Book Burning

[denuseri]

lol the aethiests can pray to their gods if they want Thorne...if they are really aethists and not actually some kind of hypocrits they shouldnt care one way or the other anyway who is praying to whom or when or where.

I do think that too many people are over reacting over in the middle east about the book burning thing.

But I also believe that burning a book, like a flag or any effegy, however distasteful, is also a part of ones freedom of expression.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]lol the aethiests can pray to their gods if they want Thorne...if they are really aethists and not actually some kind of hypocrits they shouldnt care one way or the other anyway who is praying to whom or when or where.

Well, fortunately the atheists don't HAVE any gods to pray to, and they really don't care who is praying, or when, or even where, with the exception of keeping the prayers out of official government meetings. Religion has no place in the American government, by law.

But I also believe that burning a book, like a flag or any effegy, however distasteful, is also a part of ones freedom of expression.

And we can at least agree on that, to a point. If the actual book (or flag, or icon) being burned had some historical or religious significance, such as the Gutenberg Bible, or a Torah stolen from a Synagogue, it is probably going to be considered a felony, since you are destroying property which doesn't belong to you. But in this particular case, it was a copy purchased by the group for the express purpose of being burned. While it may show disrespect for the religion, it is not destroying an historical or holy artifact.

[denuseri]

Cool I love it when we can agree on something!

[Snark]

The following is taken from a rather influential source of US law:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, where in this amendment does it say that ANYONE is free to simply say any thing? Or that a prayer CAN'T be said? "CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW..." is misunderstood to mean that any local jurisdictional body is the equivalent of the US Congress AND that saying a prayer is the same as passing a law. There have been idiots in the Judiciary Branch of our government. Unfortunately the precedents they set are still in place.

[MMI]

Why? Those parameters are already in existence, put forth by the theists. It's up to them to prove their case, not up to scientists to prove them wrong.

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

And how can they do that without knowing the conditions in which gods could exist? And you cannot know that unless you know that there are gods in the first place. It would be like trying to establish an environment that's conducive to raising unicorns, without knowing anything about unicorns in the first place. It cannot be done. It's up to the Unicornists to show proof that these creatures exist.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist. Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be. Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

Anywhere? Even places which we cannot see? Or measure? Like maybe between the universes? Or in the infinite time before the creation of the universe? Again, there's no way to absolutely say these hypothetical conditions do not, or can not, exist anywhere, any more than we can prove that gods, or unicorns, do not exist.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

But first the majority would have to prove their case, not just base everything on an unprovable assertion. That's the point of atheism, after all. Theists are in the majority and asserting the existence of their multiple gods, without any evidence, and expecting non-believers to prove something which is ultimately unprovable. Show me the evidence for gods and then we can study that evidence and try to determine if it is truly evidence for supernatural beings or perhaps evidence of a much more advanced, but natural, race of beings. Just remember Clarke's third law: "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question. To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods. The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

[denuseri]

WOW MMI thanks for saying what I was trying to say but couldnt find the right words to say for so long now so wondefully.

Thats kinda of the logic behind why I had to exclude the aethiest approach as being just as illogical as any thesistically sect specific belief system compared to that of the agnostic or IDK approach to the whole existance or not of a god or gods to begin with back when I was questioning my faith.

Its also why I lump the aethiests in as a just another type of belief system requiring "faith" to believe in what it as a system of belief proposes as truth or not.

Which is exactly how my philosophy and ethics and logic teachers all explained it too for the most part using abeit different sematical arguments.

In any event, imho no one should be anything other than accepting and tollerant that people are going to believe and or have faith in different things from each other for their own reasons.

[Thorne]

Because, even now, I believe there is a majority consensus among sensible people that there is a god. That means that believers have persuaded most other reasonable people that there is a god. It seems to me that anyone who goes against this common acceptance must justify his position rather than the other way round.

The majority consensus doesn't mean anything except that many people believe in something that may or may not exist. What you are saying is that, since Christianity is the largest religion (according to Wikipedia) then everyone should be required to accept Christianity or justify why they do not.

And I, and atheists in general, HAVE justified our position. The is NO evidence for gods, none, nothing, nada. Not that there are no gods, which we cannot, can never, prove, but that there is no evidence for gods.

That's a problem for the scientists to solve, and if they can't then science is too limited to be used as a method for deciding whether gods exist.

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

Many scientific discoveries have been the result of inferring their existence, and then establishing whether the conditions existed to allow those "theoretical" objects to be.

