Why is atheism so poorly represented in American politics?

[Awryly]

The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

US politics are driven by religious conservatives to the exclusion of those who don't believe in flying teapots.

This is unfair.

New Zealand excludes religion from politics. No politician here with half a brain would claim divine inspiration. Religion is just a non-issue.

But in the US, politicians obssess about it. Even poor Obama, who is a closet atheist, has to pretend he attends some church or other - where he no doubt offers prayers that Americans will one day see sense.

Why does such irrationality infest American politics? Or is it just a convenient conceit?

[Trinnity]

We don't have a state sponsored religion. Our Constitution prohibits it.
But neither do we ban religion and treat it as if it were evil, because our values came from Christian tradition.

Our politicians don't obsess over it either. You are mistaken about that.

[MMC]

Ths US is not even close to being the Most Religious Nation on the Earth. Moreover US Politics are not driven by religious conservatives. Not even the Expressionist painter during the Rennaisance would use such a broad paint-brush. :wink:

[pjohns]

The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

US politics are driven by religious conservatives to the exclusion of those who don't believe in flying teapots.

This is not an example of benign atheism. Rather, it is an (almost ostentatious) example of virulent anti-theism.


Why does such irrationality infest American politics?

This is what is known as the fallacy of the complex question; the classic example of it being the plaintive query, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

It could also be (reasonably enough) classified as an example of question-begging (petitio principii), as it assumes, in its very premise, that theism is inherently irrational...

[Awryly]

This is not an example of benign atheism. Rather, it is an (almost ostentatious) example of virulent anti-theism.

This is what is known as the fallacy of the complex question; the classic example of it being the plaintive query, "Have you stopped beating your wife yet?"

It could also be (reasonably enough) classified as an example of question-begging (petitio principii), as it assumes, in its very premise, that theism is inherently irrational...

No it's not.

It's just an expression of the fact that religion is loony. I could care less what people, out of desperation, need to believe in. My point is that all your pollies trot out the platitudes of religious belief at the drop of a stovepipe hat because your electorate needs to hear them.

Am I wrong? If so, why?

In English, please.

[Awryly]

Ths US is not even close to being the Most Religious Nation on the Earth. Moreover US Politics are not driven by religious conservatives. Not even the Expressionist painter during the Rennaisance would use such a broad paint-brush. :wink:

83% of you or thereabouts profess religious beliefs. In NZ only about half do and they do it because they were christened against their will, at least without it, into some church or other and tick the religion box out of habit.

Only 14% of Kiwis actually attend any churches and any politician that mentions God, Zeus, Jupiter or Ra is automatically excommunicated..

[Conley]

It really depends upon the politician first and foremost, and the electorate fairly significantly. You'll see it more with the individuals running for President, since they are trying to appeal to as many as possible (pandering in some cases). I expect those are the people you're seeing on the news there like the example you cited with Obama and his church.

[MMC]

There seems to be quite a few politicans that don't talk about any religous belief when they are campaigning. Moreover there are quite a few involved or have been involved with Foreign Countries and did not bring anything up concerning religious beliefs other than the right to have one. That would be on both sides of the Aisle. :wink:

[pjohns]

No it's not.

It's just an expression of the fact that religion is loony. I could care less what people, out of desperation, need to believe in.

So, your sentiment is "not" an example of virulent anti-theism; it is merely a declaration that all religion is "loony," and a sure sign of "desperation" on the part of theists.

I am looking, now, for the Distinction Without a Difference Department...

[MMC]

83% of you or thereabouts profess religious beliefs. In NZ only about half do and they do it because they were christened against their will, at least without it, into some church or other and tick the religion box out of habit.

Only 14% of Kiwis actually attend any churches and any politician that mentions God, Zeus, Jupiter or Ra is automatically excommunicated..


Still doesnt make the US most religious Nation on the Earth. Have you looked up some of the Latin Countries? Muslim Countries? Perhaps you will find that you would be closer to the mark. Oh, and with their political elections.

[Awryly]

It really depends upon the politician first and foremost, and the electorate fairly significantly. You'll see it more with the individuals running for President, since they are trying to appeal to as many as possible (pandering in some cases). I expect those are the people you're seeing on the news there like the example you cited with Obama and his church.

I am sure there are many Americans who have no truck with religion in politics. But there is a seriously disturbing number who do. Even Spain - a notoriously Catholic country of yore - is rapidly becoming secular. Not so the US.

[Conley]

There seems to be quite a few politicans that don't talk about any religous belief when they are campaigning. Moreover there are quite a few involved or have been involved with Foreign Countries and did not bring anything up concerning religious beliefs other than the right to have one. That would be on both sides of the Aisle. :wink:

We have a massive number of politicians here in California - too many - and religion is not emphasized very much from what I've seen. Of course, this is a land of debauchery and endless heathens so that may contribute as well.

[Awryly]

Still doesnt make the US most religious Nation on the Earth. Have you looked up some of the Latin Countries? Muslim Countries? Perhaps you will find that you would be closer to the mark. Oh, and with their political elections.

Grant you the Islam bit. But you take the wafer amongst so-called Christian countries.

[Conley]

I am sure there are many Americans who have no truck with religion in politics. But there is a seriously disturbing number who do. Even Spain - a notoriously Catholic country of yore - is rapidly becoming secular. Not so the US.

Certainly compared to your country and all of Europe that is true. I take issue with your statement that the US is the most religious country in the world, but if you're limiting the discussion to countries I'd like to visit then you have a good case. :grin:

[Conley]

Grant you the Islam bit. But you take the wafer amongst so-called Christian countries.

Ah, you beat me to it! :angry:

[wingrider]

Athiesm isn't poorly represented.. the fact is over 90 percent of Americans profess some form of religion. so comparatively and statistically it is about right.

[MMC]

Grant you the Islam bit. But you take the wafer amongst so-called Christian countries.

Not even close.....most state, municipal, and or local elections have nothing to due with religion. Rarely do they talk about it unless asked by MS media and even there it is something brief.

Now take that with the 3 largest Cities in the US that make up for a 1/4 th of the Country's populations in and around those Cities. Then break it down to the rest of the major cities in the US that elect Aldermann, Mayors, Sec of State, Councilmen, and or Trustees including School Boards. Can't even come close. :wink:

[MMC]

Athiesm isn't poorly represented.. the fact is over 90 percent of Americans profess some form of religion. so comparatively and statistically it is about right.


This doesnt mean it is tied to US Politics and Politicians tho.

[Awryly]

We have a massive number of politicians here in California - too many - and religion is not emphasized very much from what I've seen. Of course, this is a land of debauchery and endless heathens so that may contribute as well.

I would have thought Californians would be praying fervently for some divine intervention.

They have incurred God's wrath and He has crippled their education system and replaced it with pot growing.

[wingrider]

This doesnt mean it is tied to US Politics and Politicians tho. very true.. there is no religious test to be a politican,, says so in the Constitution...

[Awryly]

This doesnt mean it is tied to US Politics and Politicians tho.

Are the Southern Baptists and Mormons aware of this?

[Awryly]

very true.. there is no religious test to be a politican,, says so in the Constitution...

Your Founding Fathers were unduly optimistic.

[wingrider]

Your Founding Fathers were unduly optimistic.
hmmmm... we may not get along if you go down that road.. just saying..

[Awryly]

Athiesm isn't poorly represented.. the fact is over 90 percent of Americans profess some form of religion. so comparatively and statistically it is about right.

It seems the Enlightment failed to enlighten them.

And they are still stuck in the Dark Ages.

Johns Adams must be having fits.

[wingrider]

It seems the Enlightment failed to enlighten them.

And they are still stuck in the Dark Ages.

Johns Adams must be having fits. see post 23

[Awryly]

hmmmm... we may not get along if you go down that road.. just saying..

Ah, so I have to agree with you.

How very American.

[wingrider]

nope just do not insult us. if you have issues with our system of government then give us reasons why.. but so far all I have seen is bashing our founders and bashing our types of faith.. you are going to have to do better than this to make your point.

[Awryly]

The original question was perfectly rational.

It asked why religion, as pronounced interminably by US politicians, is so prevalent in US politics.

If that offends you, I am insincerely sorry.

[wingrider]

The original question was perfectly rational.

It asked why religion, as pronounced interminably by US politicians, is so prevalent in US politics.

If that offends you, I am insincerely sorry. not offended at all. your question I elieve has been answered sufficiently by many people on here,, Americans are predominatly religious , this of course spills over into the political arena. almost all of our politicians do have a form of religion in their background , even though it isn't a prerequisit.. we prefer for them to at least acknowledge they are similiar to the people who elect them..

[Awryly]

not offended at all. your question I elieve has been answered sufficiently by many people on here,, Americans are predominatly religious , this of course spills over into the political arena. almost all of our politicians do have a form of religion in their background , even though it isn't a prerequisit.. we prefer for them to at least acknowledge they are similiar to the people who elect them..

That's sort of what I was saying, wasn't it?

The question remains about why Americans need their politicians to represent their various idiocies when you constitution expressly forbids it.

[wingrider]

That's sort of what I was saying, wasn't it?

The question remains about why Americans need their politicians to represent their various idiocies when you constitution expressly forbids it.

really? please point that out to me .. I would love to see it..and then explain it to you.

[wingrider]

The original question was perfectly rational.

It asked why religion, as pronounced interminably by US politicians, is so prevalent in US politics.

If that offends you, I am insincerely sorry. just caught that... YOU are insincerely sorry that I might have been offended?? I just don't know what to think of that.. you might want to rethink your position on this.

[wingrider]

really? please point that out to me .. I would love to see it..and then explain it to you. lets see I made this post at 12: 24.. and it is now 2:13 am and no response.. hmmmmm? perhaps you don't know what you are asking?? just a thought.. get back to me when you are ready to continue.. If not tonight then I will be back online tommorow night about 10 PM Colorado time.

[Mister D]

Another Internet atheist...:rollseyes:

[wingrider]

Another Internet atheist...:rollseyes:
apparently.. only this one isn't as clever as some I have seen..

[Trinnity]

I could care less what people, out of desperation, need to believe in. But you DO care, in fact you obsess about the topic. This thread proves it. You created the thread.

[Mister D]

apparently.. only this one isn't as clever as some I have seen..

They never are.

[Trinnity]

Aw, Awryly just likes to aggravate people for fun. As long as you realize that, he's just a squishy teddy bear.

Carry on "Bill Awryly", it's all good. :grin:

<munching popcorn>

[MMC]

Are the Southern Baptists and Mormons aware of this?


They don't make up the majority of Americans.....isn't that correct? :wink:

[MMC]

The original question was perfectly rational.

It asked why religion, as pronounced interminably by US politicians, is so prevalent in US politics.

