Mr. Buckles is making a point based off his personal experiences, while clearly stating his view does not apply to atheists as a group. Crude would be whatever usually flies forth from your keyboard.

-Religion is based in faith, not reality.
-Religion still however influences people's actions just as much as any provable evidence, sometimes even overriding reality when it doesn't mesh with their dogma.
-Their actions influence the community at large, of which consists of people other than their faith.
-Other's lives are being influenced by a fairy tale that they have no belief in (Read: Stem cell, gay marriage, abortions, censorship, "under god" speckled here and there).

This is why we complain. That's why it matters to us. Get that through your thick unyielding skull, that's what half of us have been saying the whole thread. If they would shut up and let their policy only influence their own lives, FINE! But they don't. Tell me Mr. Buck, what was a MAJOR ISSUE last election?

Gay marriage.

Gay marriage was on the same level as our economic future and a war we are holding.

What's your response to that.

Oh, and remember intelligent design? I liked their little plan there. That was very cute.

And the constant effort by some to get prayer into schools. That's awesome.

But you seem to ignore religion's constant assault and just say "Oh those atheists sure are doo-doo heads, they r deh bullies who pick on us because we are different" :saddowns:

I'm starting I should have given each of you a knife along with the topic to discuss.

People are the corrupt ones. Christianity, theoretically, is a good thing because of tolerance in the most simplistic sense. However, people are idiots. Blame the people in charge for their own mistakes, and for their bigotry and poor decisions. Blaming religion is like passing the buck. And now, I drop the mic, and walk away from this thread never to return again.

'Tis a winner. I'm done posting, cuz that pretty much is the best way of putting it.

Yeah, except for that whole 95% of athiests deal. :downs:


My crude is awesome and you know it.

I can totally get what you're saying, and I think schming may have went a little overboard. I can agree with you even, that if someone wants to believe something, let them.

At the same time, it'd be ignorant for us to not state on some level that your beliefs are illogical. That's really the point of the Christian faith is that you believe something that isn't believable. You suspend your disbelief in order to do whatever it is that your particular religion wants you to do. For someone who can't put aside what they know about the nature of things and the way they work, religion is a seemingly random and stupid thing to believe in. With a understanding, you can get beyond this kind of thinking.

But it isn't all that strange to have a bunch of people look down on your belief in a man dying and resurrecting for you because he's part of a greater entity that is without rules outside of our universe. While that very well could be the case, it doesn't have any grounds in our reality that we experience day to day, and therefore it's a little hard to stomach, let alone sit by and watch people we know make claims to these things that seem so unreal and impossible.

You ever watch a movie where a dog talks or something like that happens, and no one believes the person? You can't possibly expect people to easily respect your beliefs if it's unbelievable.

I think one of the arguments is that so few people lead the Christian ideal of a saintly life and far more instead use Christianity as an opportunity to obnoxiously foist beliefs they may not full understand themselves upon others.



You're a relativist, then? That is to say, if most of us believed A=-A (an inherently false logical statement, or we could use if A then -A, instead) it might as well be true?

Unfortunately, we're not all on the same page, though. If I say to you, "hey, let's get some food" and you respond, "food does not exist", it's possible that you're right, but you're pretty clearly wrong in a practical sense, and we'll just get hungry. What I'm trying to say is, humanity can't go anywhere if we can't all agree on certain things. They don't have to be true, but it helps. If you don't think humanity 'should' be "going" anywhere cooperatively, then we have nothing further to discuss and you may return to your tribe.

Another example: Suppose I use the Imperial system of measurement and you use the metric system. I send you specifications for a ship I've contracted you to build, but all the measurements are in feet, yards, pounds, etc. Since we have different systems of measurement, you could make a lot of conversions to bring everything into meters, grams, etc. but that's an inconvenience. Or, you could simply refuse to do business with me.

If we were both on the Imperial system, we wouldn't have to spend time/energy on this question and we could move on to other, arguably more important things. Likewise, if we were both on the metric system, we could do the same. The vast corpus of data already using each system aside, although the metric system has its "makes sense" merits, either one is viable, as are any number of other systems you or I could imagine up. Which system we use doesn't really "matter" in a practical sense; it just helps if we use the same one.

Now back to worldviews. Human thought has a great variety of diverse viewpoints, and many of us are taught axiomatically to respect diversity because the current, diverse state is a "fact of life." However, on some levels, a diversity of viewpoints seems to be an enemy of getting anything done. If we were all rational-thought atheists, we wouldn't have to waste too much of our time foisting our ideas on others, since we'd just be preaching to the choir. The same goes for if we were all Christians, or any other religion.

