If actions speak louder than words, then the Atheist Foundation of Australia definitely view their organisation as a religion.


Quote:

In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses. The offensive signs were to read: "Atheism — celebrate reason". APN Outdoor refused to run the ads, giving no reason for their refusal. The Atheist Foundation and Metro Tasmania reached a deal after conciliation was ordered by the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The signs will begin appearing on Tasmanian buses in 2010.* In March 2010, buses started carrying atheist signs in Melbourne. source

:-[

Would there be any atheists who would be prepared to die for the cause of atheism?

Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the AFA should demean atheism by using laws against religion discrimination to get what they want.

There are so many better ways of addressing their right to display billboards without having to admit itself a religion and claim discrimination for religious reasons.

It's wrong!

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:18am:

Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the AFA should demean atheism by using laws against religion discrimination to get what they want.

Those would be the actions of anti-theists.


Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:18am:

There are so many better ways of addressing their right to display billboards without having to admit itself a religion and claim discrimination for religious reasons. It's wrong!

That would be an act of conscious irony, as opposed to a conviction that atheism is a religion.

For if  they truly believed that atheism is a religion, then (ironically) atheists would b e obliged to take a stand against atheism under the same conditions and reasons for which they stand against theism.

The AFA is a religion.  ;) Some atheists are evangelical.

Sappho,

The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner.

This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination”

I hope this has cleared up your concerns.

Thank you

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia

David Nicholls wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Sappho, The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner. This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination” I hope this has cleared up your concerns. Thank you David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia

Great to see you here,David.

David,

I do not dispute that the AFA was denied the right to speak freely on atheism. The billboards that you wanted to display were legal and not offensive, irrespective of the opinions of theists. However to invoke the Tasmanian Anti-Discrimination Act due to religious discrimination was the wrong way to go about things and puts Atheism into a questionable light given that atheists in general and the AFA in particular would normally deny religious labels.  


Quote:

Tasmania Anti-Discrimination Act 1998 (TAS) Grounds of unlawful discrimination Age, breastfeeding, disability, family responsibilities, gender, industrial activity, irrelevant criminal record, irrelevant medical record, lawful sexual activity, marital status, relationship status, parental status, political activity, political belief or affiliation, pregnancy, race, religious activity, religious beliefs or affiliation, sexual orientation, association with a person who has, or is believed to have any of these attributes. source

The right to speak freely in Australia is an implied right only and cannot be enforced in an Australian Court of Law. The AFA is well placed and well networked globally to pressure the Australian Govt. to honour their signatory obligations to the UN General Assembly.

If you want the right to speak freely to be an explicit right, then you need to address the Australian Govt. signatory obligations rather than seek to demean Atheism through the use of religious discrimination laws.  


Quote:

In 1948 the United Nations General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Article 19 affirms the right to free speech: Article 19. Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers.(1) Members of the Commonwealth Parliament reaffirmed the principles of the Declaration during a sitting on 10 December 1998 to mark the 50th anniversary of the UDHR and pledged to give wholehearted support to the principles enshrined in the Declaration.(2) Article 19 of the 1966 United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) states that: Everyone shall have the right to freedom of expression ... (3) Australia is a signatory to this treaty(4) and, in order to incorporate treaties and conventions into Australian law, governments must pass a specific Act of Parliament. Although some parts of the treaty have been implemented into law, such as the Human Rights Commission Act 1981,(5) no government has implemented the free speech provisions and therefore they are not enforceable by Australian courts. source

I think you should have shown more conviction and courage. The AFA could have had a wealth of support from numerous reputable organisations to ensure our right to free speech is enshrined in law. More kudos to those that dare to win honourably.

PS: Welcome and I hope you stay around to discuss other matters on atheism. It would be an honour.

Regards
Sappho.

yes

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 6:22pm:

yes

Aside from the use of religious discrimination laws, what makes you think it is a religion?

Sappho,

There are far more urgent fish to fry than carrying on with this.  You may think it important a point but most others don’t.

To approach the Australian government would have taken a tremendous amount of time and would most likely be unsuccessful.  The worldwide bus sign campaign couldn’t wait for that.

We are already petitioning the United Nations about Australia’s pathetic discrimination laws but that will take years. And the Australian Government does not have to take any notice even if the conclusion is in the favour of sanity.

Why not concentrate on how to assist with Atheism rather than nit picking about that which is ostensibly unimportant.

The AFA is keeping Atheism alive in this country by concentrating on the real world, not some arbitrary selection of perceived weaknesses.  Have a look at our record and compare it with yours or any other group.

One has to wonder why you bother with such trifling nonsense.

This is my end post on the matter

David Nicholls
President
Atheist Foundation of Australia.

It is a belief regarding the existence of deities that has no rational foundation.

David Nicholls wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

Sappho, There are far more urgent fish to fry than carrying on with this.  You may think it important a point but most others don’t. To approach the Australian government would have taken a tremendous amount of time and would most likely be unsuccessful.  The worldwide bus sign campaign couldn’t wait for that. We are already petitioning the United Nations about Australia’s pathetic discrimination laws but that will take years. And the Australian Government does not have to take any notice even if the conclusion is in the favour of sanity. Why not concentrate on how to assist with Atheism rather than nit picking about that which is ostensibly unimportant. The AFA is keeping Atheism alive in this country by concentrating on the real world, not some arbitrary selection of perceived weaknesses.  Have a look at our record and compare it with yours or any other group. One has to wonder why you bother with such trifling nonsense. This is my end post on the matter David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia.

David, your view makes sense if you see atheism as a religion that must be proselytised.

David Nicholls wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 2:59pm:

Sappho, The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner. This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination” I hope this has cleared up your concerns. Thank you David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia

Dave, people are allowed to discriminate against ideologies. It is a good idea. It is discrimination against people that can be pursued legally, on the basis of things like sexual orientation, religion etc. On what basis were you discriminated against?

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:52am:

The AFA is a religion.  ;) Some atheists are evangelical.

Would being an antispamist and pointing out that Nigerian scammers are con artists make me an evangelical and 'antispam' a religion?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:50pm:

David Nicholls wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:59pm: Sappho, The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner. This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination” I hope this has cleared up your concerns. Thank you David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia Dave, people are allowed to discriminate against ideologies. It is a good idea. It is discrimination against people that can be pursued legally, on the basis of things like sexual orientation, religion etc. On what basis were you discriminated against?

I'd be amazed if he hangs around to answer that question.

My guess would be discrimination on the basis of political opinion, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

Grey wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:27pm:

muso wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:52am: The AFA is a religion.  ;) Some atheists are evangelical. Would being an antispamist and pointing out that Nigerian scammers are con artists make me an evangelical and 'antispam' a religion?

In my view Atheism is more of a "hobby" for ex Christians.

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:29pm:

freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:50pm: David Nicholls wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:59pm: Sappho, The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner. This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination” I hope this has cleared up your concerns. Thank you David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia Dave, people are allowed to discriminate against ideologies. It is a good idea. It is discrimination against people that can be pursued legally, on the basis of things like sexual orientation, religion etc. On what basis were you discriminated against? I'd be amazed if he hangs around to answer that question. My guess would be discrimination on the basis of political opinion, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986.

No... Atheism is recognised in law as a religion, not a political party. David used this recognition to lodge a complaint of religious discrimination.

So it's official, atheism is a religion?

What is wrong with Dave's move then? Do you oppose it on religious grounds?

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

So it's official, atheism is a religion? What is wrong with Dave's move then? Do you oppose it on religious grounds?

I don't think that Atheism should be recognised as a religion and since the AFA do not recognise that Atheism is a religion, they should not be using the discrimination act which seeks to protect religion... Rather, they should seek redress through demands for legal recognition of freedom of speech to which the govt has signed a commitment with the UN to pass into law.

The AFA are currently running a campaign encouraging Atheist to identify themselves in the Census as 'no religion'. I agree with this and will be doing this... although I do so like being of Klingon religion every census. They killed their gods.

Isn't it discrimination to deny them recognition and equal trreatment before the law?

How on earth can a singular lack of belief be a "religion"?

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:34pm:

Grey wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:27pm: muso wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:52am: The AFA is a religion.  ;) Some atheists are evangelical. Would being an antispamist and pointing out that Nigerian scammers are con artists make me an evangelical and 'antispam' a religion? In my view Atheism is more of a "hobby" for ex Christians.

I was never religious Muso. I don't consider it a hobby either. It's an issue that people like to talk about, that's all you can say.

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:12pm:

muso wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 8:29pm: freediver wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:50pm: David Nicholls wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 2:59pm: Sappho, The Atheist Foundation of Australia had its signs disallowed because of decisions by management of a couple of transport and adverting companies.  The AFA considered it discrimination against Atheism that they acted in this manner. This headline does not originate from the AFA, “In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination” I hope this has cleared up your concerns. Thank you David Nicholls President Atheist Foundation of Australia Dave, people are allowed to discriminate against ideologies. It is a good idea. It is discrimination against people that can be pursued legally, on the basis of things like sexual orientation, religion etc. On what basis were you discriminated against? I'd be amazed if he hangs around to answer that question. My guess would be discrimination on the basis of political opinion, according to the Australian Human Rights Commission Act 1986. No... Atheism is recognised in law as a religion, not a political party. David used this recognition to lodge a complaint of religious discrimination.

Is it? The law is an ass. The Australian Bureau of Statistics in the national census categorises atheists under "No Religion".  

I guess Atheism is a position on religion, or a religious opinion rather than a religion itself.

By the way, I didn't claim that it was a political party, just a political opinion. Virtually anything can be a political opinion.

freediver wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

So it's official, atheism is a religion? What is wrong with Dave's move then? Do you oppose it on religious grounds?

Just because some overbloated bunch of crow eaters with nothing better to do call themselves official, doesn't mean that they speak for all atheists.

But they are speaking for you. No-one else is.

David Nicholls wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:24pm:

To approach the Australian government would have taken a tremendous amount of time and would most likely be unsuccessful.  The worldwide bus sign campaign couldn’t wait for that.

What? Thousands of years of theism and you couldn't wait a few more years? ;D

You're more than just an atheist .... You're a militant anti-theist.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 8:21pm:

David Nicholls wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:24pm: To approach the Australian government would have taken a tremendous amount of time and would most likely be unsuccessful.  The worldwide bus sign campaign couldn’t wait for that. What? Thousands of years of theism and you couldn't wait a few more years? ;D You're more than just an atheist .... You're a militant anti-theist.

exactly

freediver wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 7:56pm:

But they are speaking for you. No-one else is.

I can speak for myself

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 8:31pm:

freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 7:56pm: But they are speaking for you. No-one else is. I can speak for myself

:) Anarcho-Atheist

Grey wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 9:44pm:

muso wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 8:31pm: freediver wrote on May 6th, 2011 at 7:56pm: But they are speaking for you. No-one else is. I can speak for myself :) Anarcho-Atheist

The term 'atheist' to me means a person who doesn't believe in any god, and the term god is defined by the various individual religions. They are all different.  I have therefore invented my own religion in which god is a mass psycho-social phenomenon with all the natural powers of the people who belief in a god. God is a kind of neural network of living people. I am therefore a theist with no supernatural beliefs. If you want a label, you could call me a Bright. It's sufficiently vague.

I don't use the term 'atheist'  because I don't define my world view in terms of anybody else's religious beliefs. I prefer to talk about things that matter to me - things that I do believe in.

Did you Mod me Sappho?
Or did I post to another of your atheist topics?

OK OK - answered my own q. 000.

But re this one -

Answer

NO - its a decision made by individuals, - and I confess to not knowing about the AFA??  But- seriously?
I  might suss out if folks I meet are religious or not, if it gets that far,  so that I don't offend any tender sensibilities, but a 'religion?. A La in opposition to other 'religions'??

Jesus Christ,  I don't believe it!!!! :D

This subject has been gone over ad nauseum on other threads and will no doubt resurface once again when this thread has run it's natural (never ending) course of failing to bring about a "one size fits all" solution.

The general opinion usually ends up being that religious people will continue to assert that athiests are religious, contrary to their position of "no religion" and no real following of what anybody thinks that they heard God say.

Without an accepted definition of God, it's very difficult to define that in which people are believing or disbelieving.
I haven' seen a concise and accepted definition of "God" yet. All I know is that I don't believe wholly in the defintions that I've seen or heard thus far.

IMO, the word "religion" and "superstition" can be interchanged freely.
..and from that standpoint, I would agree that people who believe in a lucky rabbit's foot, seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder..etc., are following a religion of sorts, because they act as if there is a higher power that will react upon their actions.

This leads me to an athiest viewpoint, which is more defined by believing through experience. We know that walking under a ladder won't lead to seven years of bad luck, and we know that praying to God will not actualise a specific outcome.
We also know that considering any religious viewpoint as nothing more than a "human" personal opinion will not bring about a wrath of god and dire consequences for all mankind.

What we do know is that there are scientific laws which we are bound by here on this earth. They are forever mysterious, but always open to discovery. The results of scientific findings far outweigh those of prayers and faith in superstition.
Could it be that God's word has been misinterpreted by the devoutly religious? I think so.