If that offends you, I am insincerely sorry.

http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Awryly http://thepoliticalforums.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://thepoliticalforums.com/showthread.php?p=80412#post80412)
Why does such irrationality infest American politics?

Seems this is where you started from. Care to explain the irrationality of Foreigner, Down-Unda.....that can't remember what they started with? :rollseyes:

[roadmaster]

The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

US politics are driven by religious conservatives to the exclusion of those who don't believe in flying teapots.

This is unfair.

New Zealand excludes religion from politics. No politician here with half a brain would claim divine inspiration. Religion is just a non-issue.

But in the US, politicians obssess about it. Even poor Obama, who is a closet atheist, has to pretend he attends some church or other - where he no doubt offers prayers that Americans will one day see sense.

Why does such irrationality infest American politics? Or is it just a convenient conceit?

While I agree with you on Obama being a closet atheist, New Zealand does have Christians, Hindu, Buddhist, Jewish, Islam ect. Also, you have a large number of New Zealand Prime Ministers have been professing Christians. Just because you are an atheist do you think you are the only one who is allowed to speak on their beliefs? Religion is an issue with many in your country just not you and the other atheist. Many immigrants have infiltrated your country.

[Calypso Jones]

Why is atheism so poorly represented in American politics. Because politicians know that the american people consider themselves christians over all and they generally don't want an atheist in the white house....half the country has no problem with a muslim though.

[Calypso Jones]

Why is Atheism so poorly represented in America. That's a different question with a different answer. Atheists are whiners. Nobody likes a whiner except another whiner.

They are not focused enough to actually read the bible to come up with their own arguments...they rely on the sorry work of other whining atheists who think they are so smart. Hence, they get boring to go along with their arrogance.

3 for now. They're just not likeable people. They're strained, they're combative, they're small minded hatefilled anti christian, anti military, anti america, anti conservative.

[Mainecoons]

But in the US, politicians obssess about it. Even poor Obama, who is a closet atheist, has to pretend he attends some church or other - where he no doubt offers prayers that Americans will one day see sense.

Well you got the part about Obama pretending right, history will probably label him the "pretend president."

If the American people had any sense, this phony rabble rouser not only wouldn't be in the White House, he'd still be flipping burgers in Hawaii.

[pjohns]

The original question was perfectly rational.

It asked why religion, as pronounced interminably by US politicians, is so prevalent in US politics.



I have a question of my own.

Since you are not an American citizen--in fact, New Zealand is approximately 10,000 miles from the mainland US--why would you be so concerned about the matter of religion in America?

Now that, I believe, is a perfectly rational question...

[Mainecoons]

He's all for religion, our man Obama:

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/blogs/beltway-confidential/holder-brief-black-pastors-campaign-2012/567501

[Trinnity]

I think Obama is an atheist and pretends to be a Christian for practical reasons. I think he attended Wright's church for the connections, and also I think he fully believes in Black Liberation Theology.

[Goldie Locks]

I think Obama is an atheist and pretends to be a Christian for practical reasons. I think he attended Wright's church for the connections, and also I think he fully believes int Black Liberation Theology.

I don't think he's an atheist but I think he's confused as to what exactly he is. We all know he has ties to Islam, saying that the call to prayer is the most beautiful sound on earth. Then he found Christianity and Rev. Wright and he loved listening to the propaganda and bigotry of him...really tripped his trigger. Remember Rev. Wright is tied pretty closely with Louis Farrakhan who is Muslim. Trust me they are all connected in many ways, but it is not in connection with a loving God.

[Calypso Jones]

Oh you GOTTA see the latest by Jeremiah Wright.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing

The Obamas were less members of Wrights church as they were members of the Church of Expediency.

[Goldie Locks]

Oh you GOTTA see the latest by Jeremiah Wright.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/rev-wright-obamas-church-not-their-thing

The Obamas were less members of Wrights church as they were members of the Church of Expediency.


Watched this last week....the chickens are coming home to roost...LOL

[Trinnity]

Expediency; exactly.
It's all about the connections with him. So he can get what he wants.

[Awryly]

Why is Atheism so poorly represented in America. That's a different question with a different answer. Atheists are whiners. Nobody likes a whiner except another whiner.

They are not focused enough to actually read the bible to come up with their own arguments...they rely on the sorry work of other whining atheists who think they are so smart. Hence, they get boring to go along with their arrogance.

3 for now. They're just not likeable people. They're strained, they're combative, they're small minded hatefilled anti christian, anti military, anti america, anti conservative.


Atheists should read the Bible, huh? Why?

There are better stories about these days. Like Harry Potter and the Temple of Doom. Very Old Testament.

[coolwalker]

83% of you or thereabouts profess religious beliefs. In NZ only about half do and they do it because they were christened against their will, at least without it, into some church or other and tick the religion box out of habit.

Only 14% of Kiwis actually attend any churches and any politician that mentions God, Zeus, Jupiter or Ra is automatically excommunicated..

Very sad...perhaps that is why you are so angry. Perhaps a splash of God in your life might just bring a smile or two.

[wingrider]

its kinda funny how athiests put down the bible, when it is the Number one selling book every year since it was first printed and isn't it strange that when Gutenberg invented the printing press the first book he printed was the Bible,, funny how that works.

[Awryly]

its kinda funny how athiests put down the bible, when it is the Number one selling book every year since it was first printed and isn't it strange that when Gutenberg invented the printing press the first book he printed was the Bible,, funny how that works.

I don't think they "put it down".

They merely treat it as the work of fiction it is.

If millions want to run their lives by a book of fables, I am sure atheists could care less. When Christians want their book to run other peoples' lives, then there is a problem.

[Awryly]

Very sad...perhaps that is why you are so angry. Perhaps a splash of God in your life might just bring a smile or two.

If your god splashed into my life, I would have to wear gumboots.

I don't like wearing gumboots.

[Mainecoons]

When Christians want their book to run other peoples' lives, then there is a problem.

Agree! And I are one but government has no business in the morality business.

[pjohns]

I don't think they "put it down".

They merely treat it as the work of fiction it is.

If millions want to run their lives by a book of fables, I am sure atheists could care less. When Christians want their book to run other peoples' lives, then there is a problem.

A number of biblical scholars have advanced several important theories, from the Documentary Hypothesis of the Penteteuch (which posits four separate authors of the Pentateuch--or the Torah, as Jews typically refer to it)--a Yahwist; an Elohist; a Deuteronomist; and a so-called "Priestly" Writer--to B.H. Streeter's Four-Source "Q" Theory of the synoptic Gospels.

These are serious people, with serious theories to be examined.

The flippant observation, however, that the Bible is just a bunch of "fables," is not the sort of comment that is indicative of a serious person...

[Awryly]

A number of biblical scholars have advanced several important theories, from the Documentary Hypothesis of the Penteteuch (which posits four separate authors of the Pentateuch--or the Torah, as Jews typically refer to it)--a Yahwist; an Elohist; a Deuteronomist; and a so-called "Priestly" Writer--to B.H. Streeter's Four-Source "Q" Theory of the synoptic Gospels.


These are serious people, with serious theories to be examined.

The flippant observation, however, that the Bible is just a bunch of "fables," is not the sort of comment that is indicative of a serious person...

I can assure you I am what you are pleased to describe as a "serious person".

It's simply that I am not insane.

[wingrider]

I can assure you I am what you are pleased to describe as a "serious person".

It's simply that I am not insane. but 2 billion Christians are?? LOL

[Awryly]

but 2 billion Christians are?? LOL

Some are. Most are just needy.

Heaven is all that most Christians (and Muslims) have to hope for.

It is convenient device well worked and vastly propagandised by those who recognise there is money or power to be made from such a conceit. The Catholic church has been doing it for millennia.

[Viv]

A number of biblical scholars have advanced several important theories, from the Documentary Hypothesis of the Penteteuch (which posits four separate authors of the Pentateuch--or the Torah, as Jews typically refer to it)--a Yahwist; an Elohist; a Deuteronomist; and a so-called "Priestly" Writer--to B.H. Streeter's Four-Source "Q" Theory of the synoptic Gospels.

These are serious people, with serious theories to be examined.

The flippant observation, however, that the Bible is just a bunch of "fables," is not the sort of comment that is indicative of a serious person...

Objectively, it is absolutely more indicative of a serious person than tailoring your entire life around "a bunch of fables"| written by someone you don't know, who lived in a different culture a couple of thousand years ago...

[Trinnity]

I can assure you I am what you are pleased to describe as a "serious person".

It's simply that I am not insane.Are you implying Christians are insane?

[Awryly]

Are you implying Christians are insane?

See post #61.

[wingrider]

it seems that people who profess to be athiests have issues with people who look outside themselves for a meaning to life and why we are here,, belief in something greater than ourselves has been around since man first looked into the heavens and pondered about the why of it all. to me I cannot fathom why they believe life is an accident and has no meaning outside of this scant 70 years we exist on this panet,

[Nunya]

I can assure you I am what you are pleased to describe as a "serious person".

It's simply that I am not insane.

Well, most insane people do not believe they are insane.....and most atheist are positive that there isn't a God. Even though it can not be proven one way or the other.

Also, just because there are people that use other's religious beliefs as a means to prosper that does not mean all religions are full of idiots.

As Wingrider said, I really can't understand why atheists are so adamant that life is an accident. All you have to do is to look around you and see all of the "coincidence" that exist in life. To see how hardy life is, yet frail at the same time. How everything has a purpose. How life is created.

A person's spirituality doesn't have to be about "flying teapots". All it has to be is to open your mind and look at the world around you.

[MMC]

Well, most insane people do not believe they are insane.....and most atheist are positive that there isn't a God. Even though it can not be proven one way or the other.

Also, just because there are people that use other's religious beliefs as a means to prosper that does not mean all religions are full of idiots.

As Wingrider said, I really can't understand why atheists are so adamant that life is an accident. All you have to do is to look around you and see all of the "coincidence" that exist in life. To see how hardy life is, yet frail at the same time. How everything has a purpose. How life is created.

A person's spirituality doesn't have to be about "flying teapots". All it has to be is to open your mind and look at the world around you.


One cannot teach one's self.....self-realization. It must be experienced. :wink:

[Awryly]

it seems that people who profess to be athiests have issues with people who look outside themselves for a meaning to life and why we are here,, belief in something greater than ourselves has been around since man first looked into the heavens and pondered about the why of it all. to me I cannot fathom why they believe life is an accident and has no meaning outside of this scant 70 years we exist on this panet,

As I said, people who look to religion are needy. Or insane. Or both.

Atheists are simply realists. They recognise that there is no need to look for salvation from flying saucepans when it is within their power to experience fulfillment that does not involve extra-terrestrial cooking utensils.

[Trinnity]

As Wingrider said, I really can't understand why atheists are so adamant that life is an accident. I can't understand why the more militant (vocal) atheists are so angry that others believe in God.