On the flipside, you may respond that uniformity could be the enemy of the creative impulse and that useful critiques on the current state of things could be lost. That is a valid case.

While I'm not necessarily advocating that all persons should share all views, I'm trying to say that if all persons equally respected every and any possible view (the seeming ideal of the anti-"normative influence" train of thought), no segment of humanity could no longer accomplish anything in a cohesive social unit.

Finally, I would like to direct your attention to the story of the Tower of Babel. Just when humankind worked together and combined all our powers to become like the gods, God scattered us, muddled our minds, and gave us different languages so we couldn't conspire again so easily...

His beliefs come from a laboratory, with results that can be repeated time and time again. His desire for laws to not be based on your religion unless there's a reason beyond "it's in the Bible, so we should follow this rule" isn't hypocritical, it's logical.

Where does this "knowledge about the nature of things" come from? Education by others, external conditioning. Without authority or proofs, germ theory, aerodynamics, the behavior of light do not seem obvious. So I say, likewise, for someone who can't put aside what they have been conditioned through pervasive and systematic religious teaching, atheist could just as easily seem a spiteful collection of lies and denials. Further theological and contextual understanding can affirm this notion.



Tribesman: "Unbelievable! MEN walked on the MOON? That does not conform in any way to my daily experiences; hence, it must not have happened."

You: "Yes, it happened. Let me try to explain how this is possible, and how perhaps your people, too, could do so:"

Tribesman: "Stop foisting your completely incredible nonsense on me. You can believe whatever you want, just don't bother me."

How about those beliefs that pertain to a choice of lifestyle?

"Love thy neighbor as thyself." We could conduct an empirical study of 1,000 randomly selected members of the population and 1,000 neighbors. 500 (the control group) would love thy neighbors as thy neighbors, 500 would love thy neighbors as themselves. Interviews, socioeconomic snapshots, and MRIs could be taken at 5 year intervals. We could publish the findings as "The Golden Rule: A Chocolate Center?"

"Thou shall not covet thy neighbor, or his wife, donkey, house, etc. etc."

A great deal of literature has been written on subjects such as these, exploring the human condition and speaking to people in ways that a scientific study might not. A lot of them are subtle and involve too many variables for a proper empirical study to be conducted in a practical way.

Now let's consider religious calls that influence others. Suppose I think gay marriage is wrong and you're gay and want to get married with another person of your gender. I can foist my belief system on you and say that people of the same gender should not parody the union between man and woman or that it has subtle but negative influences on society or that it's 'wrong' or any other number of arguments that have greater or lesser validity or hurr-age. Then, you can respond that I have no right to foist my beliefs on you and influence what you're doing. But the great paradox is, that by stating that I ought not foist my (admittedly hypothetical) beliefs (anti-gay marriage) on you, you are foisting yours (anti-normative influence) on me.

Beliefs that pertain to a choice of lifestyle should be up to the individual. Unless those beliefs harm the liberties of his neighbor, let him hold whatever beliefs he wants. You don't need a scientist to tell you that.

And no, telling someone to mind their own business isn't pushing your beliefs on them, it's telling them to butt out of a situation they have no place to be in.

It's not that easy, though. What if we all live in a clean, respectable, and affluent neighborhood and you paint your house bright orange with pink and yellow polka-dots, let your grass grow out of control, and carouse around your property drunkenly and in the nude? You are restricting no "liberties" (depending on how you define them) of your neighbors; however,

1) none of us want to see that
2) it brings down the value of all surrounding properties
3) it gives the neighborhood a poor reputation of unkemptness

This may seem like a bizarre scenario, but something very like this is actually happening in the town over from me.

I was driving down a familiar street recently and was turned off to suddenly see a garish paint scheme and unkempt property. I think the owner is protesting the new businesses that are going up all around him and replacing the "quaint beauty" with a sterile and impersonal corporate face. Either that, or he's gone mad.

From the position of the property-owner, he's not restricting anybody's liberties by "expressing" himself in this way.
From the position of the companies, they're not ruining the town's "atmosphere" by opening up shop.

Personally I think it would be downright irresponsible for someone to not try to dissuade someone of their views. How can you justify knowing that your viewpoint is right and just keeping it to yourself because you're afraid of upsetting somebody?

