[Aleph Null]

{Reminder: as with all articles I post, this is here because I feel it is worth a read, not because I necessarily agree with the opinions expressed. Also, don't click the link below unless you like LOTS of cookies. --a0}

http://www.stuff.co.nz/stuff/0,2106,3146200a12,00.html

Humanists and atheists look to higher profile
04 January 2005

GENEVA: Humanist and atheist groups around the world are looking to boost their profile in 2005 to counter religious fundamentalism and efforts by some Western leaders to relaunch faith as a keystone of national life.

Under pressure from the rise of militant Islam, Vatican activism in the European Union and the re-election of a "born-again" Christian to the White House, they feel they must resist to ensure the ideas of secularism survive and spread.

"In the face of the religious onslaught on Humanist values, we have to speak out and get our message over," says Roy Brown, Swiss-based president of the International Humanist and Ethical Union (IHEU) which links groups totalling millions of members.

Two central events will be a World Atheist Conference at Vijayawada in India in early January and the IHEU's World Congress in July at the Paris headquarters of Unesco, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation.

"We must work hard to combat the encroachment of religion on public policy and on the rights of non-believers everywhere," said IHEU executive director Babu Gogineni.

Atheists, who see no evidence for the existence of a deity, and Humanists, who are mainly atheists but include some believers, share that core concern: to keep religion out of politics and limit it to the private sphere.

They draw their inspiration from freethinkers down the ages, from ancient Greek and Indian philosophers through the 18th century Enlightenment that shaped much of modern political thinking in Europe and North America.

PRINCIPLES ATTACKED

But they see key Humanist principles – respect for human rights and racial and sexual equality with morality based on reason rather than on the dictates of a supreme being through a holy book – as under assault, and not just in Muslim countries.

The re-election in November of George W Bush, US Humanists fear, strengthened the influence of Christian fundamentalists dedicated to restoring the Bible, "God's word," to a central role in public life and foreign policy.

Many of Bush supporters appear to see the war in Iraq in the same terms as the president, and Muslim fundamentalists, as one arena of a cosmic struggle between good and evil in which what Humanists would regard as crimes are permissible on both sides.

Bush's triumph has also boosted opponents of abortion and homosexuality, as well as supporters of Intelligent Design (ID) which rejects evolution – the development of all life on earth from lower forms through natural selection of the fittest – as elaborated by 19th century British naturalist Charles Darwin.

The ID movement emerged from the ranks of US creationists, who believe the Bible is literally correct and that their God created the world and all in it. ID limits itself to arguing that an intelligence must have shaped life.

In many US states, fundamentalists on school boards ensure that creationism – taught widely until the late 1960s – is still present in some form. ID supporters are now demanding that their beliefs be taught alongside evolution.

Last month British philosopher Anthony Flew, long a champion of unbelief, announced to the dismay of some fellow atheists that he was now convinced an intelligence must have provided the spark of life and perhaps even done some designing.

His "conversion" was greeted with delight on creationist and Catholic websites. But Flew hastened to clarify that he believed that the intelligence involved was not the Christian, Jewish or Moslem "personal" deity, and that there is no "afterlife."

GOD OF THE GAPS

Atheist scientist-thinkers, like British biologist Richard Dawkins, said Flew had simply come to "the god of the gaps" – a view held by some philosophers but few scientists that some "force" must have been at play because science has not pinned down how life could have begun otherwise.

In Britain, many Humanists feel that Prime Minister Tony Blair – a strong religious believer – and members of his government are undermining secular traditions.

They point to his promotion of faith schools run by various religious communities, including two financed by a fundamentalist businessman where creationism is taught as science.

Blair's push for a new law that would protect all believers from "incitement to hate" on the grounds of their faith – a key demand of Muslim activists – is bound to restrict criticism of religion as such, Humanists argue.

His readiness to bend government policies to the views of "faith" leaders, they say, has led religious hard-liners to demand ever more concessions on social and cultural issues such as limiting the right to stage plays that might offend religion.

In most Muslim countries, religion and politics are closely intertwined and apostasy or renunciation of the faith is often a criminal offence. Penalties include execution, but "apostates" are routinely treated as outcasts and harassed.

