it seems that in the last few years they have done the unthinkable: They have become religious about their non-belief.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, to name but three, have inexplicably chosen to adopt the very behavior that they despise. They are preaching the gospel of atheism with all the fervor of the fundamentalists they hold themselves above. This makes them seem petty and childish, which is disapointing. They have tossed out the one thing they hade going for them - rationality.

While this is an understandable and human reaction to the rise of the Christian right, they should know better, It is poor form to behave the same way that those whom you oppose do.

Alll this nonsense about "proof" and lthe use of logic on spirituual matters just shows a lack of understanding on the part of the atheist advocate that is as problematic as the ridiculous arguments put forth by the religious. What each side seems to be ignoring is that they belong to the same species. Both sides want to be right, anhd what we end up with is a collective of debaters that are all wrong,

To wit:

Believers often argue with the Bible, which they seldom read. Very few have a clue of its origins, much of which is questionable. They search for the parts that prove their point and ignore context altogether. They argue with people who don't accept the Bible anyway, never seeing the futility in this.

Non believers often argue with the scientific method, and they use it the same way believers use the bible. The last time many of them actually tested a hypothesis was in High School or College. They talk of science as if it is infallible, when history shows clearly it is not. They argue with people who won't accept science anyway, never seeing the futility in this.

So both sides seem to be bat shit crazy for arguing with each other at all.

I have no problem with either side, except when they get all religious about their views. This turns them into zealots. I have no use for zealots.

Science was started by religion, btw. The oldest universities all began with church money.
Genetics was discovered by a Monk experimenting with peas.
Somebody should tell Rick Santorum.

Atheism has spawned atrocities as bad as all the religious ones, btw. See the French Revolution (Jacobins!), Stalin's purge of Communist Russia, and what Mao did to China.
Somebody should tell Richard Dawkins. I wish we could tell Hitch.

Science requires faith, has it's own kind of dogma, and is merciless towards those who it considers heretical. See Fleischmann and Pons, or read Arthur C. Clark. And science makes mistakes but glosses over them. See Lord Kelvin on flight, and physics.

Religion is revised all the time. The reformation, the restoration. Count all the flavors of Christianity. Don't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni? Muslims probably have the same issues with Catholics and Methodists.

There is proof of the afterlife, but it is anecdotal, so science dismisses it as nonsense, or explains it away as a biochemical artifact. A hypothesis it accepts without using the scientific method.

Religion ignores the fact that it often contradicts itself.

There's plenty of arrogance and omission from both sides, and neither will admit they are wrong. Both like to feel superior to the other, and assert that each side is "dangerous".

Neither side has much love for those of us who believe that there's room for both disciplines, and can resolve the debate without much trouble. But this debate never seems to be about resolution. It seems to be more concerned about winning the argument and ridiculing the opposition. It's a pissing contest. It's repetition expecting a new result, ad infinitum.

In other words, insanilty.

Surely we have better things to do with our time.

[Thorne]

I have no problem with atheism or atheists, but it seems that in the last few years they have done the unthinkable: They have become religious about their non-belief.
Dawkins, Hitchens, Maher, to name but three, have inexplicably chosen to adopt the very behavior that they despise. They are preaching the gospel of atheism with all the fervor of the fundamentalists they hold themselves above. This makes them seem petty and childish, which is disapointing. They have tossed out the one thing they hade going for them - rationality.
And just what is this "gospel of atheism"? I'm an atheist, and I've never heard of it! Can you point me in the right direction?


Alll this nonsense about "proof" and lthe use of logic on spirituual matters just shows a lack of understanding on the part of the atheist advocate that is as problematic as the ridiculous arguments put forth by the religious.
You misunderstand! The only time we are expecting any proof from the religious is when they try to force their religious beliefs into the science classes, or into the political arena. If you want to spend your time praying to an unprovable deity, by all means do so! If you want to force MY children or grandchildren to learn your ridiculous dogma, I want proof! If you want to force YOUR beliefs into the laws of the land, I want proof!


What each side seems to be ignoring is that they belong to the same species. Both sides want to be right, anhd what we end up with is a collective of debaters that are all wrong,
I agree. Debating proves nothing except who is the better debater.


Believers often argue with the Bible, which they seldom read. Very few have a clue of its origins, much of which is questionable. They search for the parts that prove their point and ignore context altogether. They argue with people who don't accept the Bible anyway, never seeing the futility in this.
You left out the part where, when confronted with arguments from the Bible which refute their point, they complain about context.


Non believers often argue with the scientific method, and they use it the same way believers use the bible. The last time many of them actually tested a hypothesis was in High School or College.
You don't necessarily have to be a scientist to understand how science, and the scientific method, works. If you DON'T understand it, and don't use it, you aren't doing science.


They talk of science as if it is infallible, when history shows clearly it is not. They argue with people who won't accept science anyway, never seeing the futility in this.
Scientists do NOT consider science to be infallible! Just the opposite! We know that nothing is carved in stone. Things change all the time. The point is to draw closer to the truth, making adjustments to our understanding of reality. And we aren't trying to force people to understand, or even accept, science! Our argument is with those who try to refute science with dogma, replacing reality with fantasy. I don't care if some people don't want to accept evolution, that they don't understand it, that they're afraid of it. I DO care when they try to prevent science from being taught in a science curriculum!


Science was started by religion, btw.
You can only say this if you consider early religious beliefs to be the first tentative steps towards an understanding of the universe. They diverged when science moved on to explain reality and religion clung tenaciously to the mystical.


The oldest universities all began with church money.
There were scientists teaching, and learning, long before the Christian churches started funding universities. But yes, the churches did fund many universities. To teach church approved lessons. When scientists like Galileo and Giordano Bruno discovered truths which violated the teachings of the churches they were persecuted, their discoveries suppressed.


Atheism has spawned atrocities as bad as all the religious ones, btw. See the French Revolution (Jacobins!), Stalin's purge of Communist Russia, and what Mao did to China.
Specious argument. No one has ever been killed in the name of Atheism! Atheism is not a religious belief system, has no dogma, therefore no reason to attack anyone. It is simply a lack of belief in gods. The Jacobins were enemies of atheism as well as the church. Stalin and Mao basically set themselves up as demi-gods, replacing worship of the supernatural with worship of themselves. The things they did were done for their own glorification and political gain, not because they were atheists.