Obviouisly the words "Atheism" and "Science" are closely related. And rightly so.
Who in their right mind would prefer that which doesn't bring about real results here on this earth over those that do?ii
i

Amadd wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 3:27am:

The general opinion usually ends up being that religious people will continue to assert that athiests are religious, contrary to their position of "no religion" and no real following of what anybody thinks that they heard God say.

Just some religious people - not all. I don't claim that.



Quote:

IMO, the word "religion" and "superstition" can be interchanged freely.

IMO the word 'culture' can usually be substituted for 'religion'. To me it's just a cultural thing.

Quote:

..and from that standpoint, I would agree that people who believe in a lucky rabbit's foot, seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder..etc., are following a religion of sorts, because they act as if there is a higher power that will react upon their actions.

A ladder above your head is high and is a source of power. If you don't respect it you may get smited.


Quote:

The results of scientific findings far outweigh those of prayers and faith in superstition.

How do you compare them?


Quote:

Obviouisly the words "Atheism" and "Science" are closely related. And rightly so.

How so? In the same way that apples and oranges are closely related?

muso wrote on May 6^th, 2011 at 10:42pm:

I have therefore invented my own religion in which god is a mass psycho-social phenomenon with all the natural powers of the people who belief in a god. God is a kind of neural network of living people. I am therefore a theist with no supernatural beliefs.

I wouldn't classify your opinion ('god' as a mass psycho-social phenomenon) as a religion... Certainly such an opinion does not require faith in the theistic sense (not, at least, in the traditional sense of the words).

That a subject is demonstrating a believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense) is easily observable and does not require of the observer any leap of faith.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 2:21pm:

I wouldn't classify your opinion ('god' as a mass psycho-social phenomenon) as a religion... Certainly such an opinion does not require faith in the theistic sense (not, at least, in the traditional sense of the words). That a subject is demonstrating a believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense) is easily observable and does not require of the observer any leap of faith.

Are you saying that nobody has faith in human nature?

Besides, who brought up faith? That all sounds very Abrahamic.


Quote:

Religion is a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values.[1] Many religions have narratives, symbols, traditions and sacred histories that are intended to give meaning to life or to explain the origin of life or the universe. They tend to derive morality, ethics, religious laws or a preferred lifestyle from their ideas about the cosmos and human nature.

Some dictionaries don't even attempt to define religion. So I'm free to define god any way that I like, and I'm free to define religion and theism any way I like too.

So lets talk about your atheist viewpoint. You say that you reject my psycho-social god.  (because it's a god)

Can you see where I'm going with this?

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 8:07am:

Quote: Obviouisly the words "Atheism" and "Science" are closely related. And rightly so. How so? In the same way that apples and oranges are closely related?

Are you saying that Atheists are all fruits?

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 3:20pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:21pm: I wouldn't classify your opinion ('god' as a mass psycho-social phenomenon) as a religion... Certainly such an opinion does not require faith in the theistic sense (not, at least, in the traditional sense of the words). That a subject is demonstrating a believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense) is easily observable and does not require of the observer any leap of faith. Are you saying that nobody has faith in human nature?

No, I'm saying that one can easily observe a subject in the act of believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense)... It doesn't require faith without evidence to say of your observation of a theist at prayer that he/she is partaking in the act of believing in god and is subscribing to a ritual prescribed by religious text.

But I am saying that faith is a religious sine qua non.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 3:31pm:

muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 3:20pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 2:21pm: I wouldn't classify your opinion ('god' as a mass psycho-social phenomenon) as a religion... Certainly such an opinion does not require faith in the theistic sense (not, at least, in the traditional sense of the words). That a subject is demonstrating a believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense) is easily observable and does not require of the observer any leap of faith. Are you saying that nobody has faith in human nature?   No, I'm saying that one can easily observe a subject in the act of believing-in-god (in a psycho-social sense)... It doesn't require faith without evidence to say of your observation of a theist at prayer that he/she is partaking in the act of believing in god and is subscribing to a ritual prescribed by religious text. But I am saying that faith is a religious sine qua non.

You are just describing one aspect of my religion (Musoism)
As a matter of fact my religion has faith. My faith is in the interrelatedness of all people and in an improvable future in this world. I have faith that mankind will survive.

So I have a religion with Gods...faith, that makes perfect sense . This is an exception for your general term Atheism which you define as lacking of belief in any god.  

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:49pm:

Ok well actually my religion has faith. My faith is in the interrelatedness of all people and in an improvable future in this world. I have faith that mankind will survive.

Interrelatedness hardly needs faith. We're all descended from those very few hominids whose genetic material gave rise to homo sapiens.

An improvable future doesn't need much faith either... Go to a graveyard and note the number of people (particularly males) who were dead by their early sixties... Or those who died young of minor infections.

Survive what? A comet collision?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:56pm:

muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:49pm: Ok well actually my religion has faith. My faith is in the interrelatedness of all people and in an improvable future in this world. I have faith that mankind will survive. Interrelatedness hardly needs faith. We're all descended from those very few hominids whose genetic material gave rise to homo sapiens. An improvable future doesn't need much faith either... Go to a graveyard and note the number of people (particularly males) who were dead by their early sixties... Or those who died young of minor infections. Survive what? A comet collision?

An improvable future needs a lot of faith in light of climate change and diminishing natural resources. I believe that we can overcome this obstacle.  

The other example is the Deist God. In other words the God of the gaps - the first cause. A non-interventionalist God.

An Atheist doesn't believe in this God either, even though there is no faith or religion involved. In the case of Deism, a God can just be one possible solution. A Deist might make a judgement that a God is the most elegant solution.

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 9:59pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:56pm: muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:49pm: Ok well actually my religion has faith. My faith is in the interrelatedness of all people and in an improvable future in this world. I have faith that mankind will survive. Interrelatedness hardly needs faith. We're all descended from those very few hominids whose genetic material gave rise to homo sapiens. An improvable future doesn't need much faith either... Go to a graveyard and note the number of people (particularly males) who were dead by their early sixties... Or those who died young of minor infections. Survive what? A comet collision? An improvable future needs a lot of faith in light of climate change and diminishing natural resources. I believe that we can overcome this obstacle.

And your so-called faith in this improvable future is informed by what? Faith in god? Or your sound understanding of the requisite science upon which we may rely to reverse (or at least survive) catastrophic events?

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:15pm:

And your so-called faith in this improvable future is informed by what? Faith in god? Or your sound understanding of the requisite science upon which we may rely to reverse (or at least survive) catastrophic events?

Faith in God as I defined it - in the ability of people working together as a 'network' to prevail.  I also have faith in myself. In another post, I stated that I had faith that I could run 5km in 20minutes or less, even though I haven't done it up to now, and I'm getting older.  

I'd say that we all have faith of one kind or another.

All this talk about faith is very interesting, but it's not required for at least two cases of the divine.

..but Atheist means a disbelief in any god. As such, I think I have demonstrated that it's an irrational belief.

By the way, I should have explained "interrelated" a bit better. I meant it in the sense of a neural network.

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:15pm: muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:59pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:56pm: muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 9:49pm: Ok well actually my religion has faith. My faith is in the interrelatedness of all people and in an improvable future in this world. I have faith that mankind will survive. Interrelatedness hardly needs faith. We're all descended from those very few hominids whose genetic material gave rise to homo sapiens. An improvable future doesn't need much faith either... Go to a graveyard and note the number of people (particularly males) who were dead by their early sixties... Or those who died young of minor infections. Survive what? A comet collision? An improvable future needs a lot of faith in light of climate change and diminishing natural resources. I believe that we can overcome this obstacle.   And your so-called faith in this improvable future is informed by what? Faith in god? Or your sound understanding of the requisite science upon which we may rely to reverse (or at least survive) catastrophic events? Faith in God as I defined it - in the ability of people working together as a 'network' to prevail.  I also have faith in myself. In another post, I stated that I had faith that I could run 5km in 20minutes or less, even though I haven't done it up to now, and I'm getting older.   I'd say that we all have faith of one kind or another.

You are redefining god to be something other than what is normally intended by the term... Your reference to god is that of a mass psycho-social phenomenon. Few would or could argue that point... It is observable and verifiable... The point of departure (for the theist) would be that 'god' is only a mass psycho-social phenomenon... And that departure is the great leap faith.

I'm sure you're wise enough to understand the difference between faith and self-delusion.

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

By the way, I should have explained "interrelated" a bit better. I meant it in the sense of a neural network.

Well, its true that intelligent animals do recognise their own kind instinctively and immediately on sensing the presence of another same-species individual and respond accordingly. Humans at a certain level also know instinctively and immediately on the sensing of the presence of another and respond accordingly.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

You are redefining god to be something other than what is normally intended by the term... Your reference to god is that of a mass psycho-social phenomenon. Few would or could argue that point... It is observable and verifiable... The point of departure (for the theist) would be that 'god' is only a mass psycho-social phenomenon... And that departure is the great leap faith. I'm sure you're wise enough to understand the difference between faith and self-delusion.

I don't like your use of the word "only" in the above context. What I'm describing is the collective power of humanity, and I regard that as sacred.  

Do you understand the distinction between faith and self-delusion?

Faith has an element of self-motivation in it that many atheists fail to comprehend.

It's not a valid point to say that most people would not interpret god in that way. I'd say that a surprising number of people already do.

That is, unless you want to redefine Atheism as a disbelief in most gods.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:34pm:

muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:21pm: By the way, I should have explained "interrelated" a bit better. I meant it in the sense of a neural network. Well, its true that intelligent animals do recognise their own kind instinctively and immediately on sensing the presence of another same-species individual and respond accordingly. Humans at a certain level also know instinctively and immediately on the sensing of the presence of another and respond accordingly.

What I'm describing is an immanent god.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:28pm:

You are redefining god to be something other than what is normally intended by the term... Your reference to god is that of a mass psycho-social phenomenon. Few would or could argue that point... It is observable and verifiable... The point of departure (for the theist) would be that 'god' is only a mass psycho-social phenomenon... And that departure is the great leap faith.

I'd like to explore that further. Let's substitute "at least" for only:

"God is at least a mass psycho-social phenomenon"

That is the point of departure for what you might term as the traditional theist.

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:37pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:28pm: You are redefining god to be something other than what is normally intended by the term... Your reference to god is that of a mass psycho-social phenomenon. Few would or could argue that point... It is observable and verifiable... The point of departure (for the theist) would be that 'god' is only a mass psycho-social phenomenon... And that departure is the great leap faith. I'm sure you're wise enough to understand the difference between faith and self-delusion. I don't like your use of the word "only" in the above context. What I'm describing is the collective power of humanity, and I regard that as sacred.   Do you understand the distinction between faith and self-delusion? Faith has an element of self-motivation in it that many atheists fail to comprehend. It's not a valid point to say that most people would not interpret god in that way. I'd say that a surprising number of people already do. That is, unless you want to redefine Atheism as a disbelief in most gods.

I refer to your definition of 'god'... You go no further than defining it as being a mass psycho-social phenomenon... It's evident that humans tend to act together to achieve commonly desired ends (even if we often fight over what those common ends should be). That capacity for many to act as one, is a feature of our species (as it is with others), no god is required as the glue. It's quite OK for you to refer to that as 'sacred' because I am sure you've redefined that term too such that it more closely resembles respectable/honourable

To have 'faith' you will someday run faster than you ever could when you were young (with the exclusion of some yet-to-be-invented youth pills) edges closer to self-delusion the older you get until ultimately its just plain self-delusion (or you have gone insane or are demented)

Self-motivation? Yes that is observable, hence the old Latin phrase 'Possunt, quia posse videntur' - "They can because they think they can"... Bearing in mind that this refers to a difficult yet possible act.

All sounds a bit like 'Scientology' (gasp) to me. :o

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:47pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:28pm: You are redefining god to be something other than what is normally intended by the term... Your reference to god is that of a mass psycho-social phenomenon. Few would or could argue that point... It is observable and verifiable... The point of departure (for the theist) would be that 'god' is only a mass psycho-social phenomenon... And that departure is the great leap faith. I'd like to explore that further. Let's substitute "at least" for only: "God is at least a mass psycho-social phenomenon" That is the point of departure for what you might term as the traditional theist.

OK... The point where the theist says his adieus to you, shakes your hand then leaps into the void.

Emma wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:52pm:

All sounds a bit like 'Scientology' (gasp) to me. :o

Been there, had a sniff... Its nothing like it.

talk about talking about a complete waste of effort - OK its fun to spar, but honestly,

Is Atheism a religion? What a question. :-? ;D

I've already said NO - so that should be it.!! After all, aren't we all part of the universe. My say is as good as yours. Play little games with words - shame you don't have better things to do. Got kids?  Go and be with them. ;D

Emma wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:57pm:

I've already said NO - so that should be it.!! After all, aren't we all part of the universe. My say is as good as yours. Play little games with words - shame you don't have better things to do. Got kids?  Go and be with them. ;D

Ah... Another control freak on the rampage ;D

11:00PM in SEQ... Where's your kids? At the foster home? ;D

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:51pm:

To have 'faith' you will someday run faster than you ever could when you were young (with the exclusion of some yet-to-be-invented youth pills) edges closer to self-delusion the older you get until ultimately its just plain self-delusion (or you have gone insane or are demented)

I didn't take up running until I was older. I already run faster than I could when I was in my teens.

