Thread: And the atheist movement begins...

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

I used to think that some of the more outspoken atheists were greatly contributing to this problem. That Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were in many ways the opposite of Fred Phelps and Terry Jones, even though their rhetoric is not similarly hateful and demeaning. But I now think it is more a reaction to the incessant attacks on them and their own philosophy. That atheism and agnosticism has simply become more prevalent in Europe so it is natural that people are more openly discussing it.

So I am slowly coming to the conclusion that a massive educational program is what is actually needed in this country. That it is time for atheists and agnostics to no longer hide in the closet as much as they have in the past. Since most children continue to be subject to religious indoctrination by their parents, whether they are religious or not, something should be done to assure they understand that this is not their only option.

In many ways, negative reaction to atheism and agnosticism is quite similar to how some of the more fundamentalist Muslims respond to attacks on their own religious beliefs. While most Christians don't react violently to such matters anymore, it seems to upset some of them almost as much. That in the recent incident where the zombie Mohammed was physically attacked, there were likely many in the crowd who were just as offended with the zombie Pope. That this is particularly true if their own children learn about atheism and agnosticism, and with some to simply being exposed to evolution and even geology in school.

If Christians and others can poke fun at Muslims and their beliefs with reckless abandon, they should expect it in return.

But here is the deal. Religion has been the conduit for morality, or a way of living that you I think, once called common sense. And I would say, that this is the only positive thing religion has done, for humanity. Well not quite, religion has served to answer the questions of the inward man, that science cannot give answers to.

Teaching atheism in school, is no different than teaching religion in school, except atheism is not and never has been a conduit for morality, which any society has to have to some degree for that society to endure. The group, the society, is from that which civilization arose. A large group of people, with codes of conduct, morality if you will, that allows the group to not disintegrate inwardly. How long has europe, lost their religious beliefs? How long does it take for a society to disintergrate without morality? A few decades? A hundred years? 500 hundred years? We do not know, since it is only in recent history that nations, societies have lost their religious beliefs, which gave them morality.

Since human history has involved religion, since the dawn of man, what happens when you take it away? We do not know! The effects may not be seen in decades, but in longer time frames. We need to go slowly here, in changing what man is, what man has used, what religion does. Its role in societies.

Science, atheism may not be a viable replacement for religions. One needs to really understand humanity, deeply before you tinker with what arose naturally, over thousands of years. There is, in most men a deep desire to know why he is here, who he is, why his inward being is so chaotic, such suffering, and why we kill one another so easily over ideology, over creations of thought. Science cannot answer these questions, and I doubt science will ever be able to do so. Yet religion does, and man needs answers, many men needs answers for their own sanity, their own conduct, their own actions in society.

There is in most men, if not all, a deep longing for the answers science can never provide. There is much more to the human consciousness, than a desire to know why when he drops an apple, it goes to the ground. There are things much greater than this, that affect his sense of exactly what he is, why he is here, and it trumps apples falling to the ground. Atheism has no answers, as it negates the traditional role of god and religion. Science has no answers, in this realm, to make life more bearable for the suffering, unless you want to just give the people a drug that makes them totally unaware of their inner problems, to make the brain not work properly, so as to not ask the age old questions of human existence.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

I used to think that some of the more outspoken atheists were greatly contributing to this problem. That Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens were in many ways the opposite of Fred Phelps and Terry Jones, even though their rhetoric is not similarly hateful and demeaning. But I now think it is more a reaction to the incessant attacks on them and their own philosophy. That atheism and agnosticism has simply become more prevalent in Europe so it is natural that people are more openly discussing it.

So I am slowly coming to the conclusion that a massive educational program is what is actually needed in this country. That it is time for atheists and agnostics to no longer hide in the closet as much as they have in the past. Since most children continue to be subject to religious indoctrination by their parents, whether they are religious or not, something should be done to assure they understand that this is not their only option.