Secular and evangelical Christian groups launched a campaign at the United Nations last year to convince Islamic leaders to work to change this, but to little effect.

SOME ADVANCES

However Humanists see some advances over the past year in Europe, Asia and even in Africa where atheists have begun to organise.

In Europe, Vatican efforts to have the EU constitution include a reference to the continent's Christian heritage were blocked. The European Parliament voted to bar a traditionalist Italian Catholic from becoming the new justice commissioner.

France's ban on Muslim headscarves in state schools was imposed in September with few problems, despite warnings that it would unleash protests and alienate many in Europe's largest Islamic minority.

In Spain, the Socialists replaced the Catholic-inspired Popular Party after its decade in power and began a series of secular reforms angering the Church hierarchy, including a move to allow gay marriage.

The Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party lost power in India's general elections to the firmly secular Congress Party.

Even at the United Nations there was good news from for Humanists.

Bangladeshi writer and medical doctor Taslima Nasrin, living in exile after criticising Islam and an active campaigner for the rights of women and the non-religious, was awarded a Unesco prize for promoting cultural tolerance.

But at the same time a Vatican campaign led to the world body adding "Christianophobia" to "Islamophobia" and anti-Semitism as issues its human rights bodies report on – a sign for many that religious forces are reinforcing their grip.

[SmartAZ]

Well, I was going to quote a paragraph, but they all seem to say pretty much the same thing, over and over: atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world, they are just anti-religion. That's a shame, because they could make some useful contributions if they would just apply their own principles, do some studying, and figure out exactly what contributions might be needed. Apparently their philosophies don't include working that much. (Who ever heard of an atheist work ethic?)

[Aleph Null]

Hehe.

Before I respond, AZ... was that just a :poke: or do you actually believe that stuff?

a0

[Chills]

Humanists and atheists .... have nothing to worry about... just keep their heads down...and let the religious dum f#$ks kill each other off...

[Aleph Null]

Chills, you can't possibly believe that is true, do you?

a0

[Chills]

Aleph..

No .......lol......... but everyone needs to have a dream to cling to.. :P

[SmartAZ]

A0:
Before I respond, AZ... was that just a :poke: or do you actually believe that stuff?
Before you respond, you should read THIS (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0785265775/qid=1104792663/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-2633764-4819045?v=glance&s=books).
Editorial Reviews
We live in a cynical age in which only one prejudice is tolerated--anti-Christian bigotry. Yet despite the unbridled slanders and attacks against the faith, one powerful truth is undeniable: if Christ had never been born, nearly every facet of human life would be much more miserable than it is today. Arranged topically and presenting compelling, little-known historical facts, What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? clearly demonstrates that an enormous array of benefits to humankind--from economics to art to government, science to civil liberties, morality to health, and beyond--would never have occurred had Jesus Christ not lived.

[Aleph Null]

Sorry, not going to read a book in order to participate in a thread. Especially one that I don't see having any direct relevance to what I asked you.

Oh and...

We live in a cynical age in which only one prejudice is tolerated--anti-Christian bigotry.

This comment is demonstrably false. For starters, "atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world" seems rather prejudiced to me, and I think it's being tolerated just fine. :beer:

a0

[Chills]

Editorial Reviews
What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? clearly demonstrates that an enormous array of benefits to humankind--from economics to art to government, science to civil liberties, morality to health, and beyond--would never have occurred had Jesus Christ not lived.


You gotta be kiddin....
for starters...
what flipping morality would that be... I thought christians believed morality was an absolute... if so ..whether christ was or was not... would be irrelevant..
It either is or it aint....

More utter bullshiite... from the religously wacked out dum f$#ks IMO.

[Flint]

Has anyone read the short story "The Marching Morons" by Cyril Kornbluth? Now *there* was someone with a vision of the future.

[TheoryMan]

Yes, I have read that. I often think that things are going that way...

Too many breeders...

--

[Aleph Null]

Woah woah... Chills, dude.... :chill: ;)

I really would actually like to discuss this with SmartAZ. But I honestly don't understand what his point is. He is a smart guy, and I can't believe he actually thinks "atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world." Atheists and humanists are all around, there are millions of them, and they contribute to society just as religious people do.