And they want to blame religion for the ills of man, when it is almost always man who is responsible for life's pain.

[Goldie Locks]

As I said, people who look to religion are needy. Or insane. Or both.

Atheists are simply realists. They recognise that there is no need to look for salvation from flying saucepans when it is within their power to experience fulfillment that does not involve extra-terrestrial cooking utensils.



Same can be said for Ubama voters...LOL

[Awryly]

I can't understand why the more militant (vocal) atheists are so angry that others believe in God.

And they want to blame religion for the ills of man, when it is almost always man who is responsible for life's pain.

I don't understand it either. As long as believers in gods do not harm, atheists have no need to take them seriously.

[Goldie Locks]

I don't understand it either. As long as believers in gods do not harm, atheists have no need to take them seriously.

What about Islam???

[Trinnity]

I have issues with Islam, yet Sultan says we have been misled. It's confusing.

Is it Islam or is it man? Some of the passages in Islam that I've read encouraged violence. It's hard to believe Islam is peaceful.

[Goldie Locks]

I have issues with Islam, yet Sultan says we have been misled. It's confusing.

Is it Islam or is it man? Some of the passages in Islam that I've read encouraged violence. It's hard to believe Islam is peaceful.


It ain't.

[Awryly]

What about Islam???

What about it? Inspired by another lunatic who thought he saw God in the 7th century, it is about to have religious wars amongst its various factions that will make the 16th century Wars of Religion in Europe look like picnics.

In fact, they have already started.

[Awryly]

It's a bit unfortunate that you now have a prezzy candidate who gets his beliefs from some guy who looked into a stovepipe hat to see the word of God that he promptly lost under questioning.

But what the hell. As long as does no harm to anyone but Americans who might be daft enough to elect him.

[roadmaster]

I have issues with Islam, yet Sultan says we have been misled. It's confusing.

Is it Islam or is it man? Some of the passages in Islam that I've read encouraged violence. It's hard to believe Islam is peaceful.


Well have you ever noticed every time we are in a war the non-religious call it a religious war? They even claim Hitler was a Christian in which we know he was a Darwin nut and rejected Christianity when he got older. Now 911 is Christians against Muslims. I will bet the Muslims think so to by the liberal media. Heck non-religions don’t go to war which is a lie. I think they cause so much confusion it’s brother against brother. Yes, Islam has some messages in the Quran that teaches either commit to Allah or kill them but they don’t read the whole thing. Some of their teachers because a lot of Muslims can’t read it tell them it is their duty to kill us. We all know it’s going to happen according to the Bible but it’s upsetting to watch.

[Nunya]

What about it? Inspired by another lunatic who thought he saw God in the 7th century, it is about to have religious wars amongst its various factions that will make the 16th century Wars of Religion in Europe look like picnics.

In fact, they have already started.

You seem to favor words like "insane", "lunatics", "needy", etc. to discredit people that believe in God and, as usual, your jump in with both feet into a topic I believe you know little about. Belief in a higher being might be alien to you, because you seem to be closed-minded on the subject. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a skeptical opinion towards God, after all, we are who we were brought up to be. If you were brought up in an environment that wasn't very religious or may have even shunned religion, it would be natural to follow suit, as the reason and thought of "believing" would be alien to you.

However, to marginalize others for believing in something that you feel the need to ridicule by using terms such as "flying saucepans" and "extra-terrestrial cooking utensils" goes beyond normal ignorance on a subject. It goes deep into disdain, which isn't very logical since the task of disproving the existence of God is just as difficult as proving there is a God.

Are you 100% sure that some sort of "higher being" doesn't exist? I would be surprised if you said "yes", as even the most devoted "believer" could not honestly say they are 100% that God does exist. If they did, they have surpassed logical thought and have dived into pure "faith". So, just as a believer may have "faith" that God does exist, one could say that an atheist has "faith" just as strongly that god does not exist......two side of the same coin.....a coin that is devoid of open-mindedness and logic.

If the atheists are right, nothing good or bad will happen. However, if the believers are right........

[Awryly]

You seem to favor words like "insane", "lunatics", "needy", etc. to discredit people that believe in God and, as usual, your jump in with both feet into a topic I believe you know little about. Belief in a higher being might be alien to you, because you seem to be closed-minded on the subject. I'm not saying that anything is wrong with a skeptical opinion towards God, after all, we are who we were brought up to be. If you were brought up in an environment that wasn't very religious or may have even shunned religion, it would be natural to follow suit, as the reason and thought of "believing" would be alien to you.

However, to marginalize others for believing in something that you feel the need to ridicule by using terms such as "flying saucepans" and "extra-terrestrial cooking utensils" goes beyond normal ignorance on a subject. It goes deep into disdain, which isn't very logical since the task of disproving the existence of God is just as difficult as proving there is a God.

Are you 100% sure that some sort of "higher being" doesn't exist? I would be surprised if you said "yes", as even the most devoted "believer" could not honestly say they are 100% that God does exist. If they did, they have surpassed logical thought and have dived into pure "faith". So, just as a believer may have "faith" that God does exist, one could say that an atheist has "faith" just as strongly that god does not exist......two side of the same coin.....a coin that is devoid of open-mindedness and logic.

If the atheists are right, nothing good or bad will happen. However, if the believers are right........

You have it in one:


If you were brought up in an environment that wasn't very religious or may have even shunned religion, it would be natural to follow suit, as the reason and thought of "believing" would be alien to you.

Catholics breed Catholics, Protestants breed Protestants, Muslims breed Muslims, Hindus breed Hindus.

How is that not insane?

[roadmaster]

You have it one one:



Catholics breed Catholics, Protestants breed Protestants, Muslims breed Muslims, Hindus breed Hindus.

How is that not insane?

What do you breed? Gangs on the streets killing each other for a spot to sell drugs.

[Awryly]

What do you breed? Gangs on the streets killing each other for a spot to sell drugs.

I bred people who think.

[Mainecoons]

You breed people who are drowning in narcississm and have the moral level of street dogs. The results are obvious.

[Viv]

it seems that people who profess to be athiests have issues with people who look outside themselves for a meaning to life and why we are here,, belief in something greater than ourselves has been around since man first looked into the heavens and pondered about the why of it all. to me I cannot fathom why they believe life is an accident and has no meaning outside of this scant 70 years we exist on this panet,

Do you not see you have answered your own question...

According to those who say they know, man has existed for a blink of the eye compared to the length of time the universe has existed. We are not important in that history, any more than ants are in human history. We have delusions of grandeur. There is nothing special about man. We are sharp and ingenious and progressing quicker than other animals, but we are not the reason earth exists. We're just animals with a good imagination and an ability to think outside the box. At some point we have realised there may be something bigger at work and because making that stretch is how we have come to be so good at surviving and evolving, we are trying to apply it to the subject of how did we get here.

It's a good theory, there may well be something bigger at work. It makes some sense. But none of you know it's a Catholic or bible bashing fundie and none of us should be killing to force our version of religion onto others.

[Nunya]

You have it in one:



Catholics breed Catholics, Protestants breed Protestants, Muslims breed Muslims, Hindus breed Hindus.

How is that not insane?

And Blacks breed Blacks, Asians breed Asians, Hispanics breed Hispanics, Whites breed Whites.

What exactly is insane about it?

[Nunya]

I bred people who think.


People who think?.....or people that think like you?

[Awryly]

Well, most insane people do not believe they are insane.....and most atheist are positive that there isn't a God. Even though it can not be proven one way or the other.

"Spirituality" doesn't have to be a needy belief in something that doesn't exist. It can equally and more validly be an appreciation of the great things in human behaviour and achievement.



Also, just because there are people that use other's religious beliefs as a means to prosper that does not mean all religions are full of idiots.

As Wingrider said, I really can't understand why atheists are so adamant that life is an accident. All you have to do is to look around you and see all of the "coincidence" that exist in life. To see how hardy life is, yet frail at the same time. How everything has a purpose. How life is created.

A person's spirituality doesn't have to be about "flying teapots". All it has to be is to open your mind and look at the world around you.

[Awryly]

I can't understand why the more militant (vocal) atheists are so angry that others believe in God.

And they want to blame religion for the ills of man, when it is almost always man who is responsible for life's pain.

Yeah. God was just lurking in Auschwitz. Wondering what to do.

[Awryly]

People who think?.....or people that think like you?

People who were not inculcated with insane " (that word again) ideas about flying teapots. They were equipped to choose for themselves.

In fact one of them gave me "The God Delusion". I doubt he was being ironic.

[Mainecoons]

Another Thread Fail. Failed to do homework again. There are countries far more religious than the U.S. in the world. One big one that I take extended vacations in: Mexico. Many of the Muslim countries also.

Just what we need here: Another foreign liberal who is all opinion and no substance to support same.

[Awryly]

Another Thread Fail. Failed to do homework again. There are countries far more religious than the U.S. in the world. One big one that I take extended vacations in: Mexico. Many of the Muslim countries also.
Just what we need here: Another foreign liberal who is all opinion and no substance to support same.

Perhaps you have failed to comprehend what I said. Nowhere did I compare the US with any other country.

But, assuming I had, what is your point?

[Mainecoons]

Perhaps you have failed to comprehend what I said. Nowhere did I compare the US with any other country.

And you also apparently need help in reading the very first sentence of your very first post:


The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

You compared the U.S. with every country in that first sentence, genius. And made a statement that would prove false with the most cursory research.


:rofl:

[Mister D]

The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

US politics are driven by religious conservatives to the exclusion of those who don't believe in flying teapots.

This is unfair.

New Zealand excludes religion from politics. No politician here with half a brain would claim divine inspiration. Religion is just a non-issue.

But in the US, politicians obssess about it. Even poor Obama, who is a closet atheist, has to pretend he attends some church or other - where he no doubt offers prayers that Americans will one day see sense.

Why does such irrationality infest American politics? Or is it just a convenient conceit?

Actually, the US is not the most religious nation on Earth and the Rennaisance [sic] was a very religous period of European history. :smiley:

[Mister D]

Perhaps you have failed to comprehend what I said. Nowhere did I compare the US with any other country.

But, assuming I had, what is your point?

:laugh: When you claim that the US is the most religious country in the world you are comparing the US to every country in the world.

[Awryly]

And you also apparently need help in reading the very first sentence of your very first post:


You compared the U.S. with every country in that first sentence, genius. And made a statement that would prove false with the most cursory research.


:rofl:

OK, so you're 5th.