Emma wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:57pm:

Is Atheism a religion? What a question. :-? ;D

It depends on how you define religion. In my opinion "Atheism" is not a religion.

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:12pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:51pm: To have 'faith' you will someday run faster than you ever could when you were young (with the exclusion of some yet-to-be-invented youth pills) edges closer to self-delusion the older you get until ultimately its just plain self-delusion (or you have gone insane or are demented) I didn't take up running until I was older. I already run faster than I could when I was in my teens.

Then it's not really a leap of faith to imagine that you may run faster in the future.

I'm with you Muso.

And be careful about getting too enthusiastic about running -  especially if you've done the whole deal and r going for distance running - a good long brisk walk would be much better.   Not saying this 'cos I think  ur old, probably younger than me, but  I had an older sister who took up marathon running at age 40+, and did get 'hooked'  you might say.  She said she loved the space and freedom to be with herself and think.  She had a husband (moron) and 2 kids.
The running started while their marriage was collapsing, and continued for some yrs, until she punished her body so much that she severely 'strained' her heart. Not to mention, although she had legs to die for, her feet were a mess.

Marathon running could be described as a religion - or for that matter, any sport or endeavour humans take up. It depends on where you stand.!!!!!!!!!

I'm not a control freak, but have and do know a few. Several on these Boards I'd suggest. ;)

And see., I was smart enough NOT to have 'kids', -  I learned early. ;D

Emma wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 11:27pm:

And see., I was smart enough NOT to have 'kids', -  I learned early. ;D

Are you the one who gets a bit too pissed at the friends' families weekend bar-b-ques? ;D

freediver wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 8:07am:

Quote: ..and from that standpoint, I would agree that people who believe in a lucky rabbit's foot, seven years bad luck for breaking a mirror, walking under a ladder..etc., are following a religion of sorts, because they act as if there is a higher power that will react upon their actions. [quote]The results of scientific findings far outweigh those of prayers and faith in superstition.

How do you compare them?

Via results  ::)




Quote:

Obviouisly the words "Atheism" and "Science" are closely related. And rightly so.

How so? In the same way that apples and oranges are closely related?[/quote]

Yes, ..and I'm more than happy to be thrown into the fruit basket for not believing that a man 2000 yrs ago walked on water, rose into the sky...etc. etc.



Muso said:

Quote:

Just some religious people - not all. I don't claim that.

But you're not superstitious Muso. I can easily see that you don't believe that a man walked on water, rose into the sky ..etc.

Nah Helian  -
- prefer to avoid those sorts of things  -  people get pissed and get pissed off at people - I prefer a life as free of conflict as possible.

Which is probably why I am an unbeliever  --   not a non-believer.  

Dig the diff?? :)

muso wrote on May 7^th, 2011 at 10:38pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:34pm: muso wrote on May 7th, 2011 at 10:21pm: By the way, I should have explained "interrelated" a bit better. I meant it in the sense of a neural network. Well, its true that intelligent animals do recognise their own kind instinctively and immediately on sensing the presence of another same-species individual and respond accordingly. Humans at a certain level also know instinctively and immediately on the sensing of the presence of another and respond accordingly. What I'm describing is an immanent god.

I'm not sure I follow you, now. After having gone to great lengths over some time and many threads to define 'god' as something mundane - a psycho-social phenomenon - are you now implying you mean something more? If so you're starting to sound more like Rupert Sheldrake with his 'morphic rseonance' et al.

Amadd wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 12:33am:

But you're not superstitious Muso. I can easily see that you don't believe that a man walked on water, rose into the sky ..etc.

What is this obsession with Christianity? No I'm not superstitious. I am however human, and my thought patterns are basically idiomatic. Being human, most of my paradigms do not necessarily have a totally probabilistic basis, and I'll be the first to admit it.  

Christianity itself is very analogous to the human condition in some ways. No Christian theologist would suggest that Christ was actually born on December 25 or that there were three wise men, bearing gifts of gold frankincense and myrrh, or that they followed a star.  Priests study theology, yet when it comes to Christmas, they happily recite the same old story. Force of habit? Tradition?

Human beings are like that. We are full of internal contradictions. Some quite happily go through life unaware of this fact. Many females are experts at ignoring their internal contradictions. (ok, you can hit me now)

Personally, I celebrate the fact of being human. Sometimes, I refer to myself as a Theistic atheist.  Logically, it can't exist. Humanly, it can.

Whatever position you take in life, you'll find such contradictions. The more you attempt to order life, the more disorder creeps in to compensate(?).

Lets take a woman who is a feminist. She defends womens rights. On one hand, one of her sisters is discriminated against because she wears a burqa, so she fights for the right to wear a Burqa. On the other hand, she rejects the fact that Muslim society expects women to wear a burqa.

Then there is the Club which states that the secretary is constitutionally prevented from becoming a member. The secretary then forms her own Club for club secretaries who are preventing from joining their own club. They write a constitution that restricts their membership to secretaries who are prevented from joining their own club.  Sooner or later, they become big enough to employ a secretary. The secretary wants to join the club, however to allow her to join the club, they must re-write their constitution.  

In some cases, where the contradiction is blatant, we call it hypocrisy.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

I'm not sure I follow you, now. After having gone to great lengths over some time and many threads to define 'god' as something mundane - a psycho-social phenomenon - are you now implying you mean something more? If so you're starting to sound more like Rupert Sheldrake with his 'morphic rseonance' et al.

A neural network effect caused by a mass of humanity whose thoughts are aligned is hardly mundane. It's immanent in the sense that it's taking place within the minds of the individuals. On the other hand, it's transcendent in the sense that the Internet is transcendent.  

Sorry about the slight play on words.

Amadd:


Quote:

How do you compare them? Via results

Which are?

And can you explain the 'close relationship' between atheism and science?

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:30am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 8:12am: I'm not sure I follow you, now. After having gone to great lengths over some time and many threads to define 'god' as something mundane - a psycho-social phenomenon - are you now implying you mean something more? If so you're starting to sound more like Rupert Sheldrake with his 'morphic rseonance' et al. A neural network effect caused by a mass of humanity whose thoughts are aligned is hardly mundane. It's immanent in the sense that it's taking place within the minds of the individuals. On the other hand, it's transcendent in the sense that the Internet is transcendent.   Sorry about the slight play on words.

Yes, I thought that's what you probably meant.

It's mundane in that its 'of this world'.

My question now is, why do you go to so much effort to redefine exclusively religious terms so as to define what can more easily and more accurately be defined using mundane terms?

You are making your ideas sound mystical (in the religious sense) when it seems clear that's not what you intend.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:31am:

And can you explain the 'close relationship' between atheism and science?

There is none.

In my experience, atheists are no better at understanding science than any other group. For every Christian extremist who thinks the bible trumps natural history there is an atheist who turns science into a religion and ascribes magical properties to it.

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

In my experience, atheists are no better at understanding science than any other group.

Why should they be? A child can disbelieve the proposition that god exists without ever having picked up a test tube.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:39am:

Yes, I thought that's what you probably meant. It's mundane in that its 'of this world'. My question now is, why do you go to so much effort to redefine exclusively religious terms so as to define what can more easily and more accurately be defined using mundane terms? You are making your ideas sound mystical (in the religious sense) when it seems clear that's not what you intend.

You've got to admit that there is something pretty special about life, especially sentient human life.  There is something that comes close to a religious experience when it comes to addressing a crowd. I'm a junkie for public speaking because crowds have unique dynamics that are totally different to individual humans. I used to do comedy sketches a long time ago. It was spine tingling, when the timing was absolutely right. Can you follow my meaning?  

What I'm talking about is not too far removed from a collective conscientiousness in the Jain tradition. OK, some Jains have some mystical bits that they added on, and in common with Buddhists, they believe in an afterlife. You can see how it starts though.

In a historical sense, the mysticism (the gobbledygook) comes later as people try to convey the message and the original message gets corrupted.    

freediver wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:49am:

In my experience, atheists are no better at understanding science than any other group. For every Christian extremist who thinks the bible trumps natural history there is an atheist who turns science into a religion and ascribes magical properties to it.

That's called Scientism. Generally adherents of Scientism are not scientists though, but they could be atheistic. I've met Christians who also follow Scientism. Some Atheists tend to claim that science backs up their position. Personally, I think that the traditional gods are by definition outside the domain of science.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 9:53am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8th, 2011 at 9:39am: Yes, I thought that's what you probably meant. It's mundane in that its 'of this world'. My question now is, why do you go to so much effort to redefine exclusively religious terms so as to define what can more easily and more accurately be defined using mundane terms? You are making your ideas sound mystical (in the religious sense) when it seems clear that's not what you intend. You've got to admit that there is something pretty special about life, especially sentient human life.  There is something that comes close to a religious experience when it comes to addressing a crowd. I'm a junkie for public speaking because crowds have unique dynamics that are totally different to individual humans. I used to do comedy sketches a long time ago. It was spine tingling, when the timing was absolutely right. Can you follow my meaning?   What I'm talking about is not too far removed from a collective conscientiousness in the Jain tradition. OK, some Jains have some mystical bits that they added on, and in common with Buddhists, they believe in an afterlife. You can see how it starts though. In a historical sense, the mysticism (the gobbledygook) comes later as people try to convey the message and the original message gets corrupted.

Yes, I agree, there's something special about life, especially sentient human life. I don't think I've yet disagreed with the intended meaning of your ideas of (what to call it??) the 'god factor'. But I'm not comfortable with the usurpation of religious terms by their redefinition, any more than I'd agree with the notion of redefining, say, hydrolysis to mean 'the process of finding an immanent god'.

Caution with crowds... As (I believe) Martin Luther King once observed, crowds/groups generally act less morally than individuals.

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 10:03am:

Yes, I agree, there's something special about life, especially sentient human life. I don't think I've yet disagreed with the intended meaning of your ideas of (what to call it??) the 'god factor'. But I'm not comfortable with the usurpation of religious terms by their redefinition, any more than I'd agree with the notion of redefining, say, hydrolysis to mean 'the process of finding an immanent god'. Caution with crowds... As (I believe) Martin Luther King once observed, crowds/groups generally act less morally than individuals.

There are a lot more people than you think who call themselves Christians and Jews, and if they are true to themselves, they really believe that God (and Christ) is immanent in the sense that I used.

Dawkins describes quite a few people, some of them religious officials, who did not believe in God the creator, but instead believe in God within us (immanuel).  (They also believe that religion is good for you) Have you noticed how the words soul, spirit and God (Christ) are often interchanged in many traditional religions ? (even in the West)

I don't agree with Dawkins, but he makes some good points.

muso wrote on May 8^th, 2011 at 11:00am:

There are a lot more people than you think who call themselves Christians and Jews, and if they are true to themselves, they really believe that God (and Christ) is immanent in the sense that I used. Dawkins describes quite a few people, some of them religious officials, who did not believe in God the creator, but instead believe in God within us (immanuel).  (They also believe that religion is good for you) Have you noticed how the words soul, spirit and God (Christ) are often interchanged in many traditional religions ? (even in the West) I don't agree with Dawkins, but he makes some good points.

Maybe they're on there way to atheism... Caught up as they are in transmogrifying their belief in the existence of god to disbelief by usurping religious terms to mean what you mean by god... Maybe it betrays their underlying sense of guilt or embarrassment for having abandoned their once fast-held faith.

I've no doubt that 'atheism' is on the rise.

Quote:

I've no doubt that 'atheism' is on the rise.

Atheism is on the realisation.

There's no "God is truth", or "Atheism is truth". It's just what is and what works.
No need to invent competitions that mean nothing.

Helian,

Some time ago, somebody posted a You-tube video which contrasted the Eastern religions with those of the West. I skimmed through it at the time.

I wish I could find it. It was the history (or the origins) of religion or something like that.

muso wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 3:52pm:

It was the history (or the origins) of religion or something like that.

Mate, the history of our (western) religions is the story of our progression from our mythos... And that's true for cultures.

Just like the protestant (Anglican) clerics (you refer to in your previous post) are doing.

See religion in terms of environment and the human relationship to it. What do you see in Europe? A pantheist and generally grateful worship. It's icons are woman and fertility, the Earth Mother, the sheaf of grain grass, and even the aesthetic, the 'sacred grove'. Much of that pantheism we see reflected in aboriginal culture. they too have 'sacred groves'. Places that are sacred because - isn't it obvious, ( the force is strong here).

And what do we see over there in the desert? A harsh environment, with a god to match. And where do they look for that god? Up, up into the night sky when the miracle of the twinkling stars gives relief from the blistering day. Up to where we'd like to be when death comes ...mercifully. What are the icons? The scimitar moon, the cross, (the tortured death instrument. Small wonder that the one god of the sky should conquer the the sprites of wood, field and running water with their sacred groves and soft peoples.

And what of our modern environment? With our knowledge of the physical and the self, is it any wonder we turn from gods? When we grw up we put away childish things. We KNOW the enemy, and the friend and they are us.

What you said, Grey...

Deep within our (collective) psyche, our ancient 'gods' still call to us, rattle us and drive us upwards, on to the heights of Olympia and beyond, in our dreams.