Yes, inferred from evidence which doesn't fit the established theories.

Do the same for gods, or admit that science is inadequate for that particular purpose.

We've been doing the same for gods since they were first dreamed up in some shaman's drug ravaged brain. "The gods live in the volcano," they said, so we studied the volcanoes. No gods. "The gods live in the sky," they said, so we studied the skies. No gods. "The gods send lightning to destroy the unfaithful," but the faithful get destroyed just as readily. Every testable claim for the gods has been tested, and the gods have come up short. So the theist claim that "The gods are unknowable, untestable. They must be taken on faith alone." And that lets science out. ANY test or evidence which fails to show the existence of gods will be either ignored as not relevant or shrugged at and a modified definition of gods will come out. It's called shifting the goal posts, and theists have had thousands of years to become masters at it.

For example - and I'm not offering this as a genuine argument, but simply as an illustration - you might infer god needs to be believed in to exist. You can then argue that god does not exist in any place where there is no faith. If you find any place in the universe or multiverse where faith exists at any time, you can then begin a search to find him. Maybe you will: that will be conclusive. Maybe you won't; that will leave the question open and reveal the limitations of your approach.

And that just more clearly illustrates my point. There will NEVER be enough evidence to convince the faithful that they are wrong. They will ALWAYS find some way around reality to justify their beliefs.

Remember also, the majority of reasonable people believe in gods: few reasonable people believe in unicorns.

And yet the evidence for unicorns is just as compelling as the evidence for gods.

You ignore the fact that most people are brought up in cultures which promote belief in gods. You ignore the fact that most people are not taught to be skeptical of everything they see, or to be wary of authority, especially religious authority. You shrug off the fact that humanity is still struggling to cast off the superstitions of thousands of years of ignorance.

At one time the majority of reasonable people believed the Earth was flat. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people believed that the Earth was the center of the Universe. It's not. At one time the majority of reasonable people thought the sun was made of coal! It's not.

People will believe what they have been taught to believe, what they want to believe, what they think others want them to believe. It's not reasonable, it's just the way we are made.

Yes anywhere, any time, any dimension. If we don't have the tools to prove our case, we must find them or accept the possibility of gods may be a real one and that our denial is just another act of faith. You can't blame religionists for science's shortcomings.

I don't blame theists for anything. But as I noted before, science cannot examine something which is not there! And every time science has looked and shown that the gods are not here, theists have come back and said, "Of course they're not there, stupid, they're over here!"

And science will ALWAYS accept the possibility of gods, because they can never prove anything other than the improbability of them.

You are doing precisely the same: claiming that belief in gods is unscientific, when science may be entirely irrelevant to the question.

That's exactly what I'm saying. The gods, as defined by theists, are not testable by any current scientific method. When we develop new methods and, presumably, show that the gods don't appear there either, the theists will move even further away from reality, requiring science to start all over again.

To deny the existence of god is just as much an unprovable assertion as to believe in the existence of gods.

Absolutely. And I have said this repeatedly.

The evidence for god is all around us, but you interpret that same evidence as demonstrating his absence. Clearly, the evidence, either way, is inconclusive. Evidence, therefore, is unreliable for resolving this particular problem.

I disagree. The evidence is quite conclusive. The entire structure of the universe, everything from the first few milliseconds of the big bang right through to the present can be explained by evidence without recourse to supernatural beings. Nothing we have studied shows any evidence of being anything but natural. You want to say that God guided it? Be my guest. But if you can't prove it, your belief is worthless. Everything we know to date says that no gods did anything.

Finally, Clarke is wrong, technology is not to be confused with magic. Magic, if it works at all, works without technology - possibly in spite of it.

Magic, like the gods, is a supernatural explanation for something we don't understand. If you don't have the understanding of the technology, how do you differentiate the real from the unreal? Try explaining television to a primitive culture. To them it will seem like magic. Hell, even some "civilized" people don't understand it, even though they use it every day.

And yet again, magic, like the gods, fails in the face of knowledge. It's a trick, a sleight of hand designed to fool the believer. Once you understand the trick the magic, like the gods, dissolves.

[Thorne]

WOW MMI thanks for saying what I was trying to say but couldnt find the right words to say for so long now so wondefully.

Gee. I never get compliments like that!

Thats kinda of the logic behind why I had to exclude the aethiest approach as being just as illogical as any thesistically sect specific belief system compared to that of the agnostic or IDK approach to the whole existance or not of a god or gods to begin with back when I was questioning my faith.