A new survey by the University of Chicago has ranked the United States as the fifth most religious country. “Beliefs About God Across Time And Countries,” a research project conducted by the National Opinion Research Center (NORC) at the University of Chicago:

Researchers concluded that the Philippines had the strongest belief in God, and Japan the least. The U.S. ranked fifth behind Israel, Poland, Chile, and the Philippines. The most atheistic countries were Germany (East), Czech Republic, France, The Netherlands, and Sweden. Ten countries
showed consistent decline in belief:

Australia,
Austria,
East Germany,
Great Britain,
Northern Ireland,
the Netherlands,
New Zealand,
Northern Ireland,
Norway,
and
Poland.

Now we have got that irrelevancy out of the way, how about you address the question?

[Mister D]

OK, so you're 5th.


Now we have got that irrelevancy out of the way, how about you address the question?



TheISSPReligionstudiescovered18countriesin1991(cou nting EastandWest Germany andNorthern Ireland and Great Britain separately), 33countriesin1998, and 42 countries in 2008. This paper analysis the 30 countries that were in at least two of the three ISSP rounds and appear in the 1991 file created by GESIS.


So you mean the US ranks 5th out of the 30 countries in this analysis. You're just embarrassing yourself now.

[Mainecoons]

The question is a loaded, biased opinion question based on a false premise. Can't answer that.

[Awryly]

The question is a loaded, biased opinion question based on a false premise. Can't answer that.

Fine. You can't answer it. So stop trying to derail it.

[Awryly]

..it's just that posters who have commented so far are more interested in being offended than trying to answer it (I would refer them to this thread: Why do Americans get so easily upset?)

Atheists in the US are on a par with gays of yesterday. A politician who admitted he did not profess a religion would be totally ostracised, let alone elected.

Just look at Obama ... twisting and turning to make his probable atheism inobvious.

One day that will change, I imagine, just as it is changing for gays.

[Mister D]

..it's just that posters who have commented so far are more interested in being offended than trying to answer it (I would refer them to this thread: Why do Americans get so easily upset?)

Atheists in the US are on a par with gays of yesterday. A politician who admitted he did not profess a religion would be totally ostracised, let alone elected.

It could be that you're just an idiot and we're laughing at you. :wink:

[Awryly]

It could be that you're just an idiot and we're laughing at you. :wink:

It's a pity your laughter is your only contribution to the thread.

You have nothing else?

[Mister D]

It's a pity your laughter is your only contribution to the thread.

You have nothing else?

After tearing apart your premises? What else is there? It's time to laugh now. :laugh:

[Awryly]

After tearing apart your premises? What else is there? It's time to laugh now. :laugh:

As I thought, nothing else. Indeed, nothing.

[Mister D]

As I thought, nothing else. Indeed, nothing.

On the contrary, it was your lack of thinking that has made you look foolish.

[Chris]

The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance [sic].

And yet the US is first and foremost in applying classical liberal thought about individual liberty. If we missed the Renaissance, the rest of the world missed the Enlightenment.

I think we're more religious because we have greater religious freedom.

[Awryly]

And yet the US is first and foremost in applying classical liberal thought about individual liberty. If we missed the Renaissance, the rest of the world missed the Enlightenment.

I think we're more religious because we have greater religious freedom.

There is perfect religious freedom in New Zealand (and other Western countries). Yet NZ is one of the least religious countries on the planet.

Where does that leave your argument?

[Chris]

There is perfect religious freedom in New Zealand (and other Western countries). Yet NZ is one of the least religious countries on the planet.

"Perfect" makes your claim suspicious. I don't NZ but take for example Sweden that once bastion of socialism, up until recently it had a state religion. England and the Church of England. Most Western states historically aligned, corroborated with a state religion. These are now the states that are the least religious. Force anything on people and it will alienate them.

[Awryly]

"Perfect" makes your claim suspicious. I don't NZ but take for example Sweden that once bastion of socialism, up until recently it had a state religion. England and the Church of England. Most Western states historically aligned, corroborated with a state religion. These are now the states that are the least religious. Force anything on people and it will alienate them.

What is perfect freedom if not the choice to join any church or religion you fancy or not join any at all?

And, before you ask, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of religion or otherwise.

We have atheists in our parliament. As well as gays.

[Goldie Locks]

What is perfect freedom if not the choice to join any church or religion you fancy or not join any at all?

And, before you ask, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of religion or otherwise.

We have atheists in our parliament. As well as gays.

We have atheists and gays in congress and the military...so what???... our nation still overwhelmingly believes in a higher being.

[Chris]

What is perfect freedom if not the choice to join any church or religion you fancy or not join any at all?

And, before you ask, it is illegal to discriminate against anyone on the grounds of religion or otherwise.

We have atheists in our parliament. As well as gays.

Wasn't NZ a colony of England?

We have atheists and gays in Congress.

[Awryly]

We have atheists and gays in congress and the military...so what???... our nation still overwhelmingly believes in a higher being.

I know Americans overwhelmingly believe in a higher being. That's why I am amazed confessed atheists and gays get elected.

Californians, huh?

[Mainecoons]

Atheism is alive and well in the ranks of Progressives. Perhaps you missed the fact that, at least for the next several months, the same control both the Senate and the White House in America?

I realize New Zealand is a long way from anywhere but it is possible to use the internet to be better informed, regardless of geographic isolation.

:grin:

[GrumpyDog]

Atheism is alive and well in the ranks of Progressives. Perhaps you missed the fact that, at least for the next several months, the same control both the Senate and the White House in America?

I realize New Zealand is a long way from anywhere but it is possible to use the internet to be better informed, regardless of geographic isolation.

:grin:

It is? Progressive Atheists are there? I would like to hear from one of the Conservative Atheists first, before deciding.

[Awryly]

Atheism is alive and well in the ranks of Progressives. Perhaps you missed the fact that, at least for the next several months, the same control both the Senate and the White House in America?

I realize New Zealand is a long way from anywhere but it is possible to use the internet to be better informed, regardless of geographic isolation.

:grin:

Huh? Obama is a religious believer.

He even attends church with a wry grin.

[GrumpyDog]

Some statement that 83% of Americans express religious views means nothing. That could include 43% of Secularists discussing Separation of Church and State, or about the logic of a philosophical statement from the New Testament.(they usually vote Democrat). That could include 40% of Luciferians, who make use of the same religious texts. (they usually vote Conservative).

[Goldie Locks]

Some statement that 83% of Americans express religious views means nothing. That could include 43% of Secularists discussing Separation of Church and State, or about the logic of a philosophical statement from the New Testament.(they usually vote Democrat). That could include 40% of Luciferians, who make use of the same religious texts. (they usually vote Conservative).


Did you fall off your surfboard and hit your head?

[GrumpyDog]

Did you fall off your surfboard and hit your head?

GrumpyDog never falls of his surfboard. He might have hit his head once, but it was not from riding the surfboard.

[Awryly]

GrumpyDog never falls of his surfboard. He might have hit his head once, but it was not from riding the surfboard.

It was the consequence of tangling with me. Wasn't it. Skullcrushed?

[GrumpyDog]

It was the consequence of tangling with me. Wasn't it. Skullcrushed?

You mean the ghost of you? What was left on that other forum? Could be.

[Chris]

...Skeptical conservatives—one of the Right’s less celebrated subcultures—are conservatives because of their skepticism, not in spite of it. They ground their ideas in rational thinking and (nonreligious) moral argument. And the conservative movement is crippling itself by leaning too heavily on religion to the exclusion of these temperamentally compatible allies.

Conservative atheists and agnostics support traditional American values. They believe in personal responsibility, self-reliance, and deferred gratification as the bedrock virtues of a prosperous society. They view marriage between a man and a woman as the surest way to raise stable, law-abiding children. They deplore the encroachments of the welfare state on matters best left to private effort.

They also find themselves mystified by the religiosity of the rhetoric that seems to define so much of conservatism today....
Heather MacDonald, What is Left? What is Right? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-is-left-what-is-right/)

She and John Derbyshire and others have gotten together to collaborate on the blog Secular Right (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/):
We believe that conservative principles and policies need not be grounded in a specific set of supernatural claims. Rather, conservatism serves the ends of “Human Flourishing,” what the Greeks termed Eudaimonia. Secular conservatism takes the empirical world for what it is, and accepts that the making of it the best that it can be is only possible through our faculties of reason.

The secular right traces roots back H.L. Mencken, Robert Ingersoll, and David Hume.

[GrumpyDog]

Heather MacDonald, What is Left? What is Right? (http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/what-is-left-what-is-right/)

She and John Derbyshire and others have gotten together to collaborate on the blog Secular Right (http://secularright.org/SR/wordpress/about/):

The secular right traces roots back H.L. Mencken, Robert Ingersoll, and David Hume.


Communitarians?

[Chris]

No, somewhat the opposite of that.

[GrumpyDog]

Having difficulty envisioning a sythesis of secularism with the current rightwing element of Tea Party + Evangelicals, who suggest that Thomas Jefferson really did not mean there to be a separation of Church and State, and that the Constitution is founded primarily upon the Judeo/Christian religion.

No amount of historical documentation, including Jeffersons literal words to the effect, will persuade the 2012 coalition of rightwing that religion and government should remain separated.

There is an uncomfortable alliance of religious extremists, and corporate elite/wealthy venture capitalists in the Republican party which will probably cause the worst possible kind of legislation to be proposed, should they become the majority in both houses of Congress.

[Chris]

Having difficulty envisioning a sythesis of secularism with the current rightwing element of Tea Party + Evangelicals, who suggest that Thomas Jefferson really did not mean there to be a separation of Church and State, and that the Constitution is founded primarily upon the Judeo/Christian religion.

No amount of historical documentation, including Jeffersons literal words to the effect, will persuade the 2012 coalition of rightwing that religion and government should remain separated.

There is an uncomfortable alliance of religious extremists, and corporate elite/wealthy venture capitalists in the Republican party which will probably cause the worst possible kind of legislation to be proposed, should they become the majority in both houses of Congress.

Separation, even for Jefferson, who got it from Roger Williams*, meant separation of state from religion, not the other way around, such that the government was prohibited from interfering with people's liberty of conscience

The tea parties are generally secular--less taxes, smaller government, more liberty, with no particular stance on social issues left to the inidividual.



*"First the faithful labors of many Witnesses of Jesus Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the Antitype, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will ever please to restore his Garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the Wilderness of the world, and added unto His Church or Garden."
~Roger Williams, "Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered,", London, 1644

[GrumpyDog]

Separation, even for Jefferson, who got it from Roger Williams*, meant separation of state from religion, not the other way around, such that the government was prohibited from interfering with people's liberty of conscience

The tea parties are generally secular--less taxes, smaller government, more liberty, with no particular stance on social issues left to the inidividual.



*"First the faithful labors of many Witnesses of Jesus Christ, extant to the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type, and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the Antitype, were both separate from the world; and that when they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of Separation between the Garden of the Church and the Wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, and made his Garden a Wilderness, as at this day. And that therefore if he will ever please to restore his Garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the Wilderness of the world, and added unto His Church or Garden."
~Roger Williams, "Mr. Cottons Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered,", London, 1644

Chris, are you telling me the TEA PARTY is secular???? What happened? Did they bind and gag Sarah Palin? Has the Tea Party changed?