In many ways, negative reaction to atheism and agnosticism is quite similar to how some of the more fundamentalist Muslims respond to attacks on their own religious beliefs. While most Christians don't react violently to such matters anymore, it seems to upset some of them almost as much. That in the recent incident where the zombie Mohammed was physically attacked, there were likely many in the crowd who were just as offended with the zombie Pope. That this is particularly true if their own children learn about atheism and agnosticism, and with some to simply being exposed to evolution and even geology in school.

If Christians and others can poke fun at Muslims and their beliefs with reckless abandon, they should expect it in return.

Many Christians are simply turned off by the disrespect shown by atheists because so many of them can't discuss religion in an adult manner. Rather than disagreeing with the Christian, they must act in a juvenile manner with things like:

i think both of them is for stupid people.religen is Opium people!

What's The Difference Between A Religion And A Cult?

I picked that out to criticize because it's one of the silly side-effects of people who think they're somehow lightning rods from their made-up wizard at the Holiday Inn in the sky.

Jesus Camp

There is no god. Get over it already.

Cute story but it is all mythological bullshit. There is no God. Never was. Never will be. It exists in the minds of weak willed people who lack the stones to see life for what it is and for people who want to control others. It is a form of brainwashing that attached to it superstition so strong that people will kill over it.

Why doesn't god heal amputees?

That's just a few quotes from this forum alone...I could quote more if I need to but I think you get the message. Do you think the quotes above belong in an intelligent, adult conversation? If some atheists would stop acting like 5 yr. olds on the playground when it comes to religion, then maybe Christians wouldn't get so aggravated with them.

Originally Posted by Blue Doggy

Teaching atheism in school, is no different than teaching religion in school, except atheism is not and never has been a conduit for morality, which any society has to have to some degree for that society to endure. The group, the society, is from that which civilization arose. A large group of people, with codes of conduct, morality if you will, that allows the group to not disintegrate inwardly. How long has europe, lost their religious beliefs? How long does it take for a society to disintergrate without morality? A few decades? A hundred years? 500 hundred years? We do not know, since it is only in recent history that nations, societies have lost their religious beliefs, which gave them morality.

I never suggested that atheism be taught in public school, much like any other philosophies are now taught. That would quite possibly offend the Christian Right to the point where some of them may indeed become violent.

What I am suggesting is that we have far more zombie Popes and Mohammeds. The even more atheist and agnostic billboards start appearing. That people do start being outspoken about the atheism and agnosticism in this country.







And once again, claiming that "atheism is not and never has been a conduit for morality" is beyond absurd.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

I agree, it is indeed simple.


At last, an intelligble question -- and a good one.

If we start with a dictionary definition of mysticism, we get something like this:


Basically, it is a claim to knowledge beyond scientific evidence or the bounds of reason.

An extension of this idea has been applied to various ideologies, such as Fascism and Communism. For example.


Although totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia and China lay claims to being rational, scientific societies, they are nothing of the sort. By any accepted definition of the terms, they are both irrational in their application of non-scientific principles and in their substitution of mysticism in the name of science.

A compelling example of the latter is the curious case of the Russian biologist Lysenko.

Here, for example, is an-depth discussion of this idea.

.
And, I might add, so are you.

That you or anyone else would equate, or relate mysticism to horrible gov'ts, to violence, to the evils of the world is one of the most uninformed and ludicrous statements I have ever heard, in at least the last decade.

You should have followed the link to the christian gnostics, who by the way were destroyed by the early orthodox RCC. You should do some research on the traditions of mysticism in the various religions. If you knew anything of mysticism, religious mysticism, you would not have even given your source any credence whatsoever. You would have dismissed it as balderdash nonsense.

My reality would lie within what you and others say is mysticism. I know, from seeing it for 40 years, that when thought, my thought is completely silent, leaving a pure awareness, in that there is goodness, which which no evil can arise. Evil arises from thought, desires, greed, lust, selfishness. From this awareness, this "beingness" no system can arise such as what we have seen in this world, not only in the soviet union, germany, or anywhere else where humans are treated horrible.