It may turn out that you're actually wrong, but the important part is the discussions/argument. Maybe everyone could do with being a little less aggressive, 'tolerance' isn't the key though. Being tolerant to illogical and often terrifying ideas is what causes problems - it's not a solution.

We live in societies where religious organisations get tax benefits and government grants, where we wage war in the name of religion (whether religion is the true justification or not). In the US it's incredibly difficult for an 'outed' athiest to get elected to any form of government. The majority of athiest politicians maintain an image of being religious just so that they don't rock the boat. How is this an acceptable state of affairs? Someone becoming unelectable just because of their position on religion; even when their religious views may have no bearing on their fitness to do the job.

Internet message boards generally have a much higher average IQ than the rest of the population, this has the effect of there being a much higher proportion of atheists than you'd find in the 'real world'. So whilst it may seem like athiests are ganging up on the theists, the real situation is that most of us are just happy that there's at least somewhere where we can express our views amongst people who share similar views.

Yeah, #2 is a reason to get involved, as that pertains to people around them.

It is not necessary for one to discuss what they believe in with others.

I think this is a very slippery slope, though. Consider why the prices of surrounding properties would go down: people outside the neighborhood (potential customers) don't respect "your" (the crazy color scheme person) sense of taste.

Now let's say you keep your house in pristine condition, but are atheist. And the prices of the surrounding properties go down. Should you have to "see the light" or leave?

If you say no, you're probably thinking along the same lines as the Supreme Court mandate that employer's can't legally discriminate based on consumer preferences (e.g. if you're an employer in a business that only has black power customers and a white person applies, you have to give that person's application equal weight). But you can't change your race. You can change your opinions.

If you exercise certain beliefs that are unpopular, regardless of your "right to do so", you could adversely impact those around you due to external majority opinion. And if you can't influence others with these views, how do ideas spread?



I think Detty has a very good point.

It's not "necessary" (in a universal sense) for us to be having this discussion, or any exchange of ideas, for that matter. But if we seek understanding, then by pooling our collective insight together, I would like to think it's possible to approach uniform concepts.

Are you against all forms of educating children? Is not that the handing-down of knowledge, beliefs, and values upon others?

You are correct, and understand my point.



Questions are plentiful. Answers are few.



Understanding is limitless.

Ok, Mr. Fortune Cookie.

I like fortune cookies ^_^

Changing your house to be obnoxious is quite a bit different than not sharing the same race/beliefs/background as the people around you. If people are unwilling to move in next to you because you're black, that's fine, I'm sure you would rather that type of person not be around you anyway.

Note that I only said #2 was a reason to get involved. I didn't say it was a reason to force change. It is their property, and they have the right to do whatever. However, that doesn't mean that their neighbors cannot rally together and talk to them about how it's effecting their property value, and try to talk some sense into them. I don't think that's a very slippery slope.

Hehehe remember that one times Grismath said this: and I chuckled merrily? Yeah that was good.

Also, the direction this thread has taken in the last page is very, very nice... More calmly discussing the nature of the factors and situations involved and trying to figure them out without getting too pissy... it's quite nice.

What is the current topic of discussion? I'm kind of confused.

Agnostic and proud

I'm not sure exactly what people are arguing about right now, but here's something.

Explanation of the Peircian personality types
I think the problems many people see with the current government actually has much to do with these personality types. (They're really cool and useful. I think I'll start another thread about it). Our current government is about as Red (Type 2) as a government can be.

As we've seen, a Red government causes problems. They act on quickly and on instinct and will refuse to admit mistakes later on. They are distrustful of those who try to stop them from acting. Blue (Type 3) or Green (Type 1-3) are probably much better choices for a government.

What we happen to have now is a Red government that was built up in Christianity. When they make decisions they do it based on whatever morals they already have (Southern Christian ones). I propose that a Red government based on libertarian values or socialist values would be just as destructive as a Christian based one.

Furthermore, since these Red Christians are the ones so much in the public view we're getting a skewed view of Christianity and religion in general. I think many of the negative traits that are being associated with religion are actually negative traits of the Red type. Reds are known for ignoring the feelings and thoughts of others. This would explain the offensive marriage and abortion policies (or whatever). The fact that the proposals take the Christian side is incidental.