Somebody should tell Richard Dawkins. I wish we could tell Hitch.
They both know/knew these things. They have debunked them many times. But people keep bringing up the same old arguments, and if you don't keep knocking them down those people claim victory. So we keep knocking them down.


Science requires faith, has it's own kind of dogma, and is merciless towards those who it considers heretical.
Science requires a certain amount of trust. And yes, there can be some dogmatic portions of science. If you want to overturn the scientific understanding of gravity, or time, or space, you damned well better have a lot of evidence to back up your claims. Einstein managed to do it, because his Theory of Relativity explained things about gravity, time and space that Newtons theories did not.


See Fleischmann and Pons,
Fleischmann and Pons believed they had observed cold fusion. Most scientists were, naturally, skeptical, since such a thing violates known science. Repeated testing of the procedure showed that, indeed, there was no cold fusion occurring. Fleischmann and Pons jumped the gun with their announcements and were smacked down for it. The misguided enthusiasm of the media didn't help their situation at all.


or read Arthur C. Clark.
Not sure of the reference here. I've read Clarke. I don't know what you're saying by including him here.


And science makes mistakes but glosses over them. See Lord Kelvin on flight, and physics.
Science makes a LOT of mistakes! Some of them can be glossed over, as they occur very early in the process and are relatively unimportant. Others, not so much. Kelvin's mistakes, to which you are referring, were not in science, but in the predictions of where science could go. Many scientists have made similar mistakes. Yet the science goes on, learning new techniques, new revelations, new data. And despite his mistakes, Kelvin is still respected for his scientific discoveries.


Religion is revised all the time. The reformation, the restoration. Count all the flavors of Christianity. Don't understand the difference between Shia and Sunni? Muslims probably have the same issues with Catholics and Methodists.
The difference is that all of these faiths, and in most instances, all of the sects and sub-sects and sub-sub-sects, all claim to be the One True Faith™. They all claim to be the true arbiters of morality. And their "revisions" are on the order of disagreements as to just how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. A true revision, such as the Catholic Church claiming that it accepts evolution, is extremely rare, and only occurs because it becomes rather obvious that denying such things will hurt the church, not because it is truth. And even there, the church makes the assumption that God guides evolution in some way.


There is proof of the afterlife, but it is anecdotal,
There's proof of werewolves and vampires, too. But it's all anecdotal.


so science dismisses it as nonsense, or explains it away as a biochemical artifact. A hypothesis it accepts without using the scientific method.
Wrong! Science has studied such claims. They CONTINUE to study such claims. And their studies always (so far) lead them to the conclusion that it's a combination of biochemical reactions, wishful thinking and (sometimes) outright lies. Religions claim the existence of an afterlife with no evidence whatsoever, claiming it as "revealed truth".

Here's an example of why I keep arguing against religious thought being forced into science and politics:
Imagine yourself standing on the edge of a high cliff. Nothing below you for hundreds of feet, and nothing but rocks at the bottom. With you are a scientist and a priest. The scientist says, "According to the THEORY of Gravity, if you jump off of this cliff you will reach terminal velocity and die when you hit the ground." The priest says, "The Good Lord says that, if you believe hard enough, you can jump off this cliff and he will carry you gently down to the ground without harm." Which do you believe?

[Of course, if you should decide to jump, the scientist will monitor your fall, checking his stop-watch and, when you splatter yourself over the rocks he will observe, "Hmm! Precisely according to THEORY! One more confirming datum." The priest will shrug and say, "Guess he didn't believe hard enough!"


Surely we have better things to do with our time.
Not really. If I can convince ONE person to actually think about what they've been taught to believe, it will have been worth the effort. Because that is the biggest difference between atheists and religious thought. The atheists don't say, "You MUST believe this, or you CANNOT believe that." They say only, "THINK about what you have been told." Because real, critical thought is the anathema of religious dogma. The church doesn't want you to THINK about its teachings! You must accept those teachings without reservations, or that all-loving god of theirs will fuck you over big time!

[Alchemystic]

Did you read through what I wrote, taking time to consider what I was trying to say, or did you just start spewing as you went along? You assume that I am trying to cram my beliefs down your throat, that I and every other person of faith has arrived at their belief MINDLESSLY, having never questioned anything, but simply believed because we were told to. This is arrogant and prejudicial, and more than a little insulting. Just because I believe in something that you don't doesn't mean that I am not capable of critical thought, I am not trying to force my belief on anyone. Nor am I attacking science as being wrong "because the bible says so". I am not a "creationist", and I've not only studied the bible, but I have researched how it came about. The canon has the thumb prints of men all over it. Religion is, in my view, a social construct, subject to manipulation by men, for their own purposes. Those being mostly to control the masses through fear, and take their wealth while doing so. If you weren't so quick judge me and paint me as a dumbass believer, you would discover that I probably agree with you on a lot of things. But you are on a mission. A mission of trying to get just one poor deluded believer to think, because then what? Then they will see how stupid they were, and how right you are? You aren't cramming your non-belief down anyone's throat, but if you can just get them to think, then they will come around to your way of thinking. If you can just get them to use their brains, then they will see the foolishness of believing in fairy tales. And you will have yourself a convert. Will you be satisfied? I doubt it. Once you taste to sweetness of the newly converted, well, you will want more.

btw: Critical thought is anathma to religious dogma, not "the anathema of". Now, I won't speak to the differences between theism and atheism, or the differences between atheists and believers, That would be generalizing, which is fast track to ending up with one's foot in one's mouth. What I will address is the differnce between you and I.
I don't assume that you are a lesser person because you are an atheist. I don't think your non-belief means you have no moral compass, or that your non-belief makes you "evil",
I know for a fact that most atheists are more in line with true Christian morality** than most Christians are. The most evil acts that mankind commits always come from those who believe themselves to be righteous. Goodness isn't a function of faith,. Your lack of belief does not make you one bit less of a human than me. You cannot say the same of me. By the very words you wrote, my belief means that I'm not capable of critical thought. Since I believe, I cannot be as smart as you are.