To equate what you have, to relate mysticism, to evil worries me. It is alarming. I hope you just have not thought this through, and you really don't understand mysticism, because your sources are limited.

If you could be in a state of mind, that thought is quiet, there is absolute and total silence in the mind, with no energy being lost through the incessant movement of thought, you would see what mysticism refers to. And it ain't what you think it is. From thought, come disorder. No thought, no disorder. No thought, no evil. From this silent awareness, there is something that thought can never touch. Yet it is in all of us. Please, at some point in your life, LOOK. If you do not look, you will never know if something exists outside of thought or not. I say it is there, but do not trust a damn word that I write. LOOK for yourself. Don't take my word for it as you took your sources word. LOOK.

Originally Posted by Matrixx8

Although totalitarian regimes such as Soviet Russia and China lay claims to being rational, scientific societies, they are nothing of the sort. By any accepted definition of the terms, they are both irrational in their application of non-scientific principles and in their substitution of mysticism in the name of science.

But the lesson with Russia and China is this: Any society that lays claim to being ‘scientific’ or rational based will end up abusing both science and its people. Science was never intended to provide a basis for government. Science becomes an -ism in that instance.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

The Roman Catholic Church finally realized long ago that it is completely futile to try to create religious dogma regarding science. It is just unfortunate they didn't learn that lesson with Galileo.

It is unfortunate when a representative of any given group desires suppression of scientific discovery.

I have trouble, though, equating evolution with physics or chemistry.
Physics and chemistry don't change and never will.
I'm still not too impressed by birds and fish, though.
I have to ask around.

The bottom line with intelligent design is just because God created Adam does not mean God did NOT create other, slightly less sentient beings also.
The snake is a prime example of a being that God explicitly devolved after it debased itself; it doesn't mean that the snake was immediately devolved but that the process may have taken place over many generations.
Devolution, in terms of humans, also occurs at the Tower of Babel.

The problem with knowing what's going on in Genesis is not knowing Hebrew; in Hebrew it is obvious, for instance, that Cain and Able had siblings, in English it just plain isn't there.
That's why Cain was able to argue with God that wherever he went he would be harassed, if not outright killed.
Who's harassing Cain, his siblings who moved away from the Garden East of Eden to build their own towns way before he was forced out of God's, so to speak, Garden.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

I never suggested that atheism be taught in public school, much like any other philosophies are now taught. That would quite possibly offend the Christian Right to the point where some of them may indeed become violent.

What I am suggesting is that we have far more zombie Popes and Mohammeds. The even more atheist and agnostic billboards start appearing. That people do start being outspoken about the atheism and agnosticism in this country.


And once again, claiming that "atheism is not and never has been a conduit for morality" is beyond absurd.

Thank you for proving my point.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

That's just a few quotes from this forum alone...I could quote more if I need to but I think you get the message. Do you think the quotes above belong in an intelligent, adult conversation? If some atheists would stop acting like 5 yr. olds on the playground when it comes to religion, then maybe Christians wouldn't get so aggravated with them.

And I'm sure you are now looking for quite similar quotes from Christians in this forum who expressed similar sentiments about atheism and agnosticism. Right?

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

It may be a rational and logical approach but it's certainly a stupid one because it doesn't prove that God didn't make these things happen.

Cain killed Able due to greed; Cain owned the land and Able owned the sheep and Cain wanted to be paid for Able's use of the land.
God comes along and asks Cain where Able is and Cain asks God, "Am I my brother's keeper?".
If that's not an answer straight out of Conservatism's contemporary corner, I don't know what is.
Well, apparently, from the fact that God asks the question and DOESN'T approve of the answer, you ARE your brother's keeper!
Note that Cain doesn't infer that God is not all knowing, Cain just doesn't CARE!

Cain isn't an atheist; it's impossible for someone who experiences communication with God to deny God's existence, but the first step in the process is being absorbed with one's self.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

I won't teach my child how to go potty; I will let him grow up and decide for himself.

I will let my child decide that the road to success is watching sports as opposed to studying.