Agnostics are basically lazy atheists. They don't really believe in gods, but they don't feel like understanding why. I once styled myself as an agnostic, until I started really looking into belief systems. That's when I understood WHY I don't believe in gods.

Its also why I lump the aethiests in as a just another type of belief system requiring "faith" to believe in what it as a system of belief proposes as truth or not.

I still think it's because you cannot quite comprehend how anyone can function without some kind of belief system, so you assume that atheism is such a system. It's like a mechanic trying to explain the intricacies of the brain. You're going to tend to get mechanical explanations. (With all due respect to mechanics.)

In any event, imho no one should be anything other than accepting and tollerant that people are going to believe and or have faith in different things from each other for their own reasons.

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

[denuseri]

If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is; instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.

[Thorne]

[B][COLOR="pink"]If your so accepting and tollerant why is it every single time you get a chance (like someone even mentions the word religion in a thread) even if its not in a thread about religion vs aethisim, you resort too attacking those who do not believe as you do as "lazy" or "stupid" or believing in "fairytales and purple dinosuars" etc etc, without fail, knowing full well how derogatory such sophistry is;

Yes, I guess I have to admit that I sometimes get snippy about it. I guess it's a defense mechanism against being called ignorant, immoral or evil just because I don't believe in someone's fairytale. And yes, I do mean fairytale, because religious stories (at least the ones I know) have no more evidence of truth than the tales of the brothers Grimm. And yes, SOME theists are lazy or stupid, never bothering to understand what they profess to believe in, simply trying to force others to accept those beliefs as gospel. Some atheists are lazy and stupid, too. Alas, they are all too common human conditions. But it is not my intention to imply that people are lazy or stupid BECAUSE they are believers. You, for example, have obviously done a lot of study, even to the point of rejecting your birth religion in favor of something else. I may not agree with your conclusions, but I certainly don't consider them stupid.

instead of recognizing their beliefs to be just as possible as your own, since both are indeed possible as science as of yet has no way to prove or disprove the existance there of?

While I might accept that their beliefs can be possible, that does not mean that they are even remotely probable. When every attempt to prove the existence of supernatural beings, for thousands of years, has resulted in a negative, it becomes quite reasonable to accept that the probability of there actually existing approaches zero. Opposing beliefs are not necessarily equal. Believing that the moon is made of green cheese covered by a thin layer of dust is not just as acceptable as saying the moon is just a big rock. Until we actually drill there we cannot know for certain, but really, which is more likely?

And please while you chew on this one keep in mind that: many many "scientists" do indeed believe in not only a theoretical surpreme being or beings as not only being a possibility but as a mathematical certianty just as strongly as the aethiests believe in their assumptions despite any real confirmable hard evidence eaither way.

I know there are many scientists who still believe in God, or gods. I have never heard of any who accept it as a mathematical certainty, however. I do know there are "scientists" who try to distort evidence to conform to their beliefs, rather than the other way round. This is not the right way to do science, but as noted previously, scientists are also humans, and subject to the same frailties as anyone else.

A blogger I was reading just this morning made a comment which may be apropos here. I am an atheist. The ONLY thing that tells you about me is that I do not believe in gods. It says nothing else about who I am, or who I am not. It says nothing about anything else I may or may not believe in. It ONLY says that I do not believe in ANY gods. I happen to be a scientific atheist, meaning that I trust science, believe in it if you will, because science shows me evidence. I also happen to be anti-religion, which again has nothing to do with belief in gods. I believe, based on my observations and experiences, that religions are, or tend to become, organizations which foster hate and alienation rather than love and acceptance. NOT necessarily the people who subscribe to a religion, but the organization itself, such as the Roman Catholic Church, or Islam.

So yes, I do have beliefs and assumptions. But none of these have anything to do with gods. I KNOW, as much as it is possible to know anything, that there are no gods. Just as I KNOW that Santa Claus is a fictional being. Just as I KNOW that Little Red Riding Hood is an allegory. I cannot prove any of these things, especially to those who really WANT to believe in them. But the probability of there being a jolly old elf living at the north pole is just as low as the probability of there being a bearded god in the sky. If you want me to accept either of them you'll have to have pretty convincing proof.

[thir]

That's a start then. It might be necessary to debunk (scientifically, of course) each god individually, but there's nothing wrong with that.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

[Thorne]

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their god as the one TRUE god. They are constantly trying to create a theocracy in the US, one which I believe would rival the Taliban in barbarity.