My point was that the atheist and the theist are human, and therefore, subject to the same weaknesses and imperfections that plague all of us. I could give a flying fuck at a rolling donut about what you believe or don't believe. It is really none of my business. Belief is and should always be a personal issue. I look at atheists like yourself, who are so bent on trying to make people understand there is no God, and I look at the "religious", who believe in freedom, as long as everyone believes like they do, and I don't see a whole lot of difference. The lot of you all trying to validate yourselves by finding people of like minds to agree with them. Pretty human, that. I liked atheists more when they were content to not believe quietly. I used to pray, "God please save me from your followers". Now that non-believers are preaching their non-belief with the same vigor as their counterparts, I just pray for quiet. I have no use for those trying to tell me what I should think, as if they know any better than I do.


**Doing unto others, being tolerant, setting aside judgment, and aggressively forgiving people for being people.

[denuseri]

Oh thank God someone else who see's the zealotry of some of the Atheists for what it is!

Thank you so very much for your wise posts here alchemystic.

Though lol Ive said much the same thing in no less than three different threads on religion and one or two on politics or current events that some overzealous atheist has sidebared into an anti-religious rant...all to little effect where some of those zealots are conserned. I wish you luck all the same though!

[MMI]

Seems to me, Thorne is OK with religion so long as he doesn't have to take part, and so long as it isn't established as part of government. I can understand that. Why should shops be forced to shut on Sundays to keep "the Lord's Day holy"?

But there again, why should laws be passed that ignore a substantial proportion (in USA a majority, I believe) of people's beliefs, for example, that Sunday is a holy day?

Or, again, why should people be allowed to buy guns when the only purpose for doing so is to kill? Or forbidden from doing so? People's belief that they should be allowed to bear arms is merely a belief, nothing more.

Government must be based on something more substantial than belief, mustn't it ... but how?

[Alchemystic]

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state -- The church has no business in politics, and the government needs to stay out of church. What many fundamentalists cannot understand is that this law is as much for the protection of free worship as it is keeping God out of governance. THese people are often all for a theocrisy, as long as it is their Church. Do they not understand that this will certainly change with every election?

I understand the athiest view, I just think they could do better. They probably have criticism for me. Nah. Not important enough for them to notice. Live and let live.

[Thorne]

Did you read through what I wrote, taking time to consider what I was trying to say, or did you just start spewing as you went along?
I did read your post, and wasn't pointing my response at you in particular but at your characterizations of atheists and atheism, and some of the same tired points that theists have made over the years. My post was primarily an answer to yours, not an attack upon you in particular.


You assume that I am trying to cram my beliefs down your throat,
Not you in particular, but theists in general, yes. Trying to force prayers in schools and political meetings, trying to prohibit atheists, or people of a different faith, from holding public office. These kinds of acts, and much more, are typical of theist actions in the US right now.


that I and every other person of faith has arrived at their belief MINDLESSLY, having never questioned anything, but simply believed because we were told to.
No, certainly not everyone. A large portion of theists, though, arrive at their religion through birth, taking on the faith of their parents, without necessarily thinking about what that faith actually teaches. A recent study showed that atheists scored higher than Christians in the US with regards to the things in the Bible. And a very high percentage of atheists, including myself, were raised in religious homes and only became free of their religions after learning the truth of those religions, of how they were formed and evolved. I live in Bible country here. It's amazing to me how many people blindly espouse their faith without ever actually reading the Bible, or studying theology.


Just because I believe in something that you don't doesn't mean that I am not capable of critical thought, I am not trying to force my belief on anyone.
I'm not sure why you think I've attacked you personally! All of my comments were about religions in general, and mostly about science.


Nor am I attacking science as being wrong "because the bible says so". I am not a "creationist", and I've not only studied the bible, but I have researched how it came about. The canon has the thumb prints of men all over it.
I'm glad to hear it. But again, I never made any such claims of you. I did throw in a few "IF you" comments, but they were not aimed specifically at you personally, but at theists in general. IF they fit the pattern.


Religion is, in my view, a social construct, subject to manipulation by men, for their own purposes. Those being mostly to control the masses through fear, and take their wealth while doing so.
I agree with you, as far as that goes. It's also a way to fleece the flocks, keep the priests well fed.


If you weren't so quick judge me and paint me as a dumbass believer, you would discover that I probably agree with you on a lot of things.
Again, I don't see where I've judged you or painted you as anything. In fact, some of your comments had me wondering just where you stood on the religious issue.


But you are on a mission. A mission of trying to get just one poor deluded believer to think, because then what? Then they will see how stupid they were, and how right you are?
Nope. Not even close. But maybe they will see that what they have been told by their preachers or priests or rabbis is not necessarily what their holy books actually said.


You aren't cramming your non-belief down anyone's throat, but if you can just get them to think, then they will come around to your way of thinking. If you can just get them to use their brains, then they will see the foolishness of believing in fairy tales. And you will have yourself a convert. Will you be satisfied? I doubt it. Once you taste to sweetness of the newly converted, well, you will want more.
I don't care if they deconvert, or change to a different religion, or hang on to what they have always had. I have no stake in their beliefs. Except to get them to keep them in church, or in their own homes, or in their own hearts, where they belong.


I don't assume that you are a lesser person because you are an atheist. I don't think your non-belief means you have no moral compass, or that your non-belief makes you "evil",
I'm glad about that. But look into the fundamentalist, religious right of this country. Check out the preachings of people like Pat Robertson, even the Pope. They make those claims all the time.


I know for a fact that most atheists are more in line with true Christian morality** than most Christians are. The most evil acts that mankind commits always come from those who believe themselves to be righteous. Goodness isn't a function of faith,. Your lack of belief does not make you one bit less of a human than me.
You don't know how refreshing it is to hear that from a person of faith.