Being an atheist isn't a full-time job any more than being a Christian is.

a0

[SmartAZ]

Aleph, it's a fairly short book, but anybody who hasn't read it isn't qualified to respond to my remark. I don't mean that personally, it's just that we have a lot of atheists and humanists here, and every one of them needs some education before joining any discussion on this topic. First they ought to learn (or figure out) what they believe and why, well enough to explain it without lapsing into anti-religious ranting. Second they ought to learn a few things about the bible, at least enough to give chapter and verse when they start griping about it. And then they should read What If Jesus Had Never Been Born? and find some comparable history in favor of their own viewpoints.

I'm rapidly getting very tired of threads being trampled by uneducated souls who gripe about christianity but can't support their arguments with any of the intellect they think is superior to it. I don't ask anybody to agree with what I think, and I don't tolerate people who say what they think without thinking.

[Aleph Null]

Aleph, it's a fairly short book, but anybody who hasn't read it isn't qualified to respond to my remark.

This is a discussion forum. Usually on discussion forums when someone makes a comment -- like "atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world" -- they are expected to explain what they mean by that, not tell others they need to go "read a book".

You are obviously free to choose a different tack if you wish, but you aren't likely to get much in the way of results. I am a busy person -- do you really believe it reasonable to expect me to spend money and at least an hour buying and reading a book on Christian apologetics when you won't even take 10 minutes to explain your point?

I don't mean that personally, it's just that we have a lot of atheists and humanists here, and every one of them needs some education before joining any discussion on this topic.

Again here -- rather presumptive. I could say that you "need some education" could I not? But that's unproductive. If I need "education" then best you show how, no?

Second they ought to learn a few things about the bible, at least enough to give chapter and verse when they start griping about it.

IME, non-believers often know the Bible better than their opponents do. I personally have been underestimated in this department more than once. There are other non-believers who also know the scriptures rather well.

You'd make a better impression demonstrating that we "need to learn" things rather than dismissing us.

I'm rapidly getting very tired of threads being trampled by uneducated souls who gripe about christianity but can't support their arguments with any of the intellect they think is superior to it.

Actually, SmartAZ, this is exactly what you are doing. This was my thread, and consisted of only an article until you "trampled" it with an insult directed at humanists and atheists. You refused to support your comment, and now you are griping. That's exactly what you just said you were tired of, is it not? ;)

If you change your mind and want to explain to me what you are talking about, I'll be here.

a0

[SmartAZ]

But I honestly don't understand what his point is. He is a smart guy, and I can't believe he actually thinks "atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world."
Jews have this book, and it has everything they need to know to run their culture: civil laws, public health laws, personal behaviors, how to raise a family, how to stay on good terms with neighbors, all that kind of stuff. This book forms a part of the christian scriptures, and at the very least it's a book you can find in almost any motel room in the country.

Christians have something they call "faith" which isn't well understood, but it sounds like a pretty good deal, even without the part about being brought back to life and going to heaven some day. It's hard to identify exactly what's so good about "faith", but people who have it obviously enjoy it a lot. Ok, ok, maybe they only THINK they enjoy it a lot. One of the big things about christianity is love. Nobody understands that much, but it works anyway, and even the atheists and humanists appreciate it when they are on the recieving end. Oddly, the christians never seem to expect atheists and humanists to return the favor. And still they seem to be quite happy about that arrangement, and keep on loving anybody they meet.

Buddhists offer "enlightenment" and chubby statues, and they are obviously very fond of the statues. I just told you everything I know about Buddhists.

Wiccans offer spells to gain control over various things, although I'm not clear on why anybody would want to control those particular things. I just told you everything I know about Wiccans, and I'm not even sure I got it right.

Unitarians offer jokes and philosophical observations.

Atheists and humanists offer ... what? Bumper stickers? "Life's a bitch, then you die." A lifetime of loneliness and frustration, and then a grave.

Religion offers something. Atheism and humanism offer nothing. Where are the atheist charities? The humanist hospitals? What atheist ever travelled at his own expense to teach savages how to read? What humanist ever invented a system of music to please other humans? What atheist ever built a university?