It's important because of the amount of harm done to people in the name of religion, from cults which kill their children because they disdain modern medicine, to those who destroy children's lives in the name of their gods.

But since we cannot prove that gods don't exist we have to be happy with exposing those who perpetuate evil in the names of those gods, and show people that the religion which tries to maintain a hold upon them is far more evil than any demons or devils that religion claims to fight against.

[denuseri]

Thorne, that Sounds exactly like the same rehtoric the people you claim to be so different from use almost word for word.

"Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their godless beliefs as the one truth. Replacing faith with science. They are constantly trying to create an aethiest state in the US, one which I believe would rival the Soviet Union in barbarity. "

[MMI]

Science will always be too limited, since science studies the natural world, not a supernatural one. In the supernatural world, anyone can make up anything they happen to think of and claim it to be true, simply because no one can prove them wrong. In the natural world, you must provide evidence, testable evidence, for your claims.

You have responded to my other points in detail, Thorne, and while I personally do agree with your sentiments in general, I still think you have missed the point, and because of that, you persist in your Quixotic tilting at religious windmills. Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

That, really, answers your objections as to proving the existence of gods or otherwise completely.

Gee. I never get compliments like that!

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

I AM accepting and tolerant! Until they start trying to force their beliefs on me, or anyone else. Until they start using those beliefs to justify the harm they do to others. Until they refuse to accept and tolerate my LACK of belief!

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

Why is that neccesary?

What I mean is, why is it so important to prove that god does not exist?

Excellent question. I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise. The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

[MMI]

I don't think it is at all necessary, other than for intellectual exercise.

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

[denuseri]

It is a rare event when I do, too, and for that reason, it is a greatly appreciated one. Thank-you den

Your ever so welcome kind Sir.

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

[Thorne]

Thorne, that Sounds exactly like the same rehtoric the people you claim to be so different from use almost word for word.

"Primarily because there are people, especially here in the US, who want to force all Americans to accept their godless beliefs as the one truth. Replacing faith with science. They are constantly trying to create an aethiest state in the US, one which I believe would rival the Soviet Union in barbarity. "

The difference is that, as an atheist, I don't see America as an atheist state, simply a secular one. Atheists don't want to replace anyone's faith, they only want to keep people's religion out of the science classrooms and out of the government. From my point of view there is more barbarity practiced in the name of religion than in the name of science. They hide it well, having had a long, long time to practice their deceptions, but the barbarity is there. But regardless of which "type" of state is created, it will still be run by people, and people can be both saints and sinners.

[Thorne]

Gods are, or are believed to be, supernatural. That means that any attempt to restrict them to the narrow confines of the physical universe, to the laws of nature, or within the boundaries of the real world is doomed to failure, and any sensible person, once he realises this, will accept that it is impossible and futile to continue to try to define god in earthly terms.

Then why do theists keep trying to do so? I'm not defining gods, after all. I'm trying to find evidence for them, or not. Regardless of their nature, if they are of any import in the physical world they have to have some impact on that world. Something which has happened which cannot be explained in any other way. If they do not exist then there are no impacts and no reason to worship them, as all evidence to date has indicated. If they DO exist and they still do not impact our world, then what is the reason to worship them? Their existence is moot.

I have never seen on this site any attempts to force you or anyone else to believe in a god or gods in general. I have also never seen any attacks on atheism as vehement and as zealous as I have seen atheists proclaim the righteousness of their views above those of anyone else, based on their limited scientific viewpoints as we have just seen.

On this site, no. But look at some of the legislation being put forward in the US right now. Look at the Texas Board of Education. They are aimed directly at non-believers, or different-believers. They are attempting to force faith-based laws onto everyone. And look up information about Atheist Advertisements, and how those ads are vehemently denounced by (some) religious people, and how they are defaced by "good" Christians around the US. A simple message such as, "It's OK to be Good without God!" has these "loving" theists gathering the wood for the witch burning.

Your freedom to believe that this is as good as it gets is under no threat from anyone here. I wonder if you have chosen the wrong forum to proselytise on behalf of your creed of emptiness.

I do post my opinions elsewhere, true. But this is one of the few places where I can get reasonable and intelligent arguments from believers of such diverse faiths. Besides, I like it here!

The people Thorne blames religion for making evil would be just as bad without religion. They'd probably tie their colours to one political mast or another instead - as so many others do already.