You cannot say the same of me. By the very words you wrote, my belief means that I'm not capable of critical thought. Since I believe, I cannot be as smart as you are.
I never claimed that. I never claimed that ALL believers are deluded, or incapable of critical thought. I know there are many theists who are smarter than I am. Some of them are scientists, who can compartmentalize their minds, keeping the science and the religion separate. I have no problem with people JUST because they believe. My problem, again, is with those who want to force others to believe as they do, and want to do it by force of law!


I look at atheists like yourself, who are so bent on trying to make people understand there is no God, and I look at the "religious", who believe in freedom, as long as everyone believes like they do, and I don't see a whole lot of difference.
I do not make the claim that there is no God. I do claim that there is no evidence for gods, or fairies, or unicorns, and therefore no reason to believe in them. But I have no wish to force any beliefs upon anyone.


The lot of you all trying to validate yourselves by finding people of like minds to agree with them. Pretty human, that. I liked atheists more when they were content to not believe quietly.
Yes, that's been a problem. It's okay to be atheist as long as I don't make a fuss? But the theists have every right to make a fuss when we don't allow them to bully others into belief! Yes, it is a lot easier to like someone who doesn't challenge you.


I used to pray, "God please save me from your followers". Now that non-believers are preaching their non-belief with the same vigor as their counterparts, I just pray for quiet. I have no use for those trying to tell me what I should think, as if they know any better than I do.
And I maintain that, while there are some atheists who "evangelize", most of those I'm familiar with are only responding to attacks upon the freedom of everyone to pursue their own beliefs, or lack of beliefs.

It's obvious to me that you have, as you said, studied your faith and have maintained that faith, though I would bet that what you believe now is far different from what you believed as a teenager. I would also like to know if you attend a particular church, and if so how your particular beliefs coincide with those of the your preacher/priest and the others in that church. And I'm willing to discuss, politely, our differences and our similarities. From what you have said here, I think we have a lot in common. And a lot of differences, too.

[Thorne]

Seems to me, Thorne is OK with religion so long as he doesn't have to take part, and so long as it isn't established as part of government. I can understand that.
Thanks, MMI. That's pretty much my point.


why should laws be passed that ignore a substantial proportion (in USA a majority, I believe) of people's beliefs, for example, that Sunday is a holy day?
No one is asking them to ignore their holy days. No one will force them to open their own businesses, or shop in those stores which are open. I would even go so far as to have the government prohibit businesses from punishing those who refuse to work for religious reasons, whether their holy day is Sunday, or Saturday, or Friday.


People's belief that they should be allowed to bear arms is merely a belief, nothing more.
Except that this one has been established in the US Constitution.

[Thorne]

I firmly believe in the separation of church and state -- The church has no business in politics, and the government needs to stay out of church. What many fundamentalists cannot understand is that this law is as much for the protection of free worship as it is keeping God out of governance. THese people are often all for a theocrisy, as long as it is their Church. Do they not understand that this will certainly change with every election?
As I said, we seem to have a lot in common! This is exactly what I have been saying.


I understand the athiest view, I just think they could do better.
No doubt we could. After all, we're only human, too.

[tedteague]

I agree! Atheism is not a belief system, it is a lack of belief in gods. Any gods. Atheists may have other beliefs, which have nothing to do with the existence, or not, of gods. Just as Christians, or Jews, or Muslims can have other beliefs aside from their gods. The difference is that atheists do NOT try to force their beliefs on others. We DO try to prevent theists from forcing their beliefs upon us.

this is as far as i read, so this may already have been addressed but i must disagree strongly with this point. bill maher made a documentary that mocks religion in "religious." Trey Parker and Matt Stone made a broadway Musical called "The Book of Mormon" that ridicules religion, not to mention the dozens of episodes of south park. to say that only theists preach and try to convert others is false, atheists do it just as much as anyone else. i can even observe in a few thrwads you yourself attacking religion everywhere, in one such thread about the meanings of easter, where it was clearly a religious follower simply asking for clarification on a few confusing dogmatic issues, you had no problem ripping into an anti-religious rant

[tedteague]

but anyway, i thhink the main point of this thread (i THINK, it is not clearly stated), is the atheist movements of the then and now. one thing that was not addressed (insoafar as I have read) is that popular atheist movements are akin to nihilism, an observation i too have made. before, the two were seperate with little overlap, now, it seems to be one and the same.
for example, the famous atheists of yore all made one essential point: if god does not exist, what do we do now? if there is no divine being to give life meaning, what do we do with our lives to make them fulfilled?
for example, Sartre wrote: Existentialism isn't so atheistic that it wears itself out showing that God doesn't exist. Rather, it declares that even if God did exist, that would change nothing. There you've got our point of view. Not that we believe that God exists, but we think that the problem of His existence is not the issue. In this sense, existentialism is optimistic, a doctrine of action, and it is plain dishonesty for Christians to make no distinction between their own despair and ours and then to call us despairing. this is not nearly the same as this http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2009/jan/21/asa-clears-atheist-bus-ad-campaign
nietzsche wrote: One still works, for work is a form of entertainment. But one is careful lest the entertainment be too harrowing. One no longer becomes poor or rich: both require too much exertion. Who still wants to rule? Who obey? Both require too much exertion.
No shepherd and one herd! Everybody wants the same, everybody is the same: whoever feels different goes voluntarily into a madhouse.
this is not the sameas this: http://images.search.yahoo.com/images/view;_ylt=A0PDoTEIDb9P1lwAb7GJzbkF;_ylu=X3oDMTBlMT Q4cGxyBHNlYwNzcgRzbGsDaW1n?back=http%3A%2F%2Fimage s.search.yahoo.com%2Fsearch%2Fimages%3Fp%3Datheist %2Badvertisement%26fr%3Dyfp-t-701-s%26fr2%3Dpiv-web%26tab%3Dorganic%26ri%3D4&w=620&h=400&imgurl=3.bp.blogspot.com%2F-jnD1q2inWG8%2FTZ3ebCcWBvI%2FAAAAAAAABCw%2FFvQccJEw otk%2Fs1600%2Fatheist%2Bbus%2Bad%2Btoronto.jpg&rurl=http%3A%2F%2Fypinabby.blogspot.com%2F2011%2F0 4%2Fatheist-bus-ads-coming-to-bc.html&size=77.3+KB&name=Atheist+advertisement+on+bus+in+Toronto&p=atheist+advertisement&oid=a070a176b338badcdb43ed7dcde99a30&fr2=piv-web&fr=yfp-t-701-s&tt=Atheist%2Badvertisement%2Bon%2Bbus%2Bin%2BToron to&b=0&ni=72&no=4&ts=&tab=organic&sigr=1261t4l4b&sigb=13g56dk7f&sigi=133lf3orr&.crumb=0dbR8HsoDa6
all of these past atheists or agnostics said god may or may not exist, but that'sjust the starting point, not the ending, after establishing that god is irrelevant, something else must be done, there is still a need for fulfillment and purpose in life, and this must be the sole prupose of life, that is an existentialist way. nowadays, the attitude does seem to be "no god, who cares what you do." this argument is inherently weak because it lies in the realm of the athesists only. a true conversation between theism and atheism must be on mutual terms. currently around the library, the attitude seems to be "there is no scientific proof of god,therefore, he does not exist." this is unacceptable to the theists because you're dealing in faith, not fact. you dont have faith in gravity, you know it exists. theists make many different counter-points based in faith, but this is unacceptable to the atheists because they deal in fact.
the question thorne should be asking is "are you living your life with authenticity, or do you bend to the will of a divine being?"
and the question now that i pose to you, Thorne, is this: "if the theists have it wrong, what have YOU done to give your life meaning? How do you live in a manner that is passionate and sincere? How have you become self-conscious and established through no external factors your own moral code of belief? and if you have not, how are you different from a nihilist?"
this is not a scientific "does god exist" question, this is a "how do we bcome fully human under these differing condition" and i have not yet seen a thread here that even poses this type of discussion.
at least, thats what i think the question Punish_her asked was.