They're fantasises, and most of us in the west know that now... But their echoes are beautiful anyway.

And theism is not required to return us there... We're only a birth of a child, or a lucid dream of youth, away.

Lovely words Grey.
But - are you talking about today?  The present?

Have you seen this in Europe?  That's encouraging. :)


" What do you see in Europe? A pantheist and generally grateful worship. It's icons are woman and fertility, the Earth Mother, the sheaf of grain grass, and even the aesthetic, the 'sacred grove'."
Although .... I'd call it Animism, not Pantheism.   A bit more down to earth than that!!! :)

Much of that pantheism we see reflected in aboriginal culture. they too have 'sacred groves'. Places that are sacred because - isn't it obvious, ( the force is strong here).
Yep - that's Animism.

"Small wonder that the one god of the sky should conquer the the sprites of wood, field and running water with their sacred groves and soft peoples.
Speak for yourself - I don't accept your Sky God.!

And what of our modern environment? With our knowledge of the physical and the self, is it any wonder we turn from gods?" .  
No wonder at all, not from the gods, or God. ::)

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 10^th, 2011 at 8:22pm:

muso wrote on May 10th, 2011 at 3:52pm: It was the history (or the origins) of religion or something like that. Mate, the history of our (western) religions is the story of our progression from our mythos... And that's true for cultures. Just like the protestant (Anglican) clerics (you refer to in your previous post) are doing.

I found it. It was Amadd who posted it:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfZR9uqb0Fw&feature=related

From the Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell.

There is a section in there that is very true about Abrahamic religion.  I'll see if I can find it. It says some thing like "good/evil  ... nice religion."

muso wrote on May 12^th, 2011 at 9:07am:

From the Power of Myth - Joseph Campbell. There is a section in there that is very true about Abrahamic religion.  I'll see if I can find it. It says some thing like "good/evil  ... nice religion."

Looks like it was taken down due to copyright infringement.

The Birth of Religion
We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization.
http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text/1

Edited by Sappho to include the following...


Quote:

Warning: Something's Not Right Here! ngm.nationalgeographic.com contains malware. Your computer might catch a virus if you visit this site. Google has found malicious software may be installed onto your computer if you proceed. If you've visited this site in the past or you trust this site, it's possible that it has just recently been compromised by a hacker. You should not proceed, and perhaps try again tomorrow or go somewhere else. We have already notified ngm.nationalgeographic.com that we found malware on the site. For more about the problems found on ngm.nationalgeographic.com, visit the Google Safe Browsing diagnostic page.

PLEASE DO NOT VISIT THE PAGE LINKED ABOVE. TRY AGAIN IN A DAY OR SO.

Soren wrote on May 24^th, 2011 at 9:38pm:

The Birth of Religion We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text/1

Quote:

I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious, it means they are worthy

After reading Netanyahu's speech, I'm convinced that the religious need to understand the meaning of atheism.
That guy will go down in history as the most useless character since Jesus Christ.
He is an an infant in the eyes of humanity; a moron in the eyes of infants.

He keeps repeating that he and the jewish doctrine are better than anything else on the face of the earth.
They may not believe it, but the rest of the world believes that God never told them that they were the "chosen race".i

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 6:07am:

Soren wrote on May 24th, 2011 at 9:38pm: The Birth of Religion We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text/1 Quote: I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious, it means they are worthy

Yet he's looking forward to Christmas.

The guy is as confused as any other guitar-strumming perpetual adolescent.

Amadd wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 9:41am:

After reading Netanyahu's speech, I'm convinced that the religious need to understand the meaning of atheism. That guy will go down in history as the most useless character since Jesus Christ. He is an an infant in the eyes of humanity; a moron in the eyes of infants. He keeps repeating that he and the jewish doctrine are better than anything else on the face of the earth. They may not believe it, but the rest of the world believes that God never told them that they were the "chosen race".

WHen Frederick II asked his court chaplain for a proof of god, the chaplian simply said, "The jews, Sire".

WHat he meant was that there is no way the jews could have survived until then without a god. None of the ancient tribes mentioned in the OT have.

That was in the 18th century.i

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 11:02pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 6:07am: Soren wrote on May 24th, 2011 at 9:38pm: The Birth of Religion We used to think agriculture gave rise to cities and later to writing, art, and religion. Now the world’s oldest temple suggests the urge to worship sparked civilization. http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/2011/06/gobekli-tepe/mann-text/1 Quote: I don't believe just 'cos ideas are tenacious, it means they are worthy Yet he's looking forward to Christmas. The guy is as confused as any other guitar-strumming perpetual adolescent.

;D

You crusty ole bugger!

Soren wrote on May 26^th, 2011 at 11:07pm:

WHat he meant was that there is no way the jews could have survived until then without a god. None of the ancient tribes mentioned in the OT have.

Yeah, there's that... oh and the ancient Jewish predilection towards killing them all. ;)

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 7:19am:

Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 11:07pm: WHat he meant was that there is no way the jews could have survived until then without a god. None of the ancient tribes mentioned in the OT have. Yeah, there's that... oh and the ancient Jewish predilection towards killing them all. ;)

Wonder how many "Jews" today bear the genes of Semites?

Had my DNA 'mapped' some time ago and discovered I was likely more genetically Celt on one side of the family than the other (who are cultural 'Celts' from Ireland).

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 7:34am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 7:19am: Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 11:07pm: WHat he meant was that there is no way the jews could have survived until then without a god. None of the ancient tribes mentioned in the OT have. Yeah, there's that... oh and the ancient Jewish predilection towards killing them all. ;) Wonder how many "Jews" today bear the genes of Semites? Had my DNA 'mapped' some time ago and discovered I was likely more genetically Celt on one side of the family than the other (who are cultural 'Celts' from Ireland).

What was the other side? Iberian? Apparently there was quite a link between Ireland and the Iberian peninsula, best traced by some music but also by genetics (black Irish). ANd with an Iberian connection, who know? mebbe even (ahem), you know, marrano connection.
Or Viking/Danish.
Or, god forbid, English??

Soren wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 10:49am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 7:34am: NorthOfNorth wrote on May 27th, 2011 at 7:19am: Soren wrote on May 26th, 2011 at 11:07pm: WHat he meant was that there is no way the jews could have survived until then without a god. None of the ancient tribes mentioned in the OT have. Yeah, there's that... oh and the ancient Jewish predilection towards killing them all. ;) Wonder how many "Jews" today bear the genes of Semites? Had my DNA 'mapped' some time ago and discovered I was likely more genetically Celt on one side of the family than the other (who are cultural 'Celts' from Ireland). What was the other side? Iberian? Apparently there was quite a link between Ireland and the Iberian peninsula, best traced by some music but also by genetics (black Irish). ANd with an Iberian connection, who know? mebbe even (ahem), you know, marrano connection. Or Viking/Danish. Or, god forbid, English??

Ironically (at least in terms of cultural identity) the side that identified as Celtic (being Irish) were descended from migrating peoples from the Urals. The side that (genetically) are Celtic lived in central Europe, which is not really surprising given central Europe is the "ancestral home" of the Celts. This side (genetic Celts), did not identify as Celts or anyone from Britain/Ireland and probably didn't for hundreds (if not for more than a thousand) years.

I have empathy with what you say. The folklore in my family is that we are descendants of a French knight from the 15th or 16th century (complete with matching coat of arms)  or an (ahem) Armenian pharmacist from the same period. Bookish and adventurous family members lean according to type. Some of us a ruddy and fair, some  more , er, easily bronzed.

The other contribitors to the bloodline over roughly 30 generations since the 16th century are only occasionally identified. For all I know, I could be a ... but no, better not think of that....


:D

Soren wrote on May 27^th, 2011 at 8:40pm:

I have empathy with what you say. The folklore in my family is that we are descendants of a French knight from the 15th or 16th century (complete with matching coat of arms)  or an (ahem) Armenian pharmacist from the same period. Bookish and adventurous family members lean according to type. Some of us a ruddy and fair, some  more , er, easily bronzed. The other contribitors to the bloodline over roughly 30 generations since the 16th century are only occasionally identified. For all I know, I could be a ... but no, better not think of that....

Yeah, there's the family mythology, there's genealogy - who bore whom... who sired whom - often from what the clerical scribes of Parish records deemed true... And then there's DNA... From what I've read and been told, it's a bit of a lucky break for the family-roots hound if those three ducks line up!

Something that may haunt Prince Harry for the rest of his life!

ooooooh  unkind! ;)

I 'd take Prince Harry over William any day. ;D  
Perhaps that proves the point.!

And he does look like Diana , to an extent, though not as pronounced as William.

In fact, its pretty hard to see Charles in either of them!! :o

My ROOTS are UK and France - as far as I can find -  but -  records don't show the name of my grandfather - on my mother's side.  

Though she was born in London, I only know where and when. Not who her father was.  Thats a real bugger.!!

My fathers family trace back to a nobleman in King Charles 1?  ( the Cavalier spaniel King)  reign.  wow what a way to be remembered? :)

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:11am:

If actions speak louder than words, then the Atheist Foundation of Australia definitely view their organisation as a religion. [quote]In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses. The offensive signs were to read: "Atheism — celebrate reason". APN Outdoor refused to run the ads, giving no reason for their refusal. The Atheist Foundation and Metro Tasmania reached a deal after conciliation was ordered by the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The signs will begin appearing on Tasmanian buses in 2010.* In March 2010, buses started carrying atheist signs in Melbourne. source

:-[/quote]

No. It6 is not. It is simply knowledge, not a bgelief system, knowledge. There is no God, end of knowledge. Pretty simple stuff really. Too simple for the braian dead and washed.

boogieman wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 6:31am:

Sappho wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:11am: If actions speak louder than words, then the Atheist Foundation of Australia definitely view their organisation as a religion. [quote]In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses. The offensive signs were to read: "Atheism — celebrate reason". APN Outdoor refused to run the ads, giving no reason for their refusal. The Atheist Foundation and Metro Tasmania reached a deal after conciliation was ordered by the Office of the Anti-Discrimination Commissioner. The signs will begin appearing on Tasmanian buses in 2010.* In March 2010, buses started carrying atheist signs in Melbourne. source :-[/quote] No. It6 is not. It is simply knowledge, not a bgelief system, knowledge. There is no God, end of knowledge. Pretty simple stuff really. Too simple for the braian dead and washed.

If it is not a religion, why is the AFA using religious discrimination laws to assert their right to post religious doctrine?

Sappho wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 12:17pm:

If it is not a religion, why is the AFA using religious discrimination laws to assert their right to post religious doctrine?

For the cynical convenience of anti-theists.

http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/5854/atheismside1.jpg

Freedom of religion also includes freedom from religion.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 1:23pm:

Sappho wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 12:17pm: If it is not a religion, why is the AFA using religious discrimination laws to assert their right to post religious doctrine? For the cynical convenience of anti-theists.

No. There is more to it than that. The AFA is abusing the rights of others so that they may dishonestly secure gains. Equally, the AFA is abusing values by not pursuing their right, and subsequently every one's right to freedom of thought and speech.

If they are not a religion, then they are dishonest and an abuser of rights.

Sappho wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 2:54pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Sappho wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 12:17pm: If it is not a religion, why is the AFA using religious discrimination laws to assert their right to post religious doctrine? For the cynical convenience of anti-theists. If they are not a religion, then they are dishonest and an abuser of rights.

Yeah... What? You think cynics won't lie to get their way? They are anti-theists, not just atheists, and it appears they are certain that their ends justifies their means.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 2:57pm:

Sappho wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 2:54pm: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 1:23pm: Sappho wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 12:17pm: If it is not a religion, why is the AFA using religious discrimination laws to assert their right to post religious doctrine? For the cynical convenience of anti-theists. If they are not a religion, then they are dishonest and an abuser of rights. Yeah... What? You think cynics won't lie to get their way? They are anti-theists, not just atheists, and it appears they are certain that their ends justifies their means.

Abusing the rights of others to gain what is not rightfully yours to have, is more than just lying.

Otherwise, I am not a fan of anti theism... And what is anti theism by their reckoning anyways... if not a means of further abuses, ridicules and hate speaking.

You can disagree and dispute without abuse or ridicule entering discussions.

Sappho wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 3:36pm:

Otherwise, I am not a fan of anti theism... And what is anti theism by their reckoning anyways... if not a means of further abuses, ridicules and hate speaking.

While they have good cause to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't understand that conviction is the art of being certain, they should also consider that maybe they, with their anti-theism, and those chained to blind faith in theistic 'truth', stand at the opposite ends of the same arc, such that one is too close to the other to call any difference in their actions.

In other words, be careful of becoming the thing you hate.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 26^th, 2011 at 6:04pm:

Sappho wrote on Jun 26th, 2011 at 3:36pm: Otherwise, I am not a fan of anti theism... And what is anti theism by their reckoning anyways... if not a means of further abuses, ridicules and hate speaking. While they have good cause to be suspicious of anyone who doesn't understand that conviction is the art of being certain, they should also consider that maybe they, with their anti-theism, and those chained to blind faith in theistic 'truth', stand at the opposite ends of the same arc, such that one is too close to the other to call any difference in their actions. In other words, be careful of becoming the thing you hate.