ECHO Echo echo

[SmartAZ]

Actually, SmartAZ, this is exactly what you are doing. This was my thread, and consisted of only an article until you "trampled" it with an insult directed at humanists and atheists. You refused to support your comment, and now you are griping. That's exactly what you just said you were tired of, is it not?
Aleph, I offer my apology for trampling your thread. I thought I was discussing it in my usual highly opinionated style. I chose my nick for a reason, now you see what the reason was.

But if you think my rant was out of line, then I will not inflict my attentions on this thread any more.

[Aleph Null]

Jews have this book, and it has everything they need to know to run their culture: civil laws, public health laws, personal behaviors, how to raise a family, how to stay on good terms with neighbors, all that kind of stuff.

And yet most Jews know virtually nothing about what is in it, and the ones that do, follow nearly none of it. And yet they still manage to have a culture. As do atheists/humanists.

How do you explain that?

Christians have something they call "faith" which isn't well understood, but it sounds like a pretty good deal, even without the part about being brought back to life and going to heaven some day. It's hard to identify exactly what's so good about "faith", but people who have it obviously enjoy it a lot. Ok, ok, maybe they only THINK they enjoy it a lot. One of the big things about christianity is love. Nobody understands that much, but it works anyway, and even the atheists and humanists appreciate it when they are on the recieving end.

Some Christians focus on love. Those are the good ones.

Others focus on hate. They use their Bible to find reasons to judge others, to condemn them, to suggest laws be passed against them, to put their race before those of others. Same Bible you use. I guess you were right when you said it "wasn't well understood".

If you want to take the credit for the good, you get the credit for the bad as well.

Oddly, the christians never seem to expect atheists and humanists to return the favor.

Actually, in my experience, they do. In some cases, they expect the atheists to behave at a higher standard than they themselves do.

And still they seem to be quite happy about that arrangement, and keep on loving anybody they meet.

I envy you your skill in finding only loving Christians.

Buddhists offer "enlightenment" and chubby statues, and they are obviously very fond of the statues. I just told you everything I know about Buddhists.

Does this mean Buddhists have nothing to offer?

Wiccans offer spells to gain control over various things, although I'm not clear on why anybody would want to control those particular things. I just told you everything I know about Wiccans, and I'm not even sure I got it right.

Unitarians offer jokes and philosophical observations.

No offense, but for someone who just complained about "uneducated souls", you don't seem to know a great deal about any religion but your own, SmartAZ.

Atheists and humanists offer ... what? Bumper stickers? "Life's a bitch, then you die."

They offer honesty. Healthy skepticism. Independence. Rationality. A desire for knowledge. A yearning for equality. A rejection of brainwashing; a counter to subjugation and mind-control.

They emphasize the importance of this world, because they are not obssessed with preparing for another one they don't believe exists.

A lifetime of loneliness and frustration, and then a grave.

Loneliness and frustration are found in both theists and non-theists. The grave is universal as well.

Religion offers something. Atheism and humanism offer nothing. Where are the atheist charities? The humanist hospitals?

There are tons of secular charities and hospitals.

What atheist ever travelled at his own expense to teach savages how to read?

Don't know, but I am sure there are some.

As for "own expense", most missionaries only do what they do because they have their own agenda, not out of love for educating savages.

What humanist ever invented a system of music to please other humans?

John Lennon?

What atheist ever built a university?

Got me there. But most good universities are secular and are often criticized by Christians for that. Can't have your cake and eat it too.

a0

[Chills]

Woah woah... Chills, dude.... :chill: ;)

I really would actually like to discuss this with SmartAZ. But I honestly don't understand what his point is. He is a smart guy, and I can't believe he actually thinks "atheists and humanists have nothing special to offer the world." Atheists and humanists are all around, there are millions of them, and they contribute to society just as religious people do.

Being an atheist isn't a full-time job any more than being a Christian is.

a0


Aleph

My apologies.

As I have stated earlier.... I have NO problem with what people believe. I have a problem with the behavior of people.

In this case... I have a problem with my own behavior. In hind site it seems to me, I was being a tad-bit over re-actionary.