[Thorne]

this is as far as i read, so this may already have been addressed but i must disagree strongly with this point. bill maher made a documentary that mocks religion in "religious." Trey Parker and Matt Stone made a broadway Musical called "The Book of Mormon" that ridicules religion, not to mention the dozens of episodes of south park. to say that only theists preach and try to convert others is false, atheists do it just as much as anyone else. i can even observe in a few thrwads you yourself attacking religion everywhere, in one such thread about the meanings of easter, where it was clearly a religious follower simply asking for clarification on a few confusing dogmatic issues, you had no problem ripping into an anti-religious rant
There is a big difference between attacking religion and attacking someone's faith. Religious organizations are little more than big businesses, without all of the legal restrictions by which businesses must abide. Yes, I attack religion, and religious organizations. I do not attack individuals unless they are forcing their religion onto others.

I will also ridicule someone who tells me they actually believe that the world is only 6000 years old, or that their god drowned the world in a global flood, or that their all-loving god hates gays, unless they can show evidence of their claims that doesn't involve taking their particular book of fairy tales and myths on faith.

[Thorne]

and the question now that i pose to you, Thorne, is this: "if the theists have it wrong, what have YOU done to give your life meaning? How do you live in a manner that is passionate and sincere? How have you become self-conscious and established through no external factors your own moral code of belief? and if you have not, how are you different from a nihilist?"
Why do you assume that my life has to have meaning, other than that meaning which I impose upon it? Why does anyone's life have to have some deep, philosophical underpinnings? I'm not a student of philosophy. I don't know squat about Sartre or Nietzsche. To me, all that crap is no different than faith in the supernatural, trying to impose some grand meaning on the meaningless. It's simply our own egos trying to tell us how important we are.

Well, I'm not important, not in the grand scheme of the universe. I'm just a speck of dust riding on a speck of dust in a vast cloud of dust particles that is the universe. BUT I make my own meaning out of life. I have family, children, grandchildren, and they give purpose to my life. I have empathy for the pain of others, and that provides a moral framework for my life. I don't steal because to do so would validate someone stealing from me. I don't cause injury because to do so would invite others to cause me injury. In short, I do unto others as I would have them do unto me. I don't need a supernatural entity to tell me what is right. I certainly don't need the vile crap espoused by the sadistic, misogynistic god of the Bible, or the imbecilic maundering of a first century Jewish rabbi to tell me how to live my life, how to treat my neighbors, or how to make my life meaningful to me!


this is not a scientific "does god exist" question, this is a "how do we bcome fully human under these differing condition" and i have not yet seen a thread here that even poses this type of discussion.
What does "fully human" even mean? Who defines what fully human is? The term makes no sense to me. We are all products of our societies, of our cultures. We tend to base our opinions of other, and of ourselves, on those cultures. But those cultures, those societies, aren't necessarily right for everyone. And the more rigid and dogmatic those cultures become, the fewer people who will fit into them. Does that make those misfits less human? Is a jungle-dwelling, stone-age level tribe in New Guinea or South America any less human than you and I?

I am an atheist. I do not believe in gods. I do not claim that gods cannot, or do not, exist. My only claim is that, since the dawn of humanity men have been searching for gods and have found nothing but reality confronting them. I see no reason to spend my life bowing down to some being which probably does not exist.

I am also a scientist (in a loose sense, at least). I do believe that the scientific method, properly applied, is the best tool we have to date to determine what is real and how the universe works. Anything which impinges upon our universe, which has an effect upon us or the world around us, is able to be studied to one degree or another. No one has yet been able to show any solid, verifiable evidence for any supernatural claim, despite millions of person-hours spent trying to do so. Anomalous readings on an EMF detector do not mean ghosts. Fuzzy images of a bearded man on a piece of toast do not mean God. The position of Jupiter at the time of my birth has no bearing upon my destiny.

Some people DO believe in gods. Most of the people in this country believe in a Christian God. There are an estimated 38,000 different sects, each with their own beliefs about what this god is, and what he wants from his followers. As long as these believers are not doing harm to others, and are not trying to force their beliefs onto others, I have no quarrel with them. I think they are mistaken in their beliefs, just as they think that I'm mistaken in my lack of belief. Each of us has that right!