Absolutely. People are people, everywhere. But as I see it, this kind of person finds it easier to manipulate people through their fears of their own mortality and lack of understanding of reality. Religion has always been used as a tool for suppression. It's simply my belief that removing religion from the political landscape gives that kind of person less room to maneuver, makes them easier to identify for the vile person he or she might be.

[Thorne]

I've just mulled that over for a bit. Since the pro-god side says, You can't prove God exists, because that is beyond proof, and the anti-god side says, You can't prove God doesn't exist because you can't reduce the supposed nature of God into scientific terms, I wonder if any attempt to prove or disprove God is more an exercise in foolishness than an intellectual exercise.

Perhaps you are right. And if religion were not so pervasive, here in the US far more than in the UK as I understand it, I might agree that it is foolishness. But as things stand I feel it is an important question with far-ranging effects on everyone's lives. As for proving something does NOT exist, it will always be impossible. I can't prove a three-legged flapdoodle doesn't exist somewhere in the universe. All I can ever say is that there is no credible evidence that one DOES exist. And the same is true about gods. (Though given the immensity and complexity of the universe, I rather think a three-legged flapdoodle is far more likely to be real.)

[Thorne]

Just like they did in the Soviet Union and China when those places banned all religions save that of state sponsered aetheism.

Ahh yes, those old bogeymen. Those were COMMUNIST governments, not atheist governments. They banned religions because religions usurped too much power from the state, reducing the control the PEOPLE running those governments could impose upon their populations. They simply replaced gods with their Supreme Councils, or whatever title they gave them. Just as Islamic governments ban all non-Islamic religions in order to maintain control. Just as some Christian nations once banned all non-Christian religions. In every case it was an attempt to maintain control. These are very different from SECULAR governments. I don't want to BAN religions, just remove their influence from the government.

[denuseri]

Dear Thorne,

Its not those old boogymen at all!

It's just that they were misguilded in their thinking when it came to religion.

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.

But what they found out was: removing religions from the equation the way they did it did nothing to get rid of the evil that was happening. I guess two wrongs really dont make a right huh?

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

Personal autonomy believes that as personal liberties are increased...strict religious adherence and fundamentalists zealotry becomes reduced all on its own with no hateful oppression from anyone. It also seems to reduce the overall amount of "evil" too, and without inducing the self indulgent headonism we so fear is overtaking us in the USA. They have been at it now for a couple decades at least with fairly good results.

Personal autonomy however doesnt want to drive religion out and burn everyone at the stake who keeps their beliefs, nor does it say that everyone who doesnt believe in what they believe in is stupid or whorshiping a three legged flag pole with a unicorn on top. Heck it doesnt even get rid of religions, it lets people practice them all they wish. What it did was promote giving people a choice. A choice to do what ever they wish to do with their lives without worry so long as they are not running around hurting other people.

Sound familiar?

Sound like a premise thats been tried before doesnt it?

Like here in America back in the days of the Founding fathers maby? or even yes, in Russia during their revolution.

Only thing is, as old as the consept may be, they are indeed doing it differently from their predessors...using just the carrot, and no stick.

If I sound like I using your own words against you with the same kind hyperbole over the past few threads where we have went through this exact same debate on religion vs aethisim...its becuase Im trying to show you exactly what your words look like when you use them the way you have...if you get my drift Sir.

Respectfully

denuseri

[Thorne]

Its what happened, and the people who worked to make it happen, the marxists, had very idealized and lofty goals, very aetheist goals...their rehtoric and yours about the evils of religion were exactly the same in so many ways it isnt even funny.

But that's my point! There are no atheist goals. The ONLY thing you can say for certain about someone who is an atheist is that he/she does NOT believe in gods. They can be conservative, or liberal, or progressive, or even Marxist.

They didnt get rid of religion becuase it took power from the state eaither...in Tzarist controlled Russia at the time the Chruch was a direct puppet of the Tzars, the marxists saw religion in general as a corrupt tool used by the state.

Exactly! Which is why they fought to eliminate it. Trouble was, they tried to eliminate FAITH as well. I'm not advocating that at all.

They idealistically thought that removing that tool would help them build a better state, a state free of coruption that would work for their people becuase it was composed of their people, instead of a ruleing elite.

At least that was their rhetoric. In practice it was something far less.

Basically they took seperation of church and state to the extreme. Perhaps went a little overboard.

They went WAY overboard, I agree. But it wasn't because they were atheists. It was because they were Marxists who happened to be atheists.