 
As I consider myself an atheist, I'm eligible to add to this discussion, again.
Interesting ideas H and S -  and this movement you speak of S - anti - theism ?  er  and you H  -  so we have anti-theists?

Hang on - I'll look it up in the dictionary............
Hmm -- Ok  . a 'compound word'  anti   being the prefix that attaches to the element - in this case 'theism'.
Anti  can cause the compound word to mean... opposed to OR  opposite.....   . Which leads me to think your compound word is to do with opposition to,  ...rather than the 'state'  of  being other than a person who believes in God. IE an Atheist.
 
So - there are two distinctly different meanings to the word -  anti-theism,  or anti- theist!   It also depends on whether or not you use a capital for the 'element' or not. ::) ;)

So Sappho - can you clarify -??  - is 'theist' a term which you consider embraces religious theologies other than the BIG THREE?  Is that why you even give thought to the concept of anti-t? What is the cause of angst??
:-/
I am quite fascinated .....   never having been bitten by the God Bug,  or  Gene,   if you like. :) :) :)

An "A" theist, ....meaning: "Not a Theist", has the very same meaning and understanding as an "Anti-Theist" for those who require everybody to understand things in exactly the same way that they do.

There is no distiguishment between meanings there. If you don't believe what they say, then you are an unbeliever....sound familiar?

Let's go a step further to say that being a believer of a different religion is far better than being an "Unbeliever".

Hence, the religious (of any creed/faith) are usually willing to fight where there is no fight forthcoming from those who don't find it so important to choose to attempt to live by any of the popular stories or legends.

This may all seem sort of logical until you consider that history has shown that there will always be a new entity to fear.
And if you had the choice, would you fear "God" who has power over all people, or would would you choose to fear your own government?

I choose to fear God.ii

Amadd wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 8:30am:

An "A" theist, ....meaning: "Not a Theist", has the very same meaning and understanding as an "Anti-Theist" for those who require everybody to understand things in exactly the same way that they do.

That depends on the intention of the writer/speaker. An anti-theist can describe someone who, not happy with his own disbelief in the proposition that god exists (his atheism), is offended by, or (vehemently even) opposed to, the practise of theism and theists.

Quote:

No. It6 is not. It is simply knowledge, not a bgelief system, knowledge. There is no God, end of knowledge. Pretty simple stuff really. Too simple for the braian dead and washed.

Is that the extent of your knowledge boogieman? How do you 'know' this, other than taking it as a matter of faith?

That IS what I said - isn't it?.
No - not  fully.
There are two meanings - or 'interpretations' of the word.

So I don't agree Amadd,  -- one CAN exist in a state of anti-?whatever..... without being maleficiently opposed to their opposite.  

No Helian - your premise is even weirder - ? ::) :-?



I'm not saying the only anti-theist is a person who is doubting their atheism,

wrong button!! >:( >:(
There are two meanings - or 'interpretations' of the word.

So I don't agree Amadd,  -- one CAN exist in a state of anti-?whatever..... without being philosophically and maleficiently opposed to their opposite.  

No Helian - your premise is even weirder - ?   someone who, not happy with his own disbelief in the proposition that god exists (his atheism), is offended by, or (vehemently even) opposed to, the practise of theism and theists.

Truly convoluted - and essentially circular.

Is this really of any importance?  Give a continental?  NOPE
Just answering replies. So- its - sort of FUN. ;D

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 10:21pm:

wrong button!! >:( >:( There are two meanings - or 'interpretations' of the word. So I don't agree Amadd,  -- one CAN exist in a state of anti-?whatever..... without being philosophically and maleficiently opposed to their opposite.   No Helian - your premise is even weirder - ?   someone who, not happy with his own disbelief in the proposition that god exists (his atheism), is offended by, or (vehemently even) opposed to, the practise of theism and theists. Truly convoluted - and essentially circular. Is this really of any importance?  Give a continental?  NOPE Just answering replies. So- its - sort of FUN. ;D

Atheist - One who disbelieves the proposition that god exists.

Anti-theist - One who is (actively) opposed to the practise of theism.

You better stay off the sherry.

Atheist - One who disbelieves the proposition that god exists.

Anti-theist - One who is (actively) opposed to the practise of theism.
You better stay off the sherry.

Well Sherry (YUK) or not .....digress - do you LIKE sherry?......

Well cherie  - I do not agree.

You use anti -  (inclusive)  as a noun.  
I say
It IS ALSO a prefix,   which modifies the element to which it is attached.!!
SO  - anti can mean opposite - just as it can mean 'against'.

Is that clearer for you, and your ?? poison of choice????????

Emma wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 10:41pm:

Atheist - One who disbelieves the proposition that god exists. Anti-theist - One who is (actively) opposed to the practise of theism. You better stay off the sherry. Well Sherry (YUK) or not .....digress - do you LIKE sherry?...... Well cherie  - I do not agree. You use anti -  (inclusive)  as a noun.   I say It IS ALSO a prefix,   which modifies the element to which it is attached.!! SO  - anti can mean opposite - just as it can mean 'against'. Is that clearer for you, and your ?? poison of choice????????

Funny that... How words can have y'know different meanings depending on their context  ::)

As I am the writer, I use the term to distinguish atheists from those who actively oppose the practise/teaching of theism. Although it's not original... Certainly Christopher Hitchens describes himself as such to define his attitude towards theism which he describes as more than atheism.

Strictly beer for me these days... Had a mate who blew his liver on scotch.

Hmmmm - funny that!

I recommend Red Wine. :)

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 27^th, 2011 at 10:46pm:

Emma wrote on Jun 27th, 2011 at 10:41pm: Atheist - One who disbelieves the proposition that god exists. Anti-theist - One who is (actively) opposed to the practise of theism. You better stay off the sherry. Well Sherry (YUK) or not .....digress - do you LIKE sherry?...... Well cherie  - I do not agree. You use anti -  (inclusive)  as a noun.   I say It IS ALSO a prefix,   which modifies the element to which it is attached.!! SO  - anti can mean opposite - just as it can mean 'against'. Is that clearer for you, and your ?? poison of choice???????? Funny that... How words can have y'know different meanings depending on their context  ::) As I am the writer, I use the term to distinguish atheists from those who actively oppose the practise/teaching of theism. Although it's not original... Certainly Christopher Hitchens describes himself as such to define his attitude towards theism which he describes as more than atheism. Strictly beer for me these days... Had a mate who blew his liver on scotch.

Here's one for you...

If I said "You're fair"... What could I be referring to?

The colour of your hair?
The colour of you skin?
The quality of your intellect?
Your sense of justice?

Guess it would depend on, y'know, the context in which I used the the term.

I was having some nice chilli crab at Boat Quay, Singapore last night when a fortune teller approached. I bet she wished she didn't.

Tell my future? You don't even know my past! When was I last in Singapore - exact date - see - you don't know.

You can't tell the future and you know that perfectly well. Why don't you just get some flowers and sell those to diners instead? At least it's an honest job.

OK - make it $10.

You owe me $10 for good career advice........

muso wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 7:39pm:

I was having some nice chilli crab at Boat Quay, Singapore last night when a fortune teller approached. I bet she wished she didn't. Tell my future? You don't even know my past! When was I last in Singapore - exact date - see - you don't know. You can't tell the future and you know that perfectly well. Why don't you just get some flowers and sell those to diners instead? At least it's an honest job. OK - make it $10. You owe me $10 for good career advice........

Hey Muso, good to have you back here.

Don't forget Thatcher was told by a Gypsy, before she ascended to the pinnacle of British politics, when she was no one, that her legacy would rival that of Churchill's.

Thanks. It's Wednesday, so this must be Australia again. Good to be home.  I think it will take a while for my brain to catch up again. I think it's still flying over the Timor Sea somewhere.

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:18am:

Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the AFA should demean atheism by using laws against religion discrimination to get what they want. There are so many better ways of addressing their right to display billboards without having to admit itself a religion and claim discrimination for religious reasons. It's wrong!

Why not? Should hypocrisy be the sole quality of religious freaks? Don't you like seeing hypocrisy as we sure as hell see more than enough of it from the Christian brigade. Liars to their bootstraps.

boogieman wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

Why not? Should hypocrisy be the sole quality of religious freaks? Don't you like seeing hypocrisy as we sure as hell see more than enough of it from the Christian brigade. Liars to their bootstraps.

You see, that's the crux of the matter. Not all Christians are hypocrites, and not all Atheists are anti-Christian.

People like to make broad brush statements about both, when in fact they are talking about a small proportion in each case.

A large number of everyday Christians would have as many objections about the froth at the mouth looney type evangelicals as a typical atheist would.

As a theistic atheist  :P , I don't think it accomplishes anything to be divisive.

It's a strawman argument.

freediver wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 9:35pm:

It's a strawman argument.

I agree somewhat, in that it's a strawman argument devised by those in need of both a strawman to fight, and another to be ruler.

It's a Strawmen argument.

boogieman wrote on Jun 30^th, 2011 at 7:56am:

Sappho wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:18am: Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the AFA should demean atheism by using laws against religion discrimination to get what they want. There are so many better ways of addressing their right to display billboards without having to admit itself a religion and claim discrimination for religious reasons. It's wrong! Why not? Should hypocrisy be the sole quality of religious freaks? Don't you like seeing hypocrisy as we sure as hell see more than enough of it from the Christian brigade. Liars to their bootstraps.

Therefore, because Christians display hypocrisy, Atheists can too? That's a great argument for stupids who seem to think that hypocrisy is ok... but I prefer my arguments with a little more integrity than that.

Everybody has been hypocritical to an extent some time in their life. One's personal religion or world view has no bearing on this.

I just got back from Scotland, so to quote a phrase:

"We're a' Jock Tamson's Bairns"

Quote:

One's personal religion or world view has no bearing on this.

Yes it does. It makes a hella difference.

muso wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2011 at 10:46pm:

Everybody has been hypocritical to an extent some time in their life.

Intention plays a role in deciding the hypocrisy. What the AFA did was knowingly against their understanding of Atheism. The AFA was knowingly acting hypocritically so that they could access rights that they do not view as their own.... freedom of religious expression. More over, it was a profoundly selfish act that flew in the face of Humanism.  

Quote:

rights that they do not view as their own.... freedom of religious expression

Can you explain this? Do they oppose freedom of religion? Or just deny that their views are religious?

They're more than atheists, their anti-theists... 'Anti' in the way anti-social means more than just non-social.

So they oppose freedom of religion?

What I find most interesting is the member based Boards list. Not one for religion, Christianity or Muslims but there is one for atheist discusions.

And, by the way Freediver, Abbott should apologise to everyone, quietly resign from Parliament and go seek solitude on a hilltop somewhere. His monk's haircut is now ready if you've seen him from behind so he's ready to contemplate and meditate on bigger things. Like lying and the effects of that.

These last few posts are talking about absolutely nothing, just sheer drivel.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28^th, 2011 at 10:47pm:

muso wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 7:39pm: I was having some nice chilli crab at Boat Quay, Singapore last night when a fortune teller approached. I bet she wished she didn't. Tell my future? You don't even know my past! When was I last in Singapore - exact date - see - you don't know. You can't tell the future and you know that perfectly well. Why don't you just get some flowers and sell those to diners instead? At least it's an honest job. OK - make it $10. You owe me $10 for good career advice........ Hey Muso, good to have you back here. Don't forget Thatcher was told by a Gypsy, before she ascended to the pinnacle of British politics, when she was no one, that her legacy would rival that of Churchill's.

Good for you Muso. You stole my joke from about 2 weeks ago. Well done. Anything else you can plagiarise?

freediver wrote on Jul 3^rd, 2011 at 12:44pm:

Quote: rights that they do not view as their own.... freedom of religious expression Can you explain this? Do they oppose freedom of religion? Or just deny that their views are religious?

When I wrote that opinion, I was thinking only that they 'just deny that their views are religious.' However, the AFA forum is not a bastion of free speech. The bulk of the members are anti religion and vehemently so. I don't know if their goal is to destroy religion, but certainly there are some members there who would like that.

boogieman wrote on Jul 4^th, 2011 at 9:55am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 10:47pm: muso wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 7:39pm: I was having some nice chilli crab at Boat Quay, Singapore last night when a fortune teller approached. I bet she wished she didn't. Tell my future? You don't even know my past! When was I last in Singapore - exact date - see - you don't know. You can't tell the future and you know that perfectly well. Why don't you just get some flowers and sell those to diners instead? At least it's an honest job. OK - make it $10. You owe me $10 for good career advice........ Hey Muso, good to have you back here. Don't forget Thatcher was told by a Gypsy, before she ascended to the pinnacle of British politics, when she was no one, that her legacy would rival that of Churchill's. Good for you Muso. You stole my joke from about 2 weeks ago. Well done. Anything else you can plagiarise?

Well all I can say is that great minds think alike. I honestly didn't see your joke. I've been on holiday.   :)

I consider myself an "A"theist, bordering on an "anti"theist, largely because of nonsensical claims of being opposed to religious philosophies due to my personal lack of interest in them.

IMO, religions come under the "look at moi" category as much as anything else that I might or might not be interested in.