But when those people try to force their beliefs (http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/04/11/tennessee-opens-door-to-creationism-in-schools/) into science classes I will fight them, and ridicule those beliefs! When children are harmed (http://religiouschildabuse.blogspot.com/) by those people because of those beliefs, I will fight them! And when religious people rally to defend (http://failedmessiah.typepad.com/failed_messiahcom/2012/05/video-more-than-1000-hasidim-come-out-to-support-alleged-child-rapist-567.html)the perpetrators of that abuse while demonizing the alleged victims, I will fight them!

[Thorne]

Just ran across this (http://freethoughtblogs.com/cuttlefish/2012/05/24/if-i-didnt-have-god/) a few minutes ago. I think it provides an answer of sorts to tedteague's question about where I get my morality from. Don't forget to read the comments, too.

[Punish_her]

i really didnt want to comment but i dont know how to delete a post

[Thorne]

i really didnt want to comment
You can always claim that the Devil made you do it!

[MMI]

@Thorne



People's belief that they should be allowed to bear arms is merely a belief, nothing more.
Except that this one has been established in the US Constitution.

The Constitution is just another law of a particular status. It enshrines the right to bear arms in law whereas some Americans regard the notion of civilians carrying guns in public as repugnant. Sure, they are free not to carry a gun, but what are they to do if a bunch of gun-toting rednecks try to make them carry a gun? Or if a twitchy NRA lunatic takes fright and shoots someone he considers a threat "in self defence"? The victim can't avoid the effect of the law then, just as atheists cannot avoid the effect of laws that have the effect of promoting a particular religion.

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

[Thorne]

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.
Which is basically what atheists have been told since the beginnings of religion. When they weren't just executed instead. "Don't make waves." "It's not hurting anyone." "It's only a prayer."

But look at the horrifying trends now going on in the US. Religious fundamentalists are trying to take over state legislatures, making inroads into the Congress and Senate, and now trying for the Presidency. What happens when the theocracy is established and atheism becomes illegal? Then they make Islam illegal. Then Scientology. You basically wind up with another Saudi Arabia, but run by Christians instead. What happens when they start censoring the internet in the US, as it's done in other parts of the world? This site, for many here, will no longer be available. Anything that doesn't pass their narrow, religious filters would be allowed. And don't say it can't happen. It can. They are trying to do it right now.

And don't think you would be safe in the UK, either. The same kinds of fundamentalist idiots we have here are starting to make a fuss over there. If it happens here, how long will the UK remain free?

No, we don't need to "get over it", we need to keep fighting it, keep pointing out the idiocy, the immorality of the religious leaders, the stupidity and misogyny of the political leaders. We have to keep letting people know what is happening, and what it can mean for them!

[thir]

i really didnt want to comment but i dont know how to delete a post

Me neither. I sometimes find that I need to think something through more or do not have time to finish, and then I cannot delete the post.

[thir]

Oh thank God someone else who see's the zealotry of some of the Atheists for what it is!

Thank you so very much for your wise posts here alchemystic.

Though lol Ive said much the same thing in no less than three different threads on religion and one or two on politics or current events that some overzealous atheist has sidebared into an anti-religious rant...all to little effect where some of those zealots are conserned. I wish you luck all the same though!



That is what this forum is for, right ;-)

On a general note: I have noticed have many times we have misunderstandings because of the word 'you', which means both 'you there who I am arguing with' and 'one' or 'people in general'.

I know I myself could have avoided some problems by using 'generic' after the you, maybe a thing to consider?

[thir]

Get over it and get on with life: it's the only one you have.

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

[thir]

Seems to me, Thorne is OK with religion so long as he doesn't have to take part, and so long as it isn't established as part of government. I can understand that. Why should shops be forced to shut on Sundays to keep "the Lord's Day holy"?

But there again, why should laws be passed that ignore a substantial proportion (in USA a majority, I believe) of people's beliefs, for example, that Sunday is a holy day?

Or, again, why should people be allowed to buy guns when the only purpose for doing so is to kill? Or forbidden from doing so? People's belief that they should be allowed to bear arms is merely a belief, nothing more.

Government must be based on something more substantial than belief, mustn't it ... but how?

A very big question, a thread in itself: how can you make democracy work? What does it mean? Whose ideas should prevail? Is it simply majority? Then what about minorities?

[thir]

Which is basically what atheists have been told since the beginnings of religion. When they weren't just executed instead. "Don't make waves." "It's not hurting anyone." "It's only a prayer."

But look at the horrifying trends now going on in the US. Religious fundamentalists are trying to take over

Actually, you do not have to have what is going on right now to protest about 'it is only a prayer'. Not wanting to participate is both respect for one's own position, whether atheist or another religion, and respect for the religion doing the praying. It means you take that seriously too, that it is not unimportant flim-flam.

[Thorne]

On a general note: I have noticed have many times we have misunderstandings because of the word 'you', which means both 'you there who I am arguing with' and 'one' or 'people in general'.

I know I myself could have avoided some problems by using 'generic' after the you, maybe a thing to consider?
I agree, thir. I think this is one of the problems people have with some of my posts. I use the word "you" in a generic sense (as in "you can lead a horse to water....) Some people take it personally (as in "I never lead horses to water! What are you talking about?) I guess I should try to be more clear in my comments.

[Thorne]

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.
No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church? I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system. He should be allowed the freedom to refuse. UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.

There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid! This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

[denuseri]

I do not understand this position - we can accept/ignore other people's religion or lack thereof only as long as their opinions do not impose on our own freedom.

To me that is what this is about: freedom!

And you cannot ignore all that is happening in the name of religion, all the initatives to impose religion on other people in general, the schools, the hospitals, the hate mongers..

The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

Where does someone's religious/idealist freedom stop? I'd say where it starts to impose on someone else's freedom. Where it takes choices away - choices which are important. Or where it starts to kill.

I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

But there the freedom of the priest would mean no freedom for a Christian gay person to get buried in their own home area.

Am I off topic here? I am not sure I completely understood the OP.