I will not teach my child to have respect for other people; he or she will grow up and decide for themselves.

Originally Posted by Formaldehyde

And I'm sure you are now looking for quite similar quotes from Christians in this forum who expressed similar sentiments about atheism and agnosticism. Right?

Very, very few Christians on this forum ridicule atheists and agnostics for their disbelief in God, yet in every thread with a religious topic, the children of the forum pipe up with things like 'believing in God is for weak-minded people', 'God is a fairy tale', etc. In actuality, it is very, very seldom that a Christian says, "If you don't believe in God then you're going to burn in hell." Yet, the children feel quite justified in mocking others' beliefs and even state that mockery and ridicule is their way of trying to get others to believe the way they do.

As for this:

It may be a rational and logical approach but it's certainly a stupid one because it doesn't prove that God didn't make these things happen.

Simply a case of you wanting it to mean something it clearly doesn't. How about you re-read the post I was replying to:

They certainly use science, especially evolution, as an alternate explanation. Who can possibly blame them? It is certainly a far more rational and logical approach to explaining things.

It should be quite obviously what I was saying but since you didn't comprehend it the first time, I had to explain it again here:

I wasn't saying that science is stupid but rather the approach used by atheists. They're more than willing to dismiss God from the equation by using science as proof but then piss and moan that it's not about science when asked to prove God doesn't exist.

And the atheist movement begins...

And yet, you're still having comprehension problems! I surely don't see how I can make it any plainer.

Originally Posted by USCitizen

What about the Torah bothers you?
Take it one issue at a time and I will presume you are somewhat fluent in Hebrew?

Ah, 'ere we go.

You should have asked weather I am fluent in ancient Aramean written language, since the primitive Hebrew had no own written language in the times when the first events of the Torah happened.

What in Torah bothers me??
-Very much, nearly everything. As it is/they are nearly the same as Old Testament, there are things which I find disturbing to say the least.

But I find it peculiar that you take the Torah, and not the two others I mentioned.

After we complete the discussion of the Jewish Scriptures we will move on to the TNT and I will presume you have a working knowledge of the King James version vs others.

I actually have kinda good understanding on one of the many bibles. You know how i is with languages and ever chaning content of the bible...
-And yes, the King James version will do nicely, how about the barriers of language?

Amusing is that you attempt this method of ridicule, when I am fully able and willing.

I will also presume you have a working knowledge of Greek.

Ah, again.. you should have mentioned that I should have been fluent in ancient Greek.
-Funny fact; Jews looked down on the Hellenic and Jews who turned to Hellenic customs. Proper Early christians were meant to be only puristic Jews who followed the Laws of Moses to the letter, and accepted the new Messianic texts and events.

Therefore using Ancient greek texts is heresy.

But let's start with the Torah.

Which part?

Remember, one issue at a time and no spamming sites that have several hundred misinterpretations of verses in order to prove the Torah is false.
I will be happy to assist.

So, your attempt to ridicule ends with impossible boundaries... Mmmmright.
-This reveals that you are not ready for such a topic. I suspect that you also lack the language skills you expect me to master. That is double-standards.

Boundaries should be very much open to all interpretations.
-Bible has them in abundance, who exclude them?

No, you merely attempted to bash in a civil manner.

Originally Posted by Mrs. M

As an admin, I can't put you on ignore however, as a poster, I can.

This simply means that you are unable to counter the questions on the claims YOU made.
-It's OK to make a claim, so long one can stand by them and offer reasonable responses.. right?

You have a preposition that the faith-system you believe in is the right one.
-If you then admit that it is merely your faith which upholds this position and do not try to enforce it upon others or have it replace proper information taught to kids, I have no issues against them at all.

When you can discuss the matter like an adult instead of attempting to ridicule others' beliefs, I will respond again.

This is just an attempt to ridicule with a twist of seeking higher ground as older and wiser.
-It also halts all need for you to follow-up.

I would really be less harsh, if the faith-systems would stop trying to infest proper schools.