Eg: If I'm not interested in playing "hockey" in the present tense, then that doesn't mean that I would never be interested in playing hockey in the future.
It also doesn't mean that I am against hockey in any way, it just means that I have taken no interest in it. So I am "A"hockey, I'm not "Anti-hockey".

Of course a feeble attempt at rationalism will not compute for those who consider the word "religion" to hold supernatural powers.
Would it help if I said that I don't believe that religions hold any supernatural powers whatsoever?
Would it help if told you that I don't believe that you can kill me with a gaze or withhold from me a gold pass to heaven?

It should help you understand that I have little interest in what you believe to be true...but I won't be holding my breath there.

Sappho wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2011 at 1:44pm:

boogieman wrote on Jun 30th, 2011 at 7:56am: Sappho wrote on May 5th, 2011 at 7:18am: Probably not. But that doesn't mean that the AFA should demean atheism by using laws against religion discrimination to get what they want. There are so many better ways of addressing their right to display billboards without having to admit itself a religion and claim discrimination for religious reasons. It's wrong! Why not? Should hypocrisy be the sole quality of religious freaks? Don't you like seeing hypocrisy as we sure as hell see more than enough of it from the Christian brigade. Liars to their bootstraps. Therefore, because Christians display hypocrisy, Atheists can too? That's a great argument for stupids who seem to think that hypocrisy is ok... but I prefer my arguments with a little more integrity than that.

Bump.

Your lack of comment seems perplexing given your self professed superior debating abilities.

Amadd wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 8:28am:

IMO, religions come under the "look at moi" category as much as anything else that I might or might not be interested in.

What do you mean... 'look at moi'?

Quote:

What do you mean... 'look at moi'?

Kath and Kim, catwalk models, whores...that kinda stuff.

You should "look at moi", cause I got the good oil  ;D

muso wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 8:12am:

boogieman wrote on Jul 4th, 2011 at 9:55am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 10:47pm: muso wrote on Jun 28th, 2011 at 7:39pm: I was having some nice chilli crab at Boat Quay, Singapore last night when a fortune teller approached. I bet she wished she didn't. Tell my future? You don't even know my past! When was I last in Singapore - exact date - see - you don't know. You can't tell the future and you know that perfectly well. Why don't you just get some flowers and sell those to diners instead? At least it's an honest job. OK - make it $10. You owe me $10 for good career advice........ Hey Muso, good to have you back here. Don't forget Thatcher was told by a Gypsy, before she ascended to the pinnacle of British politics, when she was no one, that her legacy would rival that of Churchill's. Good for you Muso. You stole my joke from about 2 weeks ago. Well done. Anything else you can plagiarise? Well all I can say is that great minds think alike. I honestly didn't see your joke. I've been on holiday.   :)

Good reply mate. You got it, what I was saying. Thank God someone here is able to show some G and D.

Sappho wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 8:41am:

Amadd wrote on Jul 5th, 2011 at 8:28am: IMO, religions come under the "look at moi" category as much as anything else that I might or might not be interested in. What do you mean... 'look at moi'?

So you thought he was cracking a "Frenchy" too ;D

Maybe it should read "Look at moy" !

Nup. It's definitely "Moi".

Oui Oui Oui?

Mais non.... Il est le "Kath et Kim", n'est pas?

Amadd wrote on Jul 5^th, 2011 at 8:28am:

I consider myself an "A"theist, bordering on an "anti"theist, largely because of nonsensical claims of being opposed to religious philosophies due to my personal lack of interest in them. IMO, religions come under the "look at moi" category as much as anything else that I might or might not be interested in. Eg: If I'm not interested in playing "hockey" in the present tense, then that doesn't mean that I would never be interested in playing hockey in the future. It also doesn't mean that I am against hockey in any way, it just means that I have taken no interest in it. So I am "A"hockey, I'm not "Anti-hockey".

And yet you try to fill the hockey-shaped hole in your life.  :P

The story of modernity - trying to fill the god-shaped hole in life.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:08pm:

And yet you try to fill the hockey-shaped hole in your life.  :P The story of modernity - trying to fill the god-shaped hole in life.

What burdens they be! That are borne by the strong.

Ah! Heroisme! Now there's a pose to strike...

No place for the weak

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:44pm:

No place for the weak

Not an Übermensch, surely...

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:55pm:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jul 6th, 2011 at 10:44pm: No place for the weak Not an Übermensch, surely...

Nein. Nur ein mensch, mein freund,

Nur ein Mensch

Die Erleichterung! Sie begann wie Nietzsche zu sprechen.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 11:18pm:

Die Erleichterung! Sie begann wie Nietzsche zu sprechen.

Ah Nietzsche!

If only his mutter had bought him zat FriedrichDerGrosse suit venn he voss ein Junge.

Ze welt vood not heff "Also Sprach Zarathustra" und I vood not be trying to speak pig-English-Platt-Deutsch in ze hopes of conveying a comedic parody of ein Weiner Psychoanalytiker.

Funny ole world.

Quote:

Mais non.... Il est le "Kath et Kim", n'est pas?

My babelfish is not very good, but I understand that to ask if "moi" was meant to be from Kath and Kim. Yes it was.



Quote:

And yet you try to fill the hockey-shaped hole in your life.  Tongue The story of modernity - trying to fill the god-shaped hole in life.

Yes I suppose that many hockey players might be of the opinion that you cannot live a pure (good, moral, happy..etc.) life unless you play hockey. Doubtful.., but If so, then good for them. I'm still not interested in hockey ;D

Of all of the religions ever to exist, it's hardly worth asking any one of them what their definition of " God" is, as the reply will generally be from a supernatural perspective borne from the ideas and writings of ordinary humans....that's if they can provide a definition at all.

IMO, you'd be far better off asking a rabbit it's definition of God.
When it fails to reply, you might then think it wiser to just watch the rabbit and see what the rabbit thinks God is.

The past lot of posts only serves to fortify my idea of what God might say.
I reckon God might say something like:

"You see? It's a competition!
I gave you all eyes and ears and only a meagre percentage of you know what planet I've placed you all on!"

I'm not able to dictate what you might think God would say, 'cause I'm an athiest and therefore not religious.

Amadd wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 8:22am:

I reckon God might say something like: "You see? It's a competition! I gave you all eyes and ears and only a meagre percentage of you know what planet I've placed you all on!" I'm not able to dictate what you might think God would say, 'cause I'm an athiest and therefore not religious.

;D ;D ;D

http://www.abc.net.au/rn/scienceshow/stories/2007/1908293.htm

Read the transcript:


Quote:

'Hi there, it's God here, and after reading Richard's book I have found his argument so compelling that I have realised that the possibility of my existence is extraordinarily remote. In light of this revelation I hereby declare that I, God, have become an atheist, and as this will be my last message to humanity, I therefore lay the weight of responsibility for mankind's wellbeing on Mr Richard Dawkins himself. And while he may not quite be a god, he certainly does move in a mysterious way. Put it down to the lumbago. And so may you all rest in the security that all your dreams, hopes and beliefs are nothing more than the rumblings of a few strands of proteins assembled by no one for no higher purpose. Have a nice day. Amen.'

Gee, didn't you understand the transcript yourself?

That's great that God has become an athiest, because God is a personal human idea that ought not to be thrust onto the ideas of others. Take it or leave it.

Did Dawkins ever assume himself as being "God" or "Godlike" in nature?
Well of course he didn't.

Did you not comprehend that the writer of the sarcastic remark was in fact assuming himself (most probably a him) as speaking for God, and therefore assuming himself as being God?

Hmmm...swoosh  ;D

Amadd wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Gee, didn't you understand the transcript yourself? That's great that God has become an athiest, because God is a personal human idea that ought not to be thrust onto the ideas of others. Take it or leave it. Did Dawkins ever assume himself as being "God" or "Godlike" in nature? Well of course he didn't. Did you not comprehend that the writer of the sarcastic remark was in fact assuming himself (most probably a him) as speaking for God, and therefore assuming himself as being God? Hmmm...swoosh  ;D

What God? Who said there was a God?

Why would Dawkins do that? He was on about evolution.

Amadd wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Gee, didn't you understand the transcript yourself? That's great that God has become an athiest, because God is a personal human idea that ought not to be thrust onto the ideas of others. Take it or leave it. Did Dawkins ever assume himself as being "God" or "Godlike" in nature? Well of course he didn't. Did you not comprehend that the writer of the sarcastic remark was in fact assuming himself (most probably a him) as speaking for God, and therefore assuming himself as being God? Hmmm...swoosh  ;

I say mate, I say bloke, I say bloke, I say mate, I say bloke... The swoosh is on you.

Religion requires faith... God cannot be religious because, like the Buddhist who's reached enlightenment is beyond 'Buddhism', 'God' is beyond faith.

No faith.. No religion.

Soren wrote on Jul 6^th, 2011 at 10:08pm:

Amadd wrote on Jul 5th, 2011 at 8:28am: I consider myself an "A"theist, bordering on an "anti"theist, largely because of nonsensical claims of being opposed to religious philosophies due to my personal lack of interest in them. IMO, religions come under the "look at moi" category as much as anything else that I might or might not be interested in. Eg: If I'm not interested in playing "hockey" in the present tense, then that doesn't mean that I would never be interested in playing hockey in the future. It also doesn't mean that I am against hockey in any way, it just means that I have taken no interest in it. So I am "A"hockey, I'm not "Anti-hockey". And yet you try to fill the hockey-shaped hole in your life.  :P The story of modernity - trying to fill the god-shaped hole in life.

Joe Hockey is God?

[edit]Joe Hockey is God? [/edit]

Just a minor demon actually  :)

Amadd wrote on Jul 7^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Gee, didn't you understand the transcript yourself? That's great that God has become an athiest, because God is a personal human idea that ought not to be thrust onto the ideas of others. Take it or leave it. Did Dawkins ever assume himself as being "God" or "Godlike" in nature? Well of course he didn't. Did you not comprehend that the writer of the sarcastic remark was in fact assuming himself (most probably a him) as speaking for God, and therefore assuming himself as being God? Hmmm...swoosh  ;D

I posted it because it was funny and because Flacco said something similar to you.  Why did you assume I was having a dig at you? I wasn't.  

Quote:

I posted it because it was funny and because Flacco said something similar to you.  Why did you assume I was having a dig at you? I wasn't.

You should.

No, it's not a religion.

Kytro wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 1:53pm:

No, it's not a religion.

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Actually, you're both right. There is obviously a religion around atheism(where else but in the USA?), however it obviously doesn't include all atheists.  Wow -  4840 ministers ordained!


Here is a parallel:

Women get pregnant: True - but that is not a general statement about all women.

Atheists are religious: True, but that applies to an even smaller proportion of the whole.  

End of story. Nothing to see here folks. Let's move on.

Atheism is a pretty meaningless term because it expresses a lack of belief in something that is pretty meaningless to just about all atheists (ie divinities).

The Atheist Motto: "You call it God, and I will not believe in it on principle,  regardless of what you think it is supposed to be"

It's at that stage that I talk about my mass psycho-social phenomenon that I call God.  The problem with that one, is that I can prove that it exists.  The term atheist is therefore ... not very good when applied generally to all gods.

Varieties of irreligious experience
http://newhumanist.org.uk/2657/varieties-of-irreligious-experience

muso wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 2:35pm:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ Actually, you're both right. There is obviously a religion around atheism(where else but in the USA?), however it obviously doesn't include all atheists.  Wow -  4840 ministers ordained!

Sure, someone can create a religion around some of the common beliefs of atheists (people tend to have some common reasons for not believing in God, but it is by no means a given) but that does not mean atheism is a religion. It simply means they don't believe in any gods.

Personally I'm an agnostic atheist, and my lack of belief is due to the lack of evidence, but I'm not religious at all.

Kytro wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 3:53pm:

muso wrote on Sep 26th, 2011 at 2:35pm: http://firstchurchofatheism.com/ Actually, you're both right. There is obviously a religion around atheism(where else but in the USA?), however it obviously doesn't include all atheists.  Wow -  4840 ministers ordained! Sure, someone can create a religion around some of the common beliefs of atheists (people tend to have some common reasons for not believing in God, but it is by no means a given) but that does not mean atheism is a religion. It simply means they don't believe in any gods. Personally I'm an agnostic atheist, and my lack of belief is due to the lack of evidence, but I'm not religious at all.

Most atheists are agnostic atheists to some extent. Very few atheists (if any) will say "I know for a fact that there are no gods"

Personally I believe in a naturalistic world, free of supernatural or mystical deities, forces, and entities. That probably describes my core worldview better than the negation of somebody else's religion.  The word "Atheist" is specific to the non belief in the assortment of different entities that various religions  and philosophies (inserted) call gods and is consequently not a very useful term to me.

My own belief is broader than that. I don't know this for a fact, but I just choose not to believe in things like gambling mythologies, horoscopes, gods (apart from mass psycho-social phenomena) and pink kangaroos. There may well be a pink kangaroo bouncing around Mount Isa way, but I have no evidence for its existence right now.  The same goes for everything else of that nature. Gods are not a special case.

Soren wrote on Sep 26^th, 2011 at 3:25pm:

Varieties of irreligious experience http://newhumanist.org.uk/2657/varieties-of-irreligious-experience

I agree with the conclusion of that article.