I was attempting to point out by example.. that religious people tend to speak in absolutes and in negatives about others using their religious beliefs as a license to justify any behavior.

I was doing the same thing.

But it failed to serve the purpose.

Another example of the best of intentions being for nought... because intentions NEVER equal the effect of the behaviors...etc etc.

My bad.

Thus I apologize..

[calliope]

An atheist doesn't believe god exists. How do you get from no god existing to other "worlds" not existing? If this world can exist without god, why can't other ones?

[Hokey]

SmartAz, you obviously don't spend much time trying to understand (investigate, read, think about) other religions or ideals. Why don't you go read a few un-biased books and get back to us on this subject.

And the old 'humanists and atheists have no morals or anything to offer the world' line is utter bullshit! Christians (just for an example of a major religious grouping) are about as heterogenous in morals and beliefs as they come, yet you try to paint them as up to some level of moral superiority to atheists and humanists. But congratulations, your second grade Sunday school thinking skills finally came in handy.

Good grief. :re:

[Libertarian]

SmartAZ, You wrote in part "[I]t's just that we have a lot of atheists and humanists here, and every one of them needs some education before joining any discussion on this topic. First they ought to learn (or figure out) what they believe and why, well enough to explain it..."

I do not need a book to tell me what I think. I am quite able to come up with my own decisions without having someone else spoon feed them to me. I beleive that I am fully capable of participating in a discussion about religion without reading your little primer.

Thank you very much for telling me what I should do in order to think correctly. I had a lot of that in Catholic school as a child. I will decline your kind offer though and discuss religious issues based on what I think and believe rather than what someone else says that I should think and believe.

[Robert]

The first thing I would say is that morality and spirituality are aspects of the individual and not the religious system or lack of it.
The individual who defines his or her morality through their religion must also accept those aspects of the religion that are not moral.
The problem with a book is that we can interpret it and distort it to fit our own proclivities as is often done.
Can an individual be ‘moral’ without believing in ‘god’? Can he or she believe it is wrong to bring harm or suffering to another individual, which I personally think is not moral, without a book that defines his or her actions?. On the other hand, can an individual be ‘immoral’ while believing in ‘god’? History certainly tells us he can.
When we pick up a book and say,” this is the truth, this is the absolute word of God” we are dead, we have stopped looking for God and if God is greater then our book we will never see that.
When we exist justifying our actions through a book we transfer the responsibility of our will and inner morality to someone else, regardless of whether that action is through a religious book or a political system defined by its tenets. The instant we do this we cease to be an individual we now are relegated to the level of a robot, a puppet. We are now responsible for WW2 Germany through our nationalism and the Inquisition through our socialized Christianity.
It is my belief that man is moral at his core and social and political systems are amoral. History has certainly supported that belief.
Would Gandhi have been moral if Hinduism never existed? Would Mother Teresa have been moral, picked up starving children off the street of Calcutta, if there had been no Christianity? I think so. It is Hinduism that reflects on Gandhi in an attempt to establish its morality and it is Christianity that reaches out to Mother Teresa and says,” See how good WE are”.

[Hokey]

But back to the thread topic.

I think its fair game that humanist and atheist organisations are trying to seek a higher profile. Certainly, religious organisations are taking that strategy and gaining ground in political life and power. I think more visibility is a good thing for the humanist movement and maybe it will dispel myths about their morality and what they stand for...but of course those not disposed to listening to other viewpoints will choose what they want to hear anyway.

[Aleph Null]

Chills: thanks and no problem, we all do it sometimes. :tup:

Robert, your points were very well made, as were those of several others here.

I think it would be good if more of the Christians on board would chime in here...

a0

[Chills]

Humanism is a system of thought that defines a socio-political doctrine ("-ism") whose bounds exceed those of locally developed cultures, to include all of humanity and all issues common to human beings. Because doctrines of cultural distinction and exclusivity are often phrased in terms of religion, secular humanism grew as an answer to the need for a common philosophy that transcended the cultural boundaries of local moral codes and religions. Many humanists are religious, however, and see humanism as simply a mature expression of a common truth present in most religions.
From Wikipedia

Anyway... just thought I would throw that in... cause I had no idea what humanism was...except for a derogative term used by the religious.