Going by this definition of Secularism (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism


Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Theocracy) and religious dignitaries (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Clergy). In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state) and Laïcité (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Laïcité).) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Political) ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-0) (See also public reason (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Public_reason).) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-1)

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) and Epicurus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Epicurus); medieval Muslim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) polymaths (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Polymath) such as Ibn Rushd (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ibn_Rushd); Enlightenment (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) thinkers such as Denis Diderot (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Denis_Diderot), Voltaire (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Voltaire), Baruch Spinoza (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza), John Locke (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/John_Locke), James Madison (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/James_Madison), Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and Thomas Paine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine); and more recent freethinkers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Freethought), agnostics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Agnosticism), and atheists (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Atheism) such as Robert Ingersoll (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll) and Bertrand Russell (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)


Chris, are you trying to tell me that the Tea Party is composed of Logical Positivists, and Deists? AND atheists? If so, they certainly have fooled me into believing the opposite.

Please do not attempt to tell me that the Evangelical wing of the Rightwing is also secular. That would really be LOL!

[Mainecoons]

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Let us know where you find anything about religion here in their official platform.

[GrumpyDog]

http://www.teaparty-platform.com/

Let us know where you find anything about religion here in their official platform.

So you are suggesting that Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachmann do not represent the Tea Party?
That whatever they have said, is irrelevant and should not be construed as core principles of the TP platform?

If so, then please tell SP and BB to keep their mouths shut, (and Christine O'ded also), because it is painting a picture of Tea Party= BAT @#$% CRAZY.

In return for this favor, we the Democrat party pledge to bind and gag Barney Frank, and send Congressman Wiener to be ambassador of the South pole.

[MMC]

So you are suggesting that Sarah Palin and Barbara Bachmann do not represent the Tea Party?
That whatever they have said, is irrelevant and should not be construed as core principles of the TP platform?

If so, then please tell SP and BB to keep their mouths shut, (and Christine O'ded also), because it is painting a picture of Tea Party= BAT @#$% CRAZY.

In return for this favor, we the Democrat party pledge to bind and gag Barney Frank, and send Congressman Wiener to be ambassador of the South pole.


Throw in Disbandment of the Democratic Party.....and ya got yaself a Deal!!!!! :wink: :grin:


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4569437884711172&pid=1.7&w=121&h=142&c=7&rs=1 http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/10/1/9/6/1542738703296887.jpg

Spit Shake? :grin:

[GrumpyDog]

Throw in Disbandment of the Democratic Party.....and ya got yaself a Deal!!!!! :wink: :grin:


http://ts1.mm.bing.net/th?id=I4569437884711172&pid=1.7&w=121&h=142&c=7&rs=1 http://images-mediawiki-sites.thefullwiki.org/10/1/9/6/1542738703296887.jpg

Spit Shake? :grin:

LOL! Im adding u as friend. THAT should ruin your reputation.

[Mister D]

Chris, are you telling me the TEA PARTY is secular???? What happened? Did they bind and gag Sarah Palin? Has the Tea Party changed?

Going by this definition of Secularism (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism


Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Theocracy) and religious dignitaries (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Clergy). In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state) and Laïcité (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Laïcité).) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Political) ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-0) (See also public reason (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Public_reason).) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-1)

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) and Epicurus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Epicurus); medieval Muslim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) polymaths (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Polymath) such as Ibn Rushd (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ibn_Rushd); Enlightenment (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) thinkers such as Denis Diderot (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Denis_Diderot), Voltaire (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Voltaire), Baruch Spinoza (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza), John Locke (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/John_Locke), James Madison (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/James_Madison), Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and Thomas Paine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine); and more recent freethinkers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Freethought), agnostics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Agnosticism), and atheists (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Atheism) such as Robert Ingersoll (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll) and Bertrand Russell (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)


Chris, are you trying to tell me that the Tea Party is composed of Logical Positivists, and Deists? AND atheists? If so, they certainly have fooled me into believing the opposite.

Please do not attempt to tell me that the Evangelical wing of the Rightwing is also secular. That would really be LOL!

Logical Positivism is dead. Anyway, what contradiction do you see between secularism and Christian belief? It seems as if public expressions of faith and the fact that religious belief informs the politics of many Americans are a contradiction in your eyes. The American state has always been secular. The American population has always been largely Christian. Where is the contradiction?

[MMC]

LOL! Im adding u as friend. THAT should ruin your reputation.



Alright Grumpydog.....but don't pee in that corner over there >>>>> :whip2: :evil6:

[Chris]

Chris, are you telling me the TEA PARTY is secular???? What happened? Did they bind and gag Sarah Palin? Has the Tea Party changed?

Going by this definition of Secularism (Wikipedia):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism


Secularism is the principle of separation between government institutions and the persons mandated to represent the State from religious institutions (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Theocracy) and religious dignitaries (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Clergy). In one sense, secularism may assert the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, and the right to freedom from governmental imposition of religion upon the people within a state that is neutral on matters of belief. (See also separation of church and state (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Separation_of_church_and_state) and Laïcité (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Laïcité).) In another sense, it refers to the view that human activities and decisions, especially political (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Political) ones, should be unbiased by religious influence.[1] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-0) (See also public reason (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Public_reason).) Some scholars are now arguing that the very idea of secularism will change.[2] (http://thepoliticalforums.com/#cite_note-1)

Secularism draws its intellectual roots from Greek and Roman philosophers such as Marcus Aurelius (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Marcus_Aurelius) and Epicurus (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Epicurus); medieval Muslim (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Islamic_Golden_Age) polymaths (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Polymath) such as Ibn Rushd (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Ibn_Rushd); Enlightenment (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) thinkers such as Denis Diderot (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Denis_Diderot), Voltaire (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Voltaire), Baruch Spinoza (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Baruch_Spinoza), John Locke (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/John_Locke), James Madison (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/James_Madison), Thomas Jefferson (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Jefferson), and Thomas Paine (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Thomas_Paine); and more recent freethinkers (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Freethought), agnostics (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Agnosticism), and atheists (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Atheism) such as Robert Ingersoll (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Robert_G._Ingersoll) and Bertrand Russell (http://thepoliticalforums.com/wiki/Bertrand_Russell)


Chris, are you trying to tell me that the Tea Party is composed of Logical Positivists, and Deists? AND atheists? If so, they certainly have fooled me into believing the opposite.

Please do not attempt to tell me that the Evangelical wing of the Rightwing is also secular. That would really be LOL!


Chris, are you telling me the TEA PARTY is secular????

Let me go back and look...why, yes, that's exactly what I said.


Did they bind and gag Sarah Palin? Has the Tea Party changed?

That the tea parties are secular does not imply the religious are a part of the movement. On social issues Palin is consistently for resolution from civic society rather than government.


Chris, are you trying to tell me that the Tea Party is composed of Logical Positivists, and Deists? AND atheists?

There are those as well.


If so, they certainly have fooled me into believing the opposite.

One wonders where you get your information, the left that worships the State?

[Peter1469]

Let me go back and look...why, yes, that's exactly what I said.



That the tea parties are secular does not imply the religious are a part of the movement. On social issues Palin is consistently for resolution from civic society rather than government.



There are those as well.



One wonders where you get your information, the left that worships the State?


This is an excellent example of a non-religious person explaining the American government to heathen atheists.

And I don't think that a religious person could have done a more effective job.

Thanks you Chris.

[Chris]

Except I left out a "not" in "That the tea parties are secular does not imply the religious are NOT a part of the movement."

[Awryly]

Latest surveys show that 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist, up from 48% a few years ago.

Whatcha got against these guys?

[wingrider]

Latest surveys show that 53% of Americans would not vote for an atheist, up from 48% a few years ago.

Whatcha got against these guys? nuttiin.. just ain't gonna vote for em..that simple

[Awryly]

nuttiin.. just ain't gonna vote for em..that simple

Why not?

[wingrider]

Why not?
if a person can't believe in something greater than themselves, I can't trust that person to care about me.

[Awryly]

if a person can't believe in something greater than themselves, I can't trust that person to care about me.

Huh? How is a belief in the humanity of man less than a belief in some fairy scuttling around in the aether?

[wingrider]

Huh? How is a belief in the humanity of man less than a belief in some fairy scuttling around in the aether?
because man is the most inhumane critter on this planet,,

[Awryly]

because man is the most inhumane critter on this planet,,

True. So he needs to be saved by an invention that would not occur to my terrier in a month of Sundays?

Speaking roughly of which, radical Muslims must be even more loony than Americans.

They actually seek what they hopefully describe as martyrdom in order to live in the arms of a bunch of virgins.

The lunacy of religion knows no bounds.

But, as you are finding out, it makes those guys dangerous. As they try to escape the humdrum lives inflicted on them by their earthly, and largely ugly, consorts.

[JohnAdams]

We don't have a state sponsored religion. Our Constitution prohibits it.
But neither do we ban religion and treat it as if it were evil, because our values came from Christian tradition.

Our politicians don't obsess over it either. You are mistaken about that.


IF anyone obsesses over religion, it's the atheists who do.

It is the atheists we see throwing a fit, because a church provided a meal to a high school football team.

It is after all the atheists we see screaming bloody murder over a cross nobody really knew was there, which the builders had erected and dedicated to fallen veterans out in the middle of the desert.

It is the atheists we see demanding that any reference to God be removed from schools.

It is the atheists we see rather than respecting the beliefs and choice of others, as they demand for themselves, hypocritically always attacking and attempting to insult those with religious belief, as the OP's own posts demonstrates.


The US is the most religious nation on earth. It apparently missed the Rennaisance.

US politics are driven by religious conservatives to the exclusion of those who don't believe in flying teapots.

This is unfair.

New Zealand excludes religion from politics. No politician here with half a brain would claim divine inspiration. Religion is just a non-issue.

But in the US, politicians obssess about it. Even poor Obama, who is a closet atheist, has to pretend he attends some church or other - where he no doubt offers prayers that Americans will one day see sense.

Why does such irrationality infest American politics? Or is it just a convenient conceit?

When the atheist community can afford to everyone else the rights they demand for themselves, IE: the right to believe what one wish's to believe, instead of behaving as the hypocrites most of them are demanding that their non belief be imposed upon everyone else, then I am sure we as a nation will welcome their contribution to political leadership in our nation. Until then however, so long as they remain the hypocrites they are today, we are far better off without their participation.

As is the case, anytime we have an overtly, vocal, screaming bloody murder, minority group, demanding that it be afforded the leadership of our Republic.

Oh p.s. and if atheists don't like that too damn bad. They are always free to move to another nation state where they are in the majority.