Quote:

James liked to define religion by contrast: it was the opposite, he suggested, of the smug facetiousness and cackling je m’en fichisme cultivated by 18th-century philosophes like Voltaire, who treated any display of tenderness or solemnity as a sign of weakness or folly.

;D ;D ;D

As opposed to the Je m'en foutre-ism of today. At least 18th century Atheists were polite about not giving a damn.

'An atheistic protest against God and belief itself stands on the soil of belief in a divine order of goodness and justice, and it actually confirms and acknowledges that belief by that pain and protest.'

That's one aspect of it. It's also a protest about blustering arrogant proponents of  the "one true religion:" who claim with absolute faith and conviction that they have found the way and that everybody else is lost.

The main problem is that (in common with many other religions) they bear no resemblance to the founder of their religion. The "Born Again" brigade have forgotten the message of humility. They eat 'stale bread instead of heavenly manna' (paraphrased, and I'm too lazy to find the Biblical reference).


Quote:

I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.

Mohandas Gandhi

Is Atheism a Religion?

It they made atheism a Religion atheists would not be able to believe in it.

Athiesm would be the only religion which could have no members.

No, it's not. It's knowledge.

For most of us, it's not a religion, but I make an exception in your case, BETEARS.

Here - you can get ordained:

http://firstchurchofatheism.com/

Every Christmas they sing Handel's  Messiah, but they change the words.  My personal favourite is:

"I know that my redeemer doesn't liveth...."

NorthOfNorth wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:13am:

Would there be any atheists who would be prepared to die for the cause of atheism?

Oh my, we really have no idea do we.

Atheism is a Religion if it does base its existence via the expression of Reading and Writing.
Something I mentioned on the AFA Forum ans subsequently got banned ...in writing. ::)

The majority of Atheists come from a Scientific and black-skivy Music / quasi 'satanic metal' music background.

I guess Scientology is where Science and Religion meet , much like the Medical and Military does in a M.A.S.H unit or something 'hybrid'.
A Flag is were politics and art meet.
etc,
etc.

So a lot of Occidentalists (who don't even know their home ground is that part of the world that stretches in the midst of the new worlds from the Caribbean/Central America to New Zealand ...the Silverado to the Silver Fern) and their Science and Music dont' like the Middle-East and its Spirituality (Fashion) and Religion.
The fact that the Fashion of the Middle-East is still stuck in the past, doesn't make a Rock Star look any better. ::)

Maybe somebody should tell generation Z about that. They make up the group with the highest proportion of atheists, and the black garb of their parents (and grandparents) is total anathema to them.

Someone should (Bank) Teller them that 'Black' is the colour of Money.
Maybe  all those 'Entertainers/Musos/etc' will eventually 'Fade to Grey' one day?

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Feb 12^th, 2012 at 11:54pm:

Someone should (Bank) Teller them that 'Black' is the colour of Money. Maybe  all those 'Entertainers/Musos/etc' will eventually 'Fade to Grey' one day?

I'm glad that (like me), you make light of the matter.

Is not collecting stamps a hobby? ;D

Soren wrote on Oct 28^th, 2011 at 10:30pm:

'An atheistic protest against God and belief itself stands on the soil of belief in a divine order of goodness and justice, and it actually confirms and acknowledges that belief by that pain and protest.'

I bet you believe that to be a sane and rational statement ;D

Take off thy shoes from off thy feet, where you stand is holy ground.

Uhhhh?

It is a site sacred to us all

<backs away nervously>

Can you not see my brother? The waterfall, the mountain, the golden forest, the signs of the ancients written into the rock?

It's a car park outside Coles.

Atheists are all bank robbers.  I just decided that it's a contraction of "At heist". Maybe we should start a thread with ridiculous things that people say about Atheists.

Sappho wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 7:11am:

If actions speak louder than words, then the Atheist Foundation of Australia definitely view their organisation as a religion. [quote]In Australia the Atheist Foundation of Australia formally complained of religious discrimination to the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission after being refused permission to put atheist advertising on buses.

Levying 'religious discrimination' doesn't mean you're calling atheism a religion.

Rather, it could be pro-religion discrimination that prevents anti-religion statements from being published.

For example, if I banned a picture of a woman in a bakini from the side of a bus because it offends Allah, that is religious (and sexist) discrimination, but it doesn't make bikinis a religion.

This pretty much explains atheism

SOB

muso wrote on May 5^th, 2011 at 8:52am:

The AFA is a religion.  ;) Some atheists are evangelical.

No. Atheism is a lack of religion. What you see as "evangelical" are atheists who have taken it upon themselves to try to make ppl see sense. They see themselves as leaders or something who knows but they arent religious.

SOB

Grey wrote on Feb 14^th, 2012 at 12:14pm:

Soren wrote on Oct 28th, 2011 at 10:30pm: 'An atheistic protest against God and belief itself stands on the soil of belief in a divine order of goodness and justice, and it actually confirms and acknowledges that belief by that pain and protest.' I bet you believe that to be a sane and rational statement ;D

Yes, I do.

Frank Brennan: I think in your writing there is little that people like Dawkins and Hitchens would find patronising, but I think maybe one exception is this statement of yours, and I'd like you to explain it to us in a non-patronising way for the atheist dimensions of our own hearts and minds: 'An atheistic protest against God and belief itself stands on the soil of belief in a divine order of goodness and justice, and it actually confirms and acknowledges that belief by that pain and protest.'

Tomas Halik: I said the atheists, they have no patience, and it is a partial truth, and we must put this experience as a piece of truth in that greater context. I think God is the context of our life. The analytical philosophy and the philosophy of language teaches us that every human sentence has its meaning just in the context. And I think our lives but also our human history as humankind and the history of the cosmos, it's just something particular which needs context. Without this context it is not possible to understand it, and I think God is that context for this story, but we have not this context just at hand. We must be patient.

And I think about the eschatological difference - eschatological difference - between the state of the vision when we are with God face-to-face, and now we are the community of pilgrims, St Paul said, that now we are seeing God just in mirror. I think it's very important to know that we are on the way, we are not at the end of our pilgrimage. Also our theology is underway, and our religious language has just a partial capacity and our mind has a partial capacity to understand the mystery of God.

When we are speaking about God we are speaking always in parables, in symbols, in metaphors. I acknowledge the tradition of the so-called negative theology which is saying that we can say about God what he is not, and if we say about God who he is, we must remember that there are only pictures, only our imaginations, only our metaphors, because the human language is not capable to express this great mystery. And I think that sometimes atheism and the critics of religion could help us to purify this, our too-human imagination and pictures about God. When atheism destroyed these idols, these human pictures, it could be a very important help for us to create an open space where we can confront the mystery.

http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/encounter/patience-with-god/2919632

It seems to me quite sane and interesting and certainly thought-worthy.

Alas, it is not suitable for reflexive chuck-it-all-away anarchists, but then again, there are so few of those that they do not really matter.

So basically what your saying soren is your a gulliable man who believes in fairy tales?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 10:40am:

So basically what your saying soren is your a gulliable man who believes in fairy tales?

No. Basically I am saying that you are an insufferable cretin and a dudge. That's what  I am saying.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 10:42am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 10:40am: So basically what your saying soren is your a gulliable man who believes in fairy tales? No. Basically I am saying that you are an insufferable cretin and a dudge. That's what  I am saying.

I might be a lot of things but atleast I dont believe in fairy tales

A common fairy tale is that science has answers to absolutely everything. 

What the application of the scientific method does is to continue to challenge the current beliefs of how the universe we live in works and come up with ideas that  match closer with observation.

Science is not about "knowing facts". It is all about "learning" through observation, hypothesis and testing of hypotheses.

I'm not knocking science, being a scientist myself, but there is a lot of rot spoken by Atheists who think their position is backed up by science.

muso wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:36am:

A common fairy tale is that science has answers to absolutely everything.  What the application of the scientific method does is to continue to challenge the current beliefs of how the universe we live in works and come up with ideas that  match closer with observation. Science is not about "knowing facts". It is all about "learning" through observation, hypothesis and testing of hypotheses. I'm not knocking science, being a scientist myself, but there is a lot of rot spoken by Atheists who think their position is backed up by science.

The only reason any atheists have to use anything to "back up their position" is because of irrational biblebashers who think non-belief is a "position".

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 1:59pm:

The only reason any atheists have to use anything to "back up their position" is because of irrational biblebashers who think non-belief is a "position". SOB

I do not believe you.

muso wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 11:36am:

A common fairy tale is that science has answers to absolutely everything.  What the application of the scientific method does is to continue to challenge the current beliefs of how the universe we live in works and come up with ideas that  match closer with observation. Science is not about "knowing facts". It is all about "learning" through observation, hypothesis and testing of hypotheses. I'm not knocking science, being a scientist myself, but there is a lot of rot spoken by Atheists who think their position is backed up by science.

Good post, muso.

Soren wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 2:34pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 1:59pm: The only reason any atheists have to use anything to "back up their position" is because of irrational biblebashers who think non-belief is a "position". SOB I do not believe you.

lol

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 23^rd, 2012 at 1:59pm:

muso wrote on Apr 23rd, 2012 at 11:36am: A common fairy tale is that science has answers to absolutely everything.  What the application of the scientific method does is to continue to challenge the current beliefs of how the universe we live in works and come up with ideas that  match closer with observation. Science is not about "knowing facts". It is all about "learning" through observation, hypothesis and testing of hypotheses. I'm not knocking science, being a scientist myself, but there is a lot of rot spoken by Atheists who think their position is backed up by science. The only reason any atheists have to use anything to "back up their position" is because of irrational biblebashers who think non-belief is a "position". SOB

Now it's "I see dead people Christians"

Christianity is not that big a threat in Australia. Any belief is a position.

I already described a sociological "neural network" god.

If anything, the premise that "humanity makes up a super intelligence in the form of a global neural network", and this can be backed up by scientific investigation, is much more plausible than an atheist position, where atheist is taken to mean lack of belief in any definition of god.


If you chose the term "Non Christian", that might be easier to defend.

oh, and "Why does fission occur?" (Your reply 183) Now that's an interesting one.  You might answer - because a nucleus becomes unstable due to the repulsion between protons becoming the dominant force within the nucleus of a heavy atom.  Eventually, you might ask - but why is the force of repulsion between protons at that particular constant value?  Eventually you'll get to the answer - "because that's how it is".  In fact, I challenge you to have a chain of more than 10 "why's"  before you get to "just because"

I dont understand the dead ppl xtians reference. Sorry i must be dim. You will have to explain that one.

Christianity is not that big a threat in Australia. Any belief is a position.

This is 2 entire concepts put on 1 line. Who knows why.

Xtianity is not that big a threat in australia.

Yeah I agree. Australia is pretty lucky in that respect.

Any belief is a position.

Yeah thats right too. And non-belief is NOT a position. Its not even a belief.

SOB

Is atheism a religion?  No.
Atheists know facts, Religiosose accept statements without proof and accept them as facts, this is known as belief.
It is up to believers to prove their case not up to atheists to
disprove it.  pluto is made of green cheese, I can believe it and accept it as a fact.
And I don't have to prove it.

Of course atheism is a religion. If you subscribe to the belief that the universe created itself, then you are giving the universe attributes of God the Creator.

falah wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 4:46pm:

Of course atheism is a religion. If you subscribe to the belief that the universe created itself, then you are giving the universe attributes of God the Creator.

But atheists don't subscribe to that belief

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" ;D
Bill Maher

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 6:18am:

"Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" ;D Bill Maher

Interesting analogy. But.

Abstinence makes sense only if there is a possibility of sex - or alcohol or drugs or fatty foods or whatever one is abstaining from.  Cutting off one's d!ck is not abstinence. Having a d!ck but choosing to keep it in the trousers is abstinece. So atheism is an abstinence from a belief in god, not a permanent severing of all attitudes towards god.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:43am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:18am: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" ;D Bill Maher Interesting analogy. But. Abstinence makes sense only if there is a possibility of sex - or alcohol or drugs or fatty foods or whatever one is abstaining from.  Cutting off one's d!ck is not abstinence. Having a d!ck but choosing to keep it in the trousers is abstinece. So atheism is an abstinence from a belief in god, not a permanent severing of all attitudes towards god.

Not that that made any sense but atheism is a lack of belief in a deity.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:21am:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 9:43am: NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:18am: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" ;D Bill Maher Interesting analogy. But. Abstinence makes sense only if there is a possibility of sex - or alcohol or drugs or fatty foods or whatever one is abstaining from.  Cutting off one's d!ck is not abstinence. Having a d!ck but choosing to keep it in the trousers is abstinece. So atheism is an abstinence from a belief in god, not a permanent severing of all attitudes towards god. Not that that made any sense but atheism is a lack of belief in a deity. SOB

That's what I mean - you are sooo thick, it's funny.

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 9:43am:

NorthOfNorth wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 6:18am: "Atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sex position" ;D Bill Maher Interesting analogy. But. Abstinence makes sense only if there is a possibility of sex - or alcohol or drugs or fatty foods or whatever one is abstaining from.  Cutting off one's d!ck is not abstinence. Having a d!ck but choosing to keep it in the trousers is abstinece. So atheism is an abstinence from a belief in god, not a permanent severing of all attitudes towards god.