The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

[Thorne]

Not wanting to participate is both respect for one's own position, whether atheist or another religion,
Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.


and respect for the religion doing the praying. It means you take that seriously too, that it is not unimportant flim-flam.
I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam. As a means for getting what one wants it is tantamount to writing a letter to Santa Claus. True, prayer has been shown to have a calming effect on some people, similar to meditation, or taking a deep breath, or counting to ten. And such an effect can help people's bodies to, for example, fight off diseases more efficiently. Just like meditation. Or rest. Or soothing music.

But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.

As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

[MMI]

And don't think you would be safe in the UK, either. The same kinds of fundamentalist idiots we have here are starting to make a fuss over there. If it happens here, how long will the UK remain free?


We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!

[Thorne]

We know how to treat religious fundamentalists ... send them to America!
Bloody bastards! I'd suggest you send them to Australia instead, but THEY keep sending them here, too!

[denuseri]

Where can we send all the atheist fundamentalists?

[MMI]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.

[thir]

Atheism is NOT a religion. It's not a belief system. It is a lack of belief in gods. That's ALL.


I do know that - bad phrasing. Sorry.



I disagree. Personally, I DO think prayer is unimportant flim-flam.


What I meant here was that I respect that the prayers take it seriously.

And that is one reason they should not try to force others into it as if it was just - nothing.
I think it was MMI who said what does it matter - it's just a prayer. I think it does, both ways.



But the prayer I argue against is those prayers which are inserted into governmental procedures, or public meetings by government entities (such as public schools). These prayers are prohibited by the Constitution of the United States, yet Christians (especially) insist that we are violating THEIR right to freedom of religion because we don't want them pushing their prayers into such venues! Or that they are being persecuted because they are ejected from a meeting for disrupting the meeting by "spontaneously" rising in prayer, loud and long.


As you know, I agree totally in this. Freedom in these matters as in others is the important thing.
The fight is where one person's freedom (as percieved) restrains that of another. And I think in this case the public space is the neutral space. You do not do BDSM for instance in a public place, for that reason.

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.



As usual, these "followers of Jesus" have cherry-picked their beliefs, only following the rules that they agree with. They ignore the statement from Matthew 6:5-6:
"And when thou prayest, thou shalt not be as the hypocrites are: for they love to pray standing in the synagogues and in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men. Verily I say unto you, They have their reward. But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."

In other words, keep it in church, and in your heart, where it belongs.

Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.

[thir]

No, I don't think you are off topic, but I'm not sure what you mean by "refuse to bury". Do you mean that the priest refused to perform the Christian burial rites? Did he refuse to allow the person to be buried in 'consecrated' ground? Or is it that burials can ONLY be performed through the State sponsored church?


He refused to perform the rites. As for the second, I don't know if our church yards are consecrated ground, but you cannot refuse anyone a place there, as Christianity is a state religion and also the person was a Christian and wanted a Christian burial. As for the last, I am not sure that there are any any other burial places pt in DK at this time - maybe a few.

The latest discussions meant that gays could marry in church but the priest could refuse. Maybe fair enough, I do not know, but you can get married at the town council office - gays too - so you are not stuck. Burial is worse, Althugh you can get in the ground and people can organise their own rites or lack thereof if they want, which a fair number do. Here in UK you can organise pagan funerals with pagan rites if you wish.

Anyway it is a remarkedly hostile idea of that priest, but it has happened once before, many years ago, apparently.



I think either of the first two instances can be viewed as valid, within his religious belief system.


Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour. Such an intolerant person - I hate people like that, why can't he be tolerant like me? ;-))



He should be allowed the freedom to refuse.


You know - I am not sure. Not within the state church, anyway. It is not a hate church.
The thought of new churches with hate messages in DK or really really scary!



UNTIL his superiors reverse him, which in effect says that the religion accepts gays as having the same rights as heterosexuals. Because of the priests vows to the church, his personal freedoms are somewhat narrowed. Of course, he is still free to remove himself from the church and cling to his personal beliefs, but as a representative of the church he is bound by the rules and requirements of his office. The third issue is more terrifying.


Well, he was told in no uncertain terms what his duties were, but even before that had apologised profusedly. But it took a bit for the chock to settle, before other Christians could start to forgive, which they admitted they had to, that is another cornerstone :-)



There is an equally terrifying parallel here in the US, in regard to this whole equality of marriage business. A state legislator apparently proposed (sorry, can't find a link now) that all marriages within that state MUST be performed by clergy to be valid!


And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.



This would remove marriage from the purview of the state and make it completely religious, which would mean problems for any non-religious persons, and especially for gays. And what happens when, for example, they decide that it can only be CHRISTIAN churches? No more Jewish or Muslim weddings. No Hindu weddings. Fortunately, I think the proposal was soundly defeated. But based on past performance we can be sure that he, or they, will try again.

The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.

[thir]

D:
The topic this time though is about the ironic zealotry of the atheists is I understood the op correctly isnt it?

t:
Allegedly. I am not sure I agree in that view.

D:
I think all people of any faith (even if that faith is only one in science or in nothing at all) would do far better if they stopped trying to convert followers and simpley co-existed in mutual respect of each others ways. Tend their own garden as it were to steal a phrase from Voltaire.

t:
Indeed.

However, you can go the other way too: In UK they have these interfaith attempts here and there, seems to be going well, people of various faiths getting to know each other. But they do not want pagans - we do not have a holy book ;-)))

t:
Recently, in Denmark, a priest refused to bury a gay person. This caused a tremendous response from the public, most of which on the line of what on earth do you think you are doing, refusing to bury someone? A few Christians (we do not have so many, all in all, in spite of Christianity being a state religion) asked where 'love your neighbour as yourself' went - the cornerstone of most Danish Christianity.

D:
Yes, sounds like this individuals bigotry to homosexuality has cuased him to "sin" and go against the core tenants of his faith, not a very priestly thing to do.

t: No, it wasn't, it was kind of - different though, to hear all the non-chuch goers ask him where his love for his neighbour was.

t:
But a few asked where was the priest's freedom of choice? That question was answered by the bishop, who said your duty is to bury whoever needs burying, period, it is in your job description. State religion - the bishop is the boss.