Just like MMI said...it isnt the religion that makes them do evil...evil doesnt come from religion, it comes from people. It was around before religions, and it is certiantly around after.

Agreed, but religion provides a means to control people, get them to believe what you want them to believe. Whether it's gay marriage, abortion, birth control, women's rights, all these things are being manipulated by mainstream religions, to the detriment of everyone. It's my contention that no religion has the right to tell me whether a gay person can be married, or whether a rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. It's not their right to decide. If MEMBERS of that religion which to adhere to these tenets, that's one thing. But they have no right to force those beliefs upon everyone. And especially not on the vulnerable minds of children.

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

I don't want to replace religion! Personally, I wouldn't be saddened if all religious organizations suddenly vanished from the human equation, but I'm not advocating eliminating or replacing them. Just restricting them to where they belong: in Church, and in the hearts and minds of believers.

I have always been a proponent of personal responsibility, not blaming others for my own failings.

And yes, I do sometimes ridicule certain beliefs. But that's only because I see some of those beliefs as ridiculous. Like images of Jesus in a piece of burnt toast or plate of spaghetti. Or seeing the the Virgin Mary in bird droppings. Or even the newest one, the image of Kate Middleton in a freaking jelly bean! The psychological aspects of this kind of thing are well understood (pareidolia) but some people insist on claiming they are signs from their gods! I do not believe that, just because someone claims that something ridiculous has religious significance that it isn't just as deserving of ridicule. Want to avoid ridicule? Avoid making ridiculous claims in the name of your gods!

[thir]

It's my contention that no religion has the right to tell me whether a gay person can be married, or whether a rape victim should be allowed to have an abortion. It's not their right to decide.

Amen to that ;-)

More than that, it is not their right to tell any gay person themselves about marriage, and so on.

I am not sure why a country with so much emphasis on personal freedom (and so it should be) tolerates the influence of the church.

[thir]

If you want to make a credible argument for the replacement of religion you would do better to hop on the "personal autonomy" bandwagon (a new philosophy the dutch have kind of invented) then you would do to continue with the hyperbole and "hate" rehtoric of the militant aethiest crowd.

Militant atheist crowd? Why do people keep saying that? I have never heard of any atheist using weapens to promote their ideas.

Nor have I heard any hate rhetoric. Sharp opinions, but not personal.

[denuseri]

Well perhaps your using some rose colored glassess then IDK thir, maby its a language or cultural barrier working against us all here.

The aethiests like the feminiest both have what are termed militant factions...so does any radically extreimest element of any faith/philosophy, it doesnt nessesarally mean they are running around shooting people, it just means they are really fanatically blind to any view save their own and willing to use any amount of smearing, its an adjetive used to decribe their zealotry.

One common technique they use is to ignore what the opposition has to say if they cant spin it and then just blindly keep repeating the same militant sounding rehtoric...its the worst kind of sophistry imho and I for one am done feeding any more fuel to the "fire".

Peace ya all.

I am out.

[Thorne]

I am not sure why a country with so much emphasis on personal freedom (and so it should be) tolerates the influence of the church.

Exactly my point! And not just THE church, but ANY church. Religious organizations should not be allowed to have any more influence or privileges than any other secular organization. People wouldn't stand still if the NBA, for example, got a law introduced which restricted which TV programs people could watch during the playoffs, yet those same people have no quarrel with religious groups determining which stores people can shop at on Sundays.

[Thorne]

One common technique they use is to ignore what the opposition has to say if they cant spin it and then just blindly keep repeating the same militant sounding rehtoric...its the worst kind of sophistry imho and I for one am done feeding any more fuel to the "fire".

This is exactly the kinds of tactics which atheists are finding used against them by Creationists, for example, or apologists for the Catholic Church. They twist people's words, cherry pick data, take quotes out of context and ignore any evidence which conflicts with their preconceived ideas, unless they can somehow twist it to match their beliefs.

One big difference, which I have seen for myself, is that those atheists who try to do these things tend to get shot down by other atheists. We require truth and evidence from everyone, especially our own, and not just from those we disagree with. It's not perfect but it does work.

One thing I have noticed online, though, which I find telling, is that almost all of the atheist blogs I've seen have open comments, accepting anyone who doesn't spam the site and is reasonably coherent. On the other hand, almost all the religious blogs I've seen have either moderated comments or no commenting at all. This is naturally a good way to make sure that your readers aren't made aware of opinions which differ from their own.

I am out.

I'm sorry to hear it. Your opinions have been very informative, and have kept me on my toes, at least.