Believing in god is abstinence from reality

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 10:40am:

Believing in god is abstinence from reality

Right as rain, here's the other incomprehending thicko.
SOB and PP, are you some sort of Pat & Mike act? Looks like it. Which one of you is the 'smart' one?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 11:52am:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:40am: Believing in god is abstinence from reality Right as rain, here's the other incomprehending thicko. SOB and PP, are you some sort of Pat & Mike act? Looks like it. Which one of you is the 'smart' one?

You believe in fairy tales and you are trying to call other people thick?

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 12:55pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 11:52am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:40am: Believing in god is abstinence from reality Right as rain, here's the other incomprehending thicko. SOB and PP, are you some sort of Pat & Mike act? Looks like it. Which one of you is the 'smart' one? You believe in fairy tales and you are trying to call other people thick?

What do you know about what I believe, divvy?

Soren wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 1:35pm:

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 12:55pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 11:52am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:40am: Believing in god is abstinence from reality Right as rain, here's the other incomprehending thicko. SOB and PP, are you some sort of Pat & Mike act? Looks like it. Which one of you is the 'smart' one? You believe in fairy tales and you are trying to call other people thick? What do you know about what I believe, divvy?

I know you certainly do not come to your conclusions without removing emotion and pre conceived ideas.

What is "divvy"? Google doesnt know. Thats like the 3rd or 4th word I have seen soren make up.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 4:00pm:

What is "divvy"? Google doesnt know. Thats like the 3rd or 4th word I have seen soren make up. SOB

Idiot.  Fool.

No, I wasn't calling you an idiot or a fool: that's what "divvy" means.   ;)

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=divvy

bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1^st, 2012 at 3:48pm:

Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 1:35pm: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 12:55pm: Soren wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 11:52am: bobbythefap1 wrote on Jun 1st, 2012 at 10:40am: Believing in god is abstinence from reality Right as rain, here's the other incomprehending thicko. SOB and PP, are you some sort of Pat & Mike act? Looks like it. Which one of you is the 'smart' one? You believe in fairy tales and you are trying to call other people thick? What do you know about what I believe, divvy? I know you certainly do not come to your conclusions without removing emotion and pre conceived ideas.

How do you remove preconceived ideas, divvy dumpkin? Do you always start with no ideas and try to work your way up from there? Yes, you do. And we can all tell. That's why you are struggling all the time: you start with no idea and never manage to move beyond that.

The more interesting question is "Why is it important if Atheism is or is not a religion?"

Why do militant style atheists bother about  it? Is it that much of an insult to call atheism a religion?

It implies that the concept of "not believing in Gods" is an important one in the lives of those who feel that way. Ironically, that reinforces the stance that their brand of atheism is religious. .

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

The more interesting question is "Why is it important if Atheism is or is not a religion?" Why do militant style atheists bother about  it? Is it that much of an insult to call atheism a religion? It implies that the concept of "not believing in Gods" is an important one in the lives of those who feel that way. Ironically, that reinforces the stance that their brand of atheism is religious. .

They want to cluster around a shared set of ideals - like... er... a religion.

muso wrote on Jun 2^nd, 2012 at 6:00pm:

The more interesting question is "Why is it important if Atheism is or is not a religion?" Why do militant style atheists bother about  it? Is it that much of an insult to call atheism a religion? It implies that the concept of "not believing in Gods" is an important one in the lives of those who feel that way. Ironically, that reinforces the stance that their brand of atheism is religious. .

Define "militant style" atheists.

The main reason is that it is wrong. You like for ppl to be wrong about you?

Its ridiculous. We dont want to be associated with the fairy tales. the reason the idiots want to associate atheism with religion is the reason it shouldn't be associated. Usually to assign some stupid "belief" to atheists and make them all the same. Atheists are all separate. the ONLY thing in common is a lack of belief in a deity. Some are loudmouths like dawkins and some are quiet. Some believe in a "big bang" wholeheartedly and some think its probable and some dont think it happens that way @ all. All different. All nothing to do with atheism.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 7:38am:

Define "militant style" atheists.

Those who equate religion with fairy tales.

Again - The main reason is that it is wrong.

muso wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 7:38am: Define "militant style" atheists. Those who equate religion with fairy tales.

That's ridiculous.

I like fairy tales.

I also like to read the bible.

I'm also an atheist.

Fairy tales and the bible are both entertaining.

I'm not a militant atheist.

I just don't believe in a god.  That's it.

muso wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 7:38am: Define "militant style" atheists. Those who equate religion with fairy tales. Again - The main reason is that it is wrong.

Lol. I see what you are trying to do but it doesnt work that way. you see atheists lack belief in a deity. Thats it.

Fairy tale believers believe in fairy tales.

SOB

No.

Its a bunch of Scientists and Musicians dressed in the Accountant's colour of black,  making sure that Religious people know that they are NOT Religious and do not believe in Religion.

muso wrote on Jun 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 3rd, 2012 at 7:38am: Define "militant style" atheists. Those who equate religion with fairy tales. Again - The main reason is that it is wrong.

So. Is kali a god or a fairy tale? How about thor?

SOB

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 9^th, 2012 at 3:47am:

No. Its a bunch of Scientists and Musicians dressed in the Accountant's colour of black,  making sure that Religious people know that they are NOT Religious and do not believe in Religion.

So everyone that wears black is a militant atheist? Hahahhaha

That black is evil white is good thing came from star wars though not the xtian bible.

SOB

No ...I'm saying Black is mathematical/economical/the colour of money/in the black/black market/etc

...not militant or evil

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 9^th, 2012 at 5:23am:

It_is_the_Darkness wrote on Dec 9th, 2012 at 3:47am: No. Its a bunch of Scientists and Musicians dressed in the Accountant's colour of black,  making sure that Religious people know that they are NOT Religious and do not believe in Religion. So everyone that wears black is a militant atheist? Hahahhaha That black is evil white is good thing came from star wars though not the xtian bible. SOB

I agree. If you don't wear black, you can't be an atheist. Cats is the other common factor. They all like cats.
http://i1.cpcache.com/product_zoom/387066756/my_cat_is_an_atheist_tshirt.jpg

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4^th, 2012 at 1:50am:

I just don't believe in a god.  That's it.

Of course it would be foolish to believe in something that an atheist calls a god.
Nobody believes in a god as imagined by atheists. The atheists' folly is to think that people who believe in a god imagine it the way they, the atheists, do. This is why it is apt to say that atheists suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They are very egocentric in this respect - they cannot think outside their own obsessions.

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:50am: I just don't believe in a god.  That's it. Of course it would be foolish to believe in something that an atheist calls a god. Nobody believes in a god as imagined by atheists. The atheists' folly is to think that people who believe in a god imagine it the way they, the atheists, do. This is why it is apt to say that atheists suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They are very egocentric in this respect - they cannot think outside their own obsessions.

So its not the "vengeful" god of your holy book?

@ any rate the fact that you need imagination to "believe" is telling. Dont you feel silly? Seriously a grown man believing in invisible being controlling his life?

SOB

Soren wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:49am:

Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:50am: I just don't believe in a god.  That's it. Of course it would be foolish to believe in something that an atheist calls a god. Nobody believes in a god as imagined by atheists. The atheists' folly is to think that people who believe in a god imagine it the way they, the atheists, do. This is why it is apt to say that atheists suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They are very egocentric in this respect - they cannot think outside their own obsessions.

How does how you imagine something make it any more or less likely?
The Giant Pancake named Coffee Cup is just as likely to be a 'god' as whatever homo you believe in.
How an atheists imagines a god would almost always be as a result of theist indoctrination.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 9^th, 2012 at 5:23am:

That black is evil white is good thing came from star wars though not the xtian bible.

LOL.

Spot's at least 2,000 years out.

The Latin terms malus and hic niger est denote blacks as untrustworthy, bad etc. Whereas candidus means white, good, pure, bright, beautiful etc.

In Gaelic as well, fin or Fin-Gal was the term used to denote blonde-headed nobles in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginals.

The Jews as well have the derogatory term ham in the Talmud for the blacks.

I would surmise that Star Wars actually got their ideas from European and Jewish etymology and culture.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Spot's at least 2,000 years out. The Latin terms malus and hic niger est denote blacks as untrustworthy, bad etc. Whereas candidus means white, good, pure, bright, beautiful etc. In Gaelic as well, fin or Fin-Gal was the term used to denote blonde-headed nobles in contradistinction to the dark, black-haired aboriginals. The Jews as well have the derogatory term ham in the Talmud for the blacks. I would surmise that Star Wars actually got their ideas from European and Jewish etymology and culture.

http://rt.com/news/atheists-persecution-discrimination-report-692/comments/

Actuall Star Wars got a lot of its stuff from Asimov.
C3PO & R2D2 ripped off Daneel & Giskard ...and Michael from the recent Prometheus is fullfilling that 'Daneel' role quite well.
In Asia, the White male is the Evil and the Black male is the Good. Hence why the character or Roy Batty in BladeRunner as the 'White Slave' fitted in so well amongst all the Asian 'Citi-Zens'. Also why Asia's economies are doing well without being imperialistic cheats like Americans or having a small population like Australia where its women run the country. :P

Anyway - God is real. Why?
Because people believe.

Even now, Marvel Comic Heroes are being created as USA's Gods akin to the old Roman, Greek, Valhalla gods of old, but in Temples called Cinemas.
Batman is real. Americans believe him to be so and even kill, massacre in that belief. Of course its stupid ...BUT IT IS REAL.
Batman exists!

Jules Verne wrote of Submarines and Airships and Americans 'believed' and thus they became REAL.

If Humanity created an Android called 'Daneel' and via all the technology in the world, like computers - where WE, THE PEOPLE - pour our dreams, our thoughts, our memories and more into the mind of Daneel. He in essence becomes as 'GOD'. For he is a sense of immortality on behalf of the mind of Humanity ...and humanity 'can' forget.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2012 at 10:49am: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:50am: I just don't believe in a god.  That's it. Of course it would be foolish to believe in something that an atheist calls a god. Nobody believes in a god as imagined by atheists. The atheists' folly is to think that people who believe in a god imagine it the way they, the atheists, do. This is why it is apt to say that atheists suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They are very egocentric in this respect - they cannot think outside their own obsessions. So its not the "vengeful" god of your holy book? @ any rate the fact that you need imagination to "believe" is telling. Dont you feel silly? Seriously a grown man believing in invisible being controlling his life? SOB

SO you do not think others have a mind because you can't see a mind??

You are even thicker than I thought and I thought you are already an unbelievably phosphorescent cretin.

The mind is invisible. Emotions and thoughts are invisible. Memory is invisible. The imagination is invisible.

You lack all of them, don't you, and do not believe others have them either coz you can't see them.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

So its not the "vengeful" god of your holy book? @ any rate the fact that you need imagination to "believe" is telling. Dont you feel silly? Seriously a grown man believing in invisible being controlling his life? SOB

It's not your Atheistic belief that's funny here. It's the belief by two posters that Soren is a Christian in anything other than a cultural sense. He meticulously avoids taking any position or betraying what he actually believes.

You see Christians everywhere but they don't know that they're Christian. . (Remember the "Sixth Sense" ?

I think it's because you have trouble thinking outside the formula. You  only know how to argue against Christian Fundamentalists.

muso wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Dec 11th, 2012 at 10:57am: So its not the "vengeful" god of your holy book? @ any rate the fact that you need imagination to "believe" is telling. Dont you feel silly? Seriously a grown man believing in invisible being controlling his life? SOB It's not your Atheistic belief that's funny here. It's the belief by two posters that Soren is a Christian in anything other than a cultural sense. He meticulously avoids taking any position or betraying what he actually believes. You see Christians everywhere but they don't know that they're Christian. . (Remember the "Sixth Sense" ? I think it's because you have trouble thinking outside the formula. You  only know how to argue against Christian Fundamentalists.

You are trying to put words in my mouth and are actually less honest than the troll that just offers abuse.

SOB

bobbythefap1 wrote on Dec 11^th, 2012 at 10:57am:

Soren wrote on Dec 11th, 2012 at 10:49am: Uncle Meat wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:50am: I just don't believe in a god.  That's it. Of course it would be foolish to believe in something that an atheist calls a god. Nobody believes in a god as imagined by atheists. The atheists' folly is to think that people who believe in a god imagine it the way they, the atheists, do. This is why it is apt to say that atheists suffer from a severe lack of imagination. They are very egocentric in this respect - they cannot think outside their own obsessions. How does how you imagine something make it any more or less likely? The Giant Pancake named Coffee Cup is just as likely to be a 'god' as whatever homo you believe in. How an atheists imagines a god would almost always be as a result of theist indoctrination.

How a person who has never had coffee in his life imagines the taste of coffee is not quite the same as a true coffee connoisseur.

Some Christians actually experience God. I can understand that, having had lengthy conversations with Christians and ex Christians. The easiest way to explain iit is like a quotidian relationship.

To quote Harry Potter:


Quote:

Of course it is happening inside your head, Harry, but why on earth should that mean that it is not real?

It's a personal thing, so most won't talk about it. It's as real as your ambitions and faith in yourself, and it does no harm.