D:
The priest was clearly in the wrong in that he was refusing to bury the man...however he would be in the right perhaps depending upon his sects rules to have withheld the sacrements etc during said ceromony perhaps idk.

t:
No, because it was not a sect, but a main religion with fairly clear ideas. Accepting a job in it, he also accepts the main ideas. If he felt strongly about it, he should make his own church. Which I hope - and pray! - that noone does, not this hate church.

[Thorne]

You know, Thorne, that's not a half bad idea. If we'd sent them all to Oz in the first place, perhaps the Australian cricket and rugby teams would suck like the USA's do.
Nah, pretty unlikely. They're too busy being bigots to get involved with sports, especially sports like rugby where men actually TOUCH one another!

Besides, Americans suck at cricket and rugby because we have our OWN sports, like baseball and football. REAL football, where you throw and catch the ball with your hands! Not that silly thing YOU call football, where you use your feet!

[Thorne]

But it will always be a matter of debate what you can or cannot do in a public space. But the other situations you mention are crystal clear: you do Not make a captive audience of other people by praying in such situations.
There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.

One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it. I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!


Mostly I agree. But I would have no problem with for instance a muslim doing his or her praying on a little carpet in the corner of a room 5 times a day, or someone praying quietly somewhere, if there is no prayer room.
I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

[Thorne]

Well, His belief system, maybe. The cornerstone of the Danish Christianity (such as it is) is love thy neighbour.
That is the cornerstone of ALL Christianity, supposedly. Here in the US, far too many churches have forgotten the teachings of Jesus, as written in their Bibles, in favor of hatred towards those who are different (see especially the Westboro Baptists). One more reason to fight them whenever possible.


And when I think that marriage is actually a new idea, historically speaking..and even then priests had nothing to do with it.
LOL! Don't try putting THAT one over on the theists here! To them, marriage was created by GOD, for one man and one woman. It says so in their BIBLE! (Don't read that part about Solomon having 700 wives and 300 concubines. "Ignore that man behind the curtain!)


The idea is - so weird I cannot understand it!! Why can't he just marry those who wants to, and let the rest do as they desire?? I think people like that just want to make waves - it is so obviously illogical.
Part of the problem of religious thought is that it defies logic. Or twists it into unimaginable shapes to try to justify the beliefs. When questioned about God's command to Joshua to kill all of the Canaanites, men women and children, William Lane Craig, a Christian apologist, makes this horrific comment (http://www.reasonablefaith.org/slaughter-of-the-canaanites):
"Moreover, if we believe, as I do, that God’s grace is extended to those who die in infancy or as small children, the death of these children was actually their salvation. We are so wedded to an earthly, naturalistic perspective that we forget that those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy. Therefore, God does these children no wrong in taking their lives."
IMO, anyone who can so easily twist their minds to accept such a statement as "logical" is seriously demented. Using this logic I can say that:
If you believe, as Craig does, that "those who die are happy to quit this earth for heaven’s incomparable joy", then you should stop seeing doctors and taking medications, and allow yourself to die quickly, so you can get to heaven faster. Don't bother looking before crossing the streets. Trust that God will protect you, or call you home. Amen.

Sounds logical to me!

[thir]

There are no proscriptions against public prayer in the US. If a group of people wanted to go into a public park and pray, loudly, they would be permitted as long as they are not interfering with other people's activities. Personally, I have no objection to this activity, provided it is available to ALL who want to pray. Including Christians, Jews, Muslims or any other religious group.


Me neither, because you can walk away from it, and presumably there is room for everybody in a park. People do all kinds of things there, thai chi and whatnot, and that is fine. What I was thinking about was meeting where you have to attend, and other situations where you cannot walk away. Like starting a political meeting, which you have to attend, with a prayer.



One thing that has happened in several communities around the US is that Christians, who have frequently performed prayer meetings similar to this, have tried to prevent those of other faiths from enjoying the same rights. To the point where the city government has had to restrict ALL faiths, including Christians, from using the park just so that the Christians can prevent OTHERS from using it.


I would say it sounds childish, but actually few children behave that way.



I also recall a case back in 2002 where a Christian community complained about the local mosque issuing their call to prayer, through loudspeakers, five times a day. Claiming it was a disturbance. Wound up that the city had to ban the use of Church bells on Sundays in order to stop the mosque. Not exactly the result the Christians wanted!


But at least there was peace and quiet! Not a bad result, really.



I have no problem with it either. Many businesses make allowances for such things. But that Muslim is not forcing a public meeting to begin with a prayer, the way that many Christian communities do.

That's it.

[tedteague]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same
A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.
For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"

[Thorne]

I'm going to offer a new perspective here on this whole "church and state" that seems to be popping up.
America has a democracy (for the sake of staying on topic, let's just suppose this is true) or a democratic republic, but the point is the same
No, the situation is NOT the same. The US is NOT a Democracy, but a Democratic Republic, by design.


A democracy is defined as citizens determining the public policy of their own nation: a majority will win
If the majority happens to be religious, then why is it not within the limits of the US Constitution to impliment religious social policy? That's the democratic thing to do.
Which is why we are a Democratic Republic. We elect leaders who are expected to make sure the country does the RIGHT thing, despite what the majority might think. And by the right thing, we mean constitutionally right. Let's face it, if we had to abide strictly by the majority then blacks would still be forbidden to vote or intermarry, women would not be permitted to vote, non-Christians would not be allowed to hold office, etc. It's because in the past our leaders had the strength of character to do what was RIGHT instead of what the majority wanted that America has a fair measure of equality today.


For example, I'm sure Thorne here would be all about pro-choice, and would say that a minority of right-wing religious fundamentalists are out to restrict the proceedure, but if we go by a recent poll, where 59% of americans identify as pro-life, then they should get to determine the public policy that says "no abortions"
Yes, I am pro-choice. And despite what they claim, the anti-abortion groups are not pro-life, but pro-forced-birth. Many of them would ban abortions under any circumstances, even when the life of the mother is in jeopardy. And another example of where the majority can be wrong, taking away the rights of women to control their bodies for the sake of POTENTIAL humans.