[wingrider]

IF anyone obsesses over religion, it's the atheists who do.

It is the atheists we see throwing a fit, because a church provided a meal to a high school football team.

It is after all the atheists we see screaming bloody murder over a cross nobody really knew was there, which the builders had erected and dedicated to fallen veterans out in the middle of the desert.

It is the atheists we see demanding that any reference to God be removed from schools.

It is the atheists we see rather than respecting the beliefs and choice of others, as they demand for themselves, hypocritically always attacking and attempting to insult those with religious belief, as the OP's own posts demonstrates.



When the atheist community can afford to everyone else the rights they demand for themselves, IE: the right to believe what one wish's to believe, instead of behaving as the hypocrites most of them are demanding that their non belief be imposed upon everyone else, then I am sure we as a nation will welcome their contribution to political leadership in our nation. Until then however, so long as they remain the hypocrites they are today, we are far better off without their participation.

As is the case, anytime we have an overtly, vocal, screaming bloody murder, minority group, demanding that it be afforded the leadership of our Republic.

Oh p.s. and if atheists don't like that too damn bad. They are always free to move to another nation state where they are in the majority.
amen ... you tell em.

[Awryly]

amen ... you tell em.

I be told.

Amen.

[GrumpyDog]

Amenahotep.


Just back from JFK History Forum, and yes folks, it is indeed a much bigger conspiracy than you might imagine.

Which led me to think the word "Amen" might very well have roots back to the early Heiroglyphics, predating the Hebrew texts, during which time, Amenahotep was both ruler and "god", and probably demanded recognition as such.

So later, the Amen means "So be it", which one might say, inspired the Beatles to say "Let it Be" which started the age of Aquarius, which Evangelcals consider to be the age of the anti Christ.

It is fortunate that Doris Day sang "Whatever will be, will be" in 1956, in the Alfred Hitchcock film "The Man Who Knew Too Much" , otherwise, she might have been considered part of the countercultural movement.

[wingrider]

actually the song title is " que sera sera

[Frogger]

Awryly,

I'm still trying to decide if you are simply a small-minded nasty person or as dumb as you come across. The jury is still out but perhaps both are correct and you are a dumb small-minded person.

Religion does not dictate American politics. If you want to see what religion dictating politics looks like, look to the Middle East. The United States has assurance that religion does not dictate politics in the very fabric of its founding documents.

[Agravan]

By the same token, it does not bar you from practicing your religion either. At least it didn't till obama became king.

[Awryly]

Awryly,

I'm still trying to decide if you are simply a small-minded nasty person or as dumb as you come across. The jury is still out but perhaps both are correct and you are a dumb small-minded person.

Religion does not dictate American politics. If you want to see what religion dictating politics looks like, look to the Middle East. The United States has assurance that religion does not dictate politics in the very fabric of its founding documents.

This from a bathing frog washing his armpits.

[Grind]

We don't have a state sponsored religion. Our Constitution prohibits it.
But neither do we ban religion and treat it as if it were evil, because our values came from Christian tradition.

Our politicians don't obsess over it either. You are mistaken about that.

Of course they do. The problem is that it's been the default for so long that you can't even see it. The vast majority of speeches you'll hear in the public venue will have some reflection on faith, church, or god in some capacity. And if that's not enough for you, much of public policy is still derived out of religious thinking. Opposition to stem cell research, gay rights, birth control rights, funding for science, all have a religious basis. The "Debate" over teaching intelligent design in schools should even be had. There are pentagon documents with bible quotes all over them justifying the war in iraq. I could go on . . the bottom line is, if they DON'T obsess over it, it's because they don't HAVE to, as it's already everywhere.


as it assumes, in its very premise, that theism is inherently irrational...

Theism is built upon faith, it literally is about believing certain truths "just because," - and it is about belief without facts, and claims that are not falsifiable. If that is not irrational, I would have no idea what is.

[Awryly]

Of course they do. The problem is that it's been the default for so long that you can't even see it. The vast majority of speeches you'll hear in the public venue will have some reflection on faith, church, or god in some capacity. And if that's not enough for you, much of public policy is still derived out religious thinking. Opposition to stem cell research, gay rights, birth control rights, funding for science, all have a religious basis. The "Debate" over teaching intelligent design in schools should even be had. There are pentagon documents with bible quotes all over them justifying the war in iraq. I could go on . . the bottom line is, if they DON'T obsess over it, it's because they don't HAVE to, as it's already everywhere.



Theism is built upon faith, it literally is about believing certain truths "just because," - and it is about belief without facts, and claims that are not falsifiable. If that is not irrational, I would have no idea what is.


Culturally, Americans - or at least most of them - are still in thrall to mythical creatures.

Religion permeates their society like a plague. It doesn't cause wars, at least none involving depleted uranium. But millions are armed to the teeth to "defend" themselves from the "unholy".

You can't stand for president without pretending to believe in one or other of these fairies.

[Grind]

Why is Atheism so poorly represented in America. That's a different question with a different answer. Atheists are whiners. Nobody likes a whiner except another whiner.

They are not focused enough to actually read the bible to come up with their own arguments...they rely on the sorry work of other whining atheists who think they are so smart. Hence, they get boring to go along with their arrogance.



... wrong.

*ahem*:



Atheists and agnostics, Jews and Mormons are among the highest-scoring groups on a new survey of religious knowledge, outperforming evangelical Protestants, mainline Protestants and Catholics on questions about the core teachings, history and leading figures of major world religions.


Source: http://www.pewforum.org/U-S-Religious-Knowledge-Survey.aspx



Atheists and agnostics — those who believe there is no God or who aren't sure — were more likely to answer the survey's questions correctly.

....

So why would an atheist know more about religion than a Christian? American atheists and agnostics tend to be people who grew up in a religious tradition and consciously gave it up, often after a great deal of reflection and study . . .

...

"These are people who thought a lot about religion," he said. "They're not indifferent. They care about it."
Atheists and agnostics also tend to be relatively well educated, and the survey found, not surprisingly, that the most knowledgeable people were also the best educated. However, it said that atheists and agnostics also outperformed believers who had a similar level of education.

Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2010/sep/28/nation/la-na-religion-survey-20100928

Additional Reading referencing this study (take your favorite pick):

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/28/us/28religion.html
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/09/28/dave-silverman-pew-survey-atheists-bible-preacher-god-islam-holy-american/
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2010/0928/In-US-atheists-know-religion-better-than-believers.-Is-that-bad

This one was simply too easy. Atheists superior knowledge of the bible over christians is very well documented.

[Grind]

its kinda funny how athiests put down the bible, when it is the Number one selling book every year since it was first printed and isn't it strange that when Gutenberg invented the printing press the first book he printed was the Bible,, funny how that works.

argumentum ad populum, a very common logical fallacy.

The popularity of a specific argument/belief says nothing about the merits itself.

[Grind]

IF anyone obsesses over religion, it's the atheists who do.

It is the atheists we see throwing a fit, because a church provided a meal to a high school football team.

It is after all the atheists we see screaming bloody murder over a cross nobody really knew was there, which the builders had erected and dedicated to fallen veterans out in the middle of the desert.

It is the atheists we see demanding that any reference to God be removed from schools.

It is the atheists we see rather than respecting the beliefs and choice of others, as they demand for themselves, hypocritically always attacking and attempting to insult those with religious belief, as the OP's own posts demonstrates.



This argument is the logical equivalent of going up to someone, and punching them in the face repeatedly. And then when they say, "why are you punching me in the face," you retort with: "well you are the one talking about it! so who's really obsessed with face punching? not me!"

*punch*

[wingrider]

nope.. that is when you ask them why they keep banging their face against your fist,,

[Peter1469]

America is a religious nation that is not ruled by religion.

[Awryly]

America is a religious nation that is not ruled by religion.

Oh yes it is.

It has bred as much polarisation as the Reformation.

Just that you never got round to popping off your opponents with all those guns you love to own because they are heretics.

Which is something, I guess.

Where I live, if someone even mentions religion, they get very odd looks which seem to say "You mean Coke is cheaper than Pepsi today?".

[Chris]

Wryly, you're like the young buckaroo from back east who read a lot of dime novels and is now encountering the wild west. You've really got no clue what you're talking about America.

[Peter1469]

Oh yes it is.

It has bred as much polarisation as the Reformation.

Just that you never got round to popping off your opponents with all those guns you love to own because they are heretics.

Which is something, I guess.

Where I live, if someone even mentions religion, they get very odd looks which seem to say "You mean Coke is cheaper than Pepsi today?".


Take anecdotal evidence with a grain of salt and get yourself an education. We really need intelligence tests for voting rights.

[Awryly]

Gary Johnson's party scored a million votes in the 2012 election.

Which meant nothing. Because you have a system that excludes alternative opinion.

Now that some of you can get gaily married and smoke pot, isn't it about time you could have all your opinions represented in your political system?

[wazi99]

Only 5% of Americans are Atheists. Maybe that is why they are not highly represented is there are not that many of them. It is up from 1% 10 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-shows-atheism-on-the-rise-in-the-us/2012/08/13/90020fd6-e57d-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

[Calypso Jones]

To hear the godless heathens here you'd think America is 50 % or more atheist.

[Awryly]

To hear the godless heathens here you'd think America is 50 % or more atheist.

Not yet. But then, a few decades ago nor were we.

It's something you learn to be with social progress. It grows on you like abortion and women's rights.

[Awryly]

Only 5% of Americans are Atheists. Maybe that is why they are not highly represented is there are not that many of them. It is up from 1% 10 years ago.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/on-faith/poll-shows-atheism-on-the-rise-in-the-us/2012/08/13/90020fd6-e57d-11e1-9739-eef99c5fb285_story.html

You mean only 5% admit to being atheists, according to religious websites.

According to this, 20% are atheists.

https://atheists.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/mSdoi.pnghttp://atheists.org/american-atheists-jubilant-over-latest-religion-report

Then there are the unknown percentages who dumbly follow their parents' religious beliefs without really knowing why.

[GrassrootsConservative]

You mean only 5% admit to being atheists, according to religious websites.

According to this, 20% are atheists.

https://atheists.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/mSdoi.png

What's your source for this rubbish?

[wazi99]

You mean only 5% admit to being atheists, according to religious websites.

According to this, 20% are atheists.

https://atheists.org/sites/default/files/styles/large/public/mSdoi.pnghttp://atheists.org/american-atheists-jubilant-over-latest-religion-report

Then there are the unknown percentages who dumbly follow their parents' religious beliefs without really knowing why.

You can't say because someone didn't answer they are atheist.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Then there are the unknown percentages who dumbly follow their parents' religious beliefs without really knowing why.

Fail. Your chart clearly says U.S. adults right at the top of it. Can you read, fool?