Now, one might suggest that religion draws Reds to it more than any other personality type. I think that while religion does appeal to Reds - as it gives them an authority figure to follow - it is incorrect to think that religion is purely a Red thing. I know many Christians of all different personality types. I am Green (Type 1-3), which is the opposite of Red. My family has Purples and Oranges. It's also very important to any religion (or any society) to have a mix of different personality types (which is another criticism of the current government). It's also important to note that Reds aren't a bad thing. They are just as important to a group as any other member. Reds are our soldiers, our men-of-action. We just need to remember not to let our soldiers lead us.

In conclusion, I think many of the problems people perceive in religion actually come from a different source. Sorry if this was confusing. It was written pretty quickly and I didn't structure it too carefully.

(heh heh, Communists)

Detty said what I kind of tried to say, but he's better than me

Also, grismath is such a ****ing devil's advocate I can't even think straight!

If it isn't religion, it's something else. People have been trying to control other and gain all kinds of power since the first city-states. One of the traits of being human, power hungry.

Anyone can be corrupted, anyone.

It's not religion in and of itself that's a problem, it's organized religion. It turns people into sheep.

If by "organized" you mean bueracratic and pharasitical, I might agree. I don't think any organized religion is inherently bad. You have to examine the way in which and the reason for which the religion is organized.

If turning people into sheep is the problem, then I'd be more pissed off about the cradle-to-grave "system". The Man. At least a lot of religions are overt/explicit about how they want to influence other people. The Western-born consumerist meta-culture is the ultimate social-control shepherd. And it's everywhere.



"Anyone can be corrupted, anyone..." (:D)

I entirely agree: it's in your best interest to try to warp relationships in your favor as much as possible without other people getting upset/organized enough to do something about it (not that this is a nice thing to do). Do you think this is an inherent flaw in any sort of formal human organization? Any social unit?

As I said before, if so, you can go back to your tribe. (Maybe I'll join you :()

I'll be entirely honest. I'm mad at Christianity because I live in GA and They lobbied the government to pass a law saying that a legal adult (21) cannot purchase alcohol on Sundays. The argument given by many local officials is the same as that given by the pastor, "It's the Lord's day."

Other than that I'm perfectly content to let people believe whatever they want to believe. I only have bile for Christianity because I live in America and I grew up in a Christian home and saw how the Christian PR firms like "Focus on the Family" spoon-feed evangelicals political propaganda in their push to form America into a pseudoChristian country.

I should have the right to speak up and disagree with people who are interfering with my life because their religion condemns the way that I choose to live my life. Also, if religious people feel they need to try to convert me, I feel the need to try to explain why I don't agree with their religion. I also think it's complete bull**** that anyone should try to paint me as the badguy in this situation. I'm sorry that you can't cope with my opinion that your opinion is wrong. I assumed that we were able to realize that when I make sweeping statements like "Christianity is the most perverse and destructive social disease humanity has ever had to deal with." that this is my opinion, which if need be I can back it up with evidence as to why I believe this.

I'm not a self-righteous atheist, I'm not close-minded. I quit being a Christian because I personally believe that as a religion, Christianity has serious flaws. I then began investigating other religions, skipping Judaism and Islam because they have the same inherent flaws as Christianity. None of the other philosophies really made sense to me except Gnosticism, but when you get into the deities of Gnosticism is where that belief system loses my interest.

I am an Atheist and I don't agree with the Christian religion. It is my belief that people would be exponentially happier if they truly investigated what they believed. They would either realize what sort of religion they are actually following and lose faith or they would become more understanding of why I believe what I believe, continue having strong faith, but at that point we could have mutual respect for each other.

I've seen both sides and have investigated both sides thoroughly. You may not like what I have to say but don't attack me just because I think your opinion is wrong without even thinking about what I'm saying.

Just because the statement "Christianity is the most perverse and destructive social disease humanity has ever had to deal with" is opinion doesn't make it just fine and dandy. Part of the reason I think atheists get attacked is because of these incredibly derogatory and accusatory statements. When you make a statement like that you better back it up well right away and then still be prepared to get a whole lot of hate.

I don't think you've given enough credit to Christian existentialism. You seem to recognize and respect those Christians who examine and choose to stick with their beliefs. If this is how you feel, how is it that religion in general is the problem? Shouldn't the real problem be a lack of thought about beliefs? As I hope I've shown in my earlier post about Bob, religion isn't necessarily devoid of thought (and I'm sorry that the Christianity that you've seen was that way).

agnostic 4 lyfe.

Alright guys, just 4 more posts and I'll win the second part of my bet.

+1

Actually, 3rd part of the bet.

Oh snap! +1

Well I wasn't going to return, but to help Jep win a bet is worth it.