Worst edit ever. You actually gave me more bullets to fire at you.

[Awryly]

What's your source for this rubbish?


I know your cognitive facilities are woeful. But so woeful that you cannot click on the link provided?

[Awryly]

Fail. Your chart clearly says U.S. adults right at the top of it. Can you read, fool?

Worst edit ever. You actually gave me more bullets to fire at you.

So 20% of American adults do not brain-wash their kids?

Is that what you're saying?

[Awryly]

You can't say because someone didn't answer they are atheist.

I am assuming "none" is a denial of religious belief. What do you think it is?

[roadmaster]

I am assuming "none" is a denial of religious belief. What do you think it is?

The big church of Satan is in NY, why don't you join them? Look them up. They say they are atheist and really don't believe in Satan.

[Mister D]

Not yet. But then, a few decades ago nor were we.

It's something you learn to be with social progress. It grows on you like abortion and women's rights.

Progress and human equality are patently ridiculous notions outside of a religious context. When did you become so religious, old lady? Then again, this is the dolt who doesn't realize how steeped her own thinking is in Christianity.

[Awryly]

The big church of Satan is in NY, why don't you join them? Look them up. They say they are atheist and really don't believe in Satan.

So, to derail the argument, you have do make an even more ridiculous statement than you have already made.

That sounds to me like the sort of thing bible-bangers are conditioned to do.

[Mister D]

The big church of Satan is in NY, why don't you join them? Look them up. They say they are atheist and really don't believe in Satan.

The spinster doesn't understand that her heritage is Christian one.

[KC]

Progress and human equality are patently ridiculous notions outside of a religious context. When did you become so religious, old lady? Then again, this is the dolt who doesn't realize how steeped her own thinking is in Christianity.

Not when you're already in a society that values these concepts. They may be rooted in religious belief, but it doesn't take religious belief to accept them. This really does show how important culture is for determining things like values and human morality.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I know your cognitive facilities are woeful. But so woeful that you cannot click on the link provided?

There was no link when I first read it, as there is none in my quote. You are the one with the woeful cognitive facilities.

[Awryly]

I see D- is thrashing himself into a frenzy again.

Fortunately, I can't see.

[Awryly]

There was no link when I first read it, as there is none in my quote. You are the one with the woeful cognitive facilities.


So your cognitive facilities (such as they are) only kick in on the second take?

[GrassrootsConservative]

So, to derail the argument, you have do make an even more ridiculous statement than you have already made.

:laugh: what do you mean here, Mr. Dumbshit?

[KC]

I know your cognitive facilities faculties are woeful. But so woeful that you cannot click on the link provided?

I doubt GRC personally runs any mental facilities. I think what you meant is what I edited above.

:dang:

Ironic post of the year?

[GrassrootsConservative]

The little moron is so flustered he can't even explain to me that he means "to" instead of "do", poor moron.

[Awryly]

Not when you're already in a society that values these concepts. They may be rooted in religious belief, but it doesn't take religious belief to accept them. This really does show how important culture is for determining things like values and human morality.

Exactly. All religions do is take normal humans needs and desires captive.

It is a convenient deceit that preys upon the ignorant.

[Mister D]

Not when you're already in a society that values these concepts. They may be rooted in religious belief, but it doesn't take religious belief to accept them. This really does show how important culture is for determining things like values and human morality.

We already value them because our thinking is steeped in Christianity. We inherited such notions and have a essentially biblical worldview. I don't want to give the old bag a heart attack but that's the case.

[GrassrootsConservative]

Exactly. All religions do is take normal humans needs and desires captive.

It is a convenient deceit that preys upon the ignorant.

Oh yeah? "normal humans needs"?

Is that correct?

Why don't you take a fuckin English class if you want to act like such a pompous stooge? Talking about my mental capabilities... pfft.

[Awryly]

I doubt GRC personally runs any mental facilities. I think what you meant is what I edited above.

:dang:

Ironic post of the year?

Hey ho. A faculty delivers a facility.

But the distinction here is entirely unnecessary. We are talking about pond life where such distinctions are irrelevant.

[KC]

Exactly. All religions do is take normal humans needs and desires captive.

It is a convenient deceit that preys upon the ignorant.

Not what I said. I have no problem conceding that our modern views about human equality are rooted in religion. Religion does not prey on the ignorant, instead it glorifies the beliefs of the faithful. It has been and continues to be a useful force in society.

[Mister D]

Exactly. All religions do is take normal humans needs and desires captive.

It is a convenient deceit that preys upon the ignorant.


So equality and progress are to be understood as human needs and desires. IOW, they're nonsense. Thanks for agreeing.

[Awryly]

The little moron is so flustered he can't even explain to me that he means "to" instead of "do", poor moron.


I am tired of your simple mind. Join Master D.

[KC]

We already value them because our thinking is steeped in Christianity. We inherited such notions and have a essentially biblical worldview. I don't want to give the old bag a heart attack but that's the case.

Right, but since Christianity has permeated our worldviews with these notions so strongly, they aren't ridiculous outside a religious context.

[Mister D]

Not what I said. I have no problem conceding that our modern views about human equality are rooted in religion. Religion does not prey on the ignorant, instead it glorifies the beliefs of the faithful. It has been and continues to be a useful force in society.

My thanks ain't working so I'll post it instead. Right on.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I am tired of your simple mind. Join Master D.

Because I call out all your typos?

Ha. Coward!!!!

[Mister D]

Right, but since Christianity has permeated our worldviews with these notions so strongly, they aren't ridiculous outside a religious context.

They lose their foundation.

[Mister D]

Because I call out all your typos?

Ha. Coward!!!!

I like the way she calls me master ut I'm not into old ladies.

[roadmaster]

So, to derail the argument, you have do make an even more ridiculous statement than you have already made.

That sounds to me like the sort of thing bible-bangers are conditioned to do.

Derail you said they are not represented. They are there, LaVey was the founder.

[Awryly]

Derail you said they are not represented. They are there, LaVey was the founder.

Do, LaVey (whoever he is) has upset you. So what?

[KC]

They lose their foundation.

How so? I think it depends on the personal philosophies of non religious persons, D. Equality may be rooted in religion, but it has so strongly changed our institutions that they seem blatantly obvious.

[GrassrootsConservative]

I like the way she calls me master ut I'm not into old ladies.

And you know how New Zealanders are, they're not into anything but big fluffy sheep.

[Awryly]

Not what I said. I have no problem conceding that our modern views about human equality are rooted in religion. Religion does not prey on the ignorant, instead it glorifies the beliefs of the faithful. It has been and continues to be a useful force in society.

Does it indeed. What I see in the US, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Mali, the Balkans and gods only know where else is that religion subverts humanity and human values.

It held societies together in brutal ways in the Dark and Middle Ages. But most enlightened countries (including NZ) have moved on.

[Calypso Jones]

Exactly. All religions do is take normal humans needs and desires captive.

It is a convenient deceit that preys upon the ignorant.

excuse me. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you got this bs in some kind of college or junior college setting. Is that correct? What a bunch of crap.

[Mister D]

How so? I think it depends on the personal philosophies of non religious persons, D. Equality may be rooted in religion, but it has so strongly changed our institutions that they seem blatantly obvious.

Those institutions are historically Christian and survive on that ethos. "Progress" and "equality" are what I would call residual Christianity. We removed the logical foundation of our beliefs (theology) but they are only "blatantly obvious" because we continue to think like Christians.

[Awryly]

excuse me. I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you got this bs in some kind of college or junior college setting. Is that correct? What a bunch of crap.

I am going to give you the vast benefit of the doubt that you have the germ of an idea lurking in what passes for your mind.

What is it?

If you don't have one, you are (as requested) excused.

[Mister D]

Does it indeed. What I see in the US, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Mali, the Balkans and gods only know where else is that religion subverts humanity and human values.

It held societies together in brutal ways in the Dark and Middle Ages. But most enlightened countries (including NZ) have moved on.

What are human values?

[KC]

Does it indeed. What I see in the US, the Middle East, Pakistan, India, Egypt, Nigeria, Mali, the Balkans and gods only know where else is that religion subverts humanity and human values.

It held societies together in brutal ways in the Dark and Middle Ages. But most enlightened countries (including NZ) have moved on.

Perhaps you are cherry picking? Would you also say that 'enlightened' regimes like the Soviet Union held society together in brutal ways? After all, Stalin and the worst of them were non-religious.

[roadmaster]

Do, LaVey (whoever he is) has upset you. So what?

No they don't scare me. You Don't know who LaVey is???? Interesting.

[Awryly]

Perhaps you are cherry picking? Would you also say that 'enlightened' regimes like the Soviet Union held society together in brutal ways? After all, Stalin and the worst of them were non-religious.


Is it not logically a fallacy to pretend that, because some regimes also suppressed human values, religions have not?

[Mister D]

Is it not logically a fallacy to pretend that, because some regimes also suppressed human values, religions have not?

That is your logic not his.

[KC]

Those institutions are historically Christian and survive on that ethos. "Progress" and "equality" are what I would call residual Christianity. We removed the logical foundation of our beliefs (theology) but they are only "blatantly obvious" because we continue to think like Christians.

Right. Like I said, this is why culture is so important for determining what sort of values are common in a society. Religion informs culture, which informs society as a whole. So the values that religion has created tend to outlive the religion itself. This can be seen by examining how many things Christianity adopted from Paganism or from the Greeks.

[KC]

Is it not logically a fallacy to pretend that, because some regimes also suppressed human values, religions have not?

I'm not pretending that. Both religious and secular persons have committed crimes against "human values."

[Mister D]

Right. Like I said, this is why culture is so important for determining what sort of values are common in a society. Religion informs culture, which informs society as a whole. So the values that religion has created tend to outlive the religion itself. This can be seen by examining how many things Christianity adopted from Paganism or from the Greeks.

Then those values are relative. If you will accept that then fine but you must be conscious of that. Worse still, we've eliminated the basis for our beliefs. It matters and the history of the 20th Century should persuade one.

[Chris]

What informs religion?

[Awryly]

No they don't scare me. You Don't know who LaVey is???? Interesting.

I am not au fait with all the loons you produce.

[KC]

Then those values are relative. If you will accept that then fine but you must be conscious of that. Worse still, we've eliminated the basis for our beliefs. It matters and the history of the 20th Century should persuade one.

The history of the twentieth century should persuade one that utopian, statist tendencies unchecked by religious belief can lead to devastating crimes against humanity, but it is less persuasive about the actual truth regarding religion.

[Awryly]

I'm not pretending that. Both religious and secular persons have committed crimes against "human values."

So?

It's about power elites, whether religious or some other ideology. I doubt Stalin actually believed in anything except power. Much the same can be said of the popes.

Ideologies (including religions) are simply ways of exerting power and authority. Religions especially have had spectacular success down through the centuries.

[roadmaster]

I am not au fait with all the loons you produce.

You call them loons, are you scared of them? You would be surprised at it's members. Bet you know some on tv and the movies.

[KC]

So?

It's about power elites, whether religious or some other ideology. I doubt Stalin actually believed in anything except power. Much the same can be said of the popes.

Ideologies (including religions) are simply ways of exerting power and authority. Religions especially have had spectacular success down through the centuries.

Are you sure Atheism isn't also a religion that has had success in exerting power and authority?

[Mister D]

The history of the twentieth century should persuade one that utopian, statist tendencies unchecked by religious belief can lead to devastating crimes against humanity, but it is less persuasive about the actual truth regarding religion.

The truth of religion is precisely the issue but only in so far as moderns want to have their cake and eat it too.

[Awryly]

The history of the twentieth century should persuade one that utopian, statist tendencies unchecked by religious belief can lead to devastating crimes against humanity, but it is less persuasive about the actual truth regarding religion.

So you are saying that religions, despite their murderous history, are necessary to curb the actions of those who follow alternative ideologies?

How's that working in the Middle East?

And have you not noticed that the relative absence of religion in European political affairs has been accompanied by the absence of the wars that plagued it in all centuries apart from the current one?

[Mister D]

So you are saying that religions, despite their murderous history, are necessary to curb the actions of those who follow alternative ideologies?

How's that working in the Middle East?

And have you not noticed that the relative absence of religion in European political affairs has been accompanied by the absence of the wars that plagued it in all centuries apart from the current one?

Religion had ZERO to do with the two world war that destroyed Europe. The decline thereof arguably did.

[Awryly]

Are you sure Atheism isn't also a religion that has had success in exerting power and authority?


Call it a religion if you must. It makes no difference in that it is a force against the evils of other religions.

[roadmaster]

Are you sure Atheism isn't also a religion that has had success in exerting power and authority?

But it's being called different names now. Some even put Christian in front of it. Beds violently shaking in children's rooms. Oh well that's a different subject.

[Awryly]

You call them loons, are you scared of them? You would be surprised at it's members. Bet you know some on tv and the movies.

I try not to watch American TV and movies. It produces a calm that Tom Cruise would disturb mightily, not just for his bad acting but for his religious nonsense..

[KC]

So you are saying that religions, despite their murderous history, are necessary to curb the actions of those who follow alternative ideologies?

How's that working in the Middle East?

And have you not noticed that the relative absence of religion in European political affairs has been accompanied by the absence of the wars that plagued it in all centuries apart from the current one?

Not all religions promote the same values, Awryly.

You seem bent on the fact that today, secularism in Europe seems to be peaceful, after all, Europeans haven't had a major war for some time. 50 years ago, the opposite belief would have been more common. Secular societies were far more likely to enact violent policies toward their own citizens and toward other countries.

Always remember, correlation does not equal causation.

[Mister D]

Call it a religion if you must. It makes no difference in that it is a force against the evils of other religions.

He must because anyone who talks constantly about their disbelief cannot pretend it is not a worldview the truth of which he tries to convince others of.

Can you give us some examples?

[Kizzume]

He must because anyone who talks constantly about their disbelief cannot pretend it is not a worldview the truth of which he tries to convince others of.

Trying to get people not to believe in fairy tales is not trying to convince anyone of anything, quite the opposite.

[Awryly]

Not all religions promote the same values, Awryly.

You seem bent on the fact that today, secularism in Europe seems to be peaceful, after all, Europeans haven't had a war for some time. 50 years ago, the opposite belief would have been more common. Secular societies were far more likely to enact violent policies toward their own citizens and toward other countries.

Always remember, correlation does not equal causation.

So the Crusades, the Cathar rebellion, the Huguenot uprisings, the Wars of Religion, the English civil war - just to mention a few examples - had nothing to do with religion?

You are relying on a single example (Stalin) to promote the idea that religions are less murderous. Of course, you could also add Hitler.

But if the popes had had tanks and warplanes, I shudder to think how much more they could have achieved. :rollseyes:

[Awryly]

Trying to get people not to believe in fairy tales is not trying to convince anyone of anything, quite the opposite.

It is trying to get people to believe in the human values that make societies tick.

Religions override these. To the extent that they prey on raw fear and other weaknesses of spirit.

[Mister D]

Trying to get people not to believe in fairy tales is not trying to convince anyone of anything, quite the opposite.

Except not to believe in "fairly tales". lol Check your boyfriends semen for lead. Sorry, you deserved it.

[Mister D]

It is trying to get people to believe in the human values that make societies tick.

Religions override these. Except to the extent that they prey on raw fear and other weaknesses of spirit.

What are human values?

[Kizzume]

It is trying to get people to believe in the human values that make societies tick.

That has nothing to do with atheism. Secular values, maybe, but atheism, no.


Religions override these. Except to the extent that they prey on weaknesses of spirit.
Agreed, provided we're talking about secularism.

[Awryly]

That has nothing to do with atheism. Secular values, maybe, but atheism, no.

Agreed, provided we're talking about secularism.

What do you mean by "secularism"?

[Kizzume]

Except not to believe in "fairly tales". lol Check your boyfriends semen for lead. Sorry, you deserved it.

Believing in a sky god that sits and judges everything we do is pretty much believing in fairy tales.

[Kizzume]

What do you mean by "secularism"?

The push for secular values.

[KC]

So the Crusades, the Cathar rebellion, the Huguenot uprisings, the Wars of Religion, the English civil war - just to mention a few examples - had nothing to do with religion?

You are relying on a single example (Stalin) to promote the idea that religions are less murderous. Of course, you could also add Hitler.

But if the popes had had tanks and warplanes, I shudder to think how much more they could have achieved. :rollseyes:

I'm not saying any of those things have nothing to do with religion. What I'm arguing is that the religious beliefs of a given regime aren't a good predictor of the tendency toward violence. Violence usually has to do with power and other motives and religious belief, Atheism, Christianity or otherwise, tends to serve as a convenient excuse or justification.

I use Stalin as a prominent example, but you could also use most of Communist eastern Europe. Hitler and Stalin weren't the only ones who killed off religious and ethnic minorities at their convenience. Actually, Around the time that Stalin fell ill, many soviet states began to purge Jews from the Communist party. I would recommned reading "Under a Cruel Star" by Heda Margolious Kovaly if you want to hear about a Czech Jew who survived the double threat of the secular Nazi and Communist Regimes.

[Kizzume]

Except not to believe in "fairly tales". lol Check your boyfriends semen for lead. Sorry, you deserved it.

If I was trying to get someone to believe something, you'd have a point. If I was trying to replace one belief with another, you'd have a point. Atheism is not like a religion, it doesn't have any dogma attached to it, it has no agenda--it simply means the lack of belief in a god. Some atheists have agendas, but that's on an individual basis. Most people are atheists about just about all gods, atheists just take it one more god further.

[Awryly]

Believing in a sky god that sits and judges everything we do is pretty much believing in fairy tales.

Lead poisoning does that.

[Awryly]

I'm not saying any of those things have nothing to do with religion. What I'm arguing is that the religious beliefs of a given regime aren't a good predictor of the tendency toward violence. Violence usually has to do with power and other motives and religious belief, Atheism, Christianity or otherwise, tends to serve as a convenient excuse or justification.

I use Stalin as a prominent example, but you could also use most of Communist eastern Europe. Hitler and Stalin weren't the only ones who killed off religious and ethnic minorities at their convenience. Actually, Around the time that Stalin fell ill, many soviet states began to purge Jews from the Communist party. I would recommned reading "Under a Cruel Star" by Heda Margolious Kovaly if you want to hear about a Czech Jew who survived the double threat of the secular Nazi and Communist Regimes.

Sorry. All I see is that ideologies (religious or not, sincere or - as in Stalin's and Hitler's case - not) promote violence.

The fact seems to be that religion has a more thorough record of promoting violence. And, in Muslim countries, some of which (like Nigeria and Lebanon) are also Christian, is still doing so.

The blight is ideology, affected or real.

[roadmaster]

But Hitler was an atheist. You can send a child to church but it doesn't mean he will believe. Did use the Church to his advantage tho.

[KC]

Sorry. All I see is that ideologies (religious or not, sincere or - as in Stalin's and Hitler's case - not) promote violence.

The fact seems to be that religion has a more thorough record of promoting violence. And, in Muslim countries, some of which (like Nigeria and Lebanon) are also Christian, is still doing so.

The blight is ideology, affected or real.

Then you are choosing to be ignorant.

[Awryly]

The push for secular values.

What do you regard as "secular values"?

[Awryly]

Then you are choosing to be ignorant.


How so? Because you have not made a case?

[Mister D]

If I was trying to get someone to believe something, you'd have a point. If I was trying to replace one belief with another, you'd have a point. Atheism is not like a religion, it doesn't have any dogma attached to it, it has no agenda--it simply means the lack of belief in a god. Some atheists have agendas, but that's on an individual basis. Most people are atheists about just about all gods, atheists just take it one more god further.

I have a point precisely because you are trying to convince me of something which you admit. You obviously have an agenda which again you are open about. The exact lead content of Mr. Right's semen is all that remains uncertain.

[Mister D]

Lead poisoning does that.

You swallow too?

[Chris]

People promote violence, some people in the name of religion, but religion doesn't.

[Mister D]

The push for secular values.

Which are?

[Mister D]

Believing in a sky god that sits and judges everything we do is pretty much believing in fairy tales.

Fairly tales like equality and progress?

[Awryly]

People promote violence, some people in the name of religion, but religion doesn't.People organised by fairytales have a clear record of doing it most often.This will infuriate evangelists, Catholics, Mormons and Tom Cruise, but I do not distinguish between them and communists or national socialists.

The only difference is their armaments.

[Chris]

People organised by fairytales have a clear record of doing it most often.This will infuriate evangelists, Catholics, Mormons and Tom Cruise, but I do not distinguish between them and communists or national socialists.

The only difference is their armaments.

Oh? Name a war not fought by governments. Now there's a fairy tale for ya, government. But I don't hear you ranting about government. What's up with that?

[Awryly]

But, tell me.Why do you think you are worth more dead than alive?

[Awryly]

Oh? Name a war not fought by governments. Now there's a fairy tale for ya, government. But I don't hear you ranting about government. What's up with that?


You understand what a non-sequitur is? Or don't you understand Latin?

[Kizzume]

What do you regard as "secular values"?

Why are YOU of all people asking me this question? Human values, values that do not require religion.

[Kizzume]

Fairly tales like equality and progress?

There is no perfect equality, and anyone who claims there is is indeed like a religious person believing in fairy tales. Fortunately virtually nobody believes that, so your point is moot.

And progress is something that happens, to act like it doesn't is to ignore reality.