Go figure eh... :P

I said earlier with tongue in cheek... that humanists and atheists dont have anything to worry about... because the religious will kill each other off...

Well that is a bit of an exaggeration....but only a bit... the religious undermine each other all the time....
Even on this board we see how... they tell each other how wrong, uneducated misguided confused evil etc etc etc etc etc ..those who are not of the same conviction are...

It is simply a matter of time before the religious (fringe/rightwingwackos) hang themselves.... because imo .... the main stream majority of practicing religious people will see they are being as systematically disenfranchised and their beliefs being as diminished as the humanist's beliefs ideals.

When Bob Jones says things like... liberals hate Christ... and the mainstream Christians realize what he is actually saying... things will begin to change...

....lost my train of thought........
dham...
next time I will take a bus... :D

[pop pop]

Been away a long time AO...had to go to the mountain for my 40 days, or was it longer?

Atheists and humanists offer ... what? Bumper stickers? "Life's a bitch, then you die."

I didn't post a whole lot before but those who might remember me may or may not recall how I feel about atheism. I have always liked that bumper sticker, though.

They offer honesty. Healthy skepticism. Independence. Rationality.

I think a dash of skepticism is always a healthy thing...if nothing else, it prevents the mind from becoming stagnant. There's a magazine I buy (maybe someday I'll subscribe) called "The Skeptic". It's published out of the Left Coast, USC I think... a lot of the topics discussed here have also been written about in depth there. Independence? I think you have to exercise at least some skepticism in order to maintain a sense of independence. Rationality? Wouldn't it be fair to say that's a relative concept, at least to some extent? Where would "we" be today if some of our more adventurous predecessors never attempted things that were, in their day, considered not so rational? Was it rational, at the time (1961), for a man to enthusiastically agree to be strapped into a giant Roman candle with the goal of being blasted into space? Was it rational, over 500 years ago, to set sail in wooden ships for the other side of the planet given what many thought was the shape of the Earth?

A desire for knowledge. A yearning for equality. A rejection of brainwashing; a counter to subjugation and mind-control.

Lovely words and how could one rationally argue against them? I am a believer, who happens to be a Christian. I think many thoughtful believers are indeed motivated in their belief, at least in part, by a desire for knowledge.

As for the rejection of brainwashing etc, one of the beauties of my belief/faith, and one of the dangers (I guess), is that we are all endowed with a freedom of choice. I believe because I choose to, and I choose to based on my life experiences. I could just as easily choose not to. I am no more forced to believe what I do than an atheist or agnostic is.

Subjugation and mind-control? Aren't you subjugated and controlled by your own beliefs, as well? It would seem to be a matter of degree. Whether believer or non-believer, when a belief system is imposed and taken to the extreme, maybe the weak and helpless can be victimized that way. But to paraphrase the man many of you would argue never existed, "You have no power over me but that which comes from above." I believe that there are no victims, only willing acomplices. Nobody can subjugate or control me unless I allow them to.

They emphasize the importance of this world, because they are not obsessed with preparing for another one they don't believe exists.


This is a crucial statement. In a sense, contrary to your implication, I think we believers and you non-believers are, in a sense, on equal terms here. This world is important. It is what we have here and now. I would think that you choose to live your life and behave in such a way so as to make this world as good a place as possible for you, your children, and the others with whom you share it. I try do do the same.

The difference is that for you, the non-believer, when the lights go out there's nowhere else for you to go. My belief says that when the curtain on this show goes down, the next one goes up. What role I will play in that show, will depend on how I performed in this one. Believing that this is not a one act play gives me comfort. You can call that belief misguided, if you want, I don't care. What you think of my beliefs won't change my reality, it won't change yours, and certainly neither of us should feel threatened by what we each may characterize as the other's misguided beliefs.

[Robert]

As for the rejection of brainwashing etc, one of the beauties of my belief/faith, and one of the dangers (I guess), is that we are all endowed with a freedom of choice. I believe because I choose to, and I choose to based on my life experiences. I could just as easily choose not to. I am no more forced to believe what I do than an atheist or agnostic is.

Is it a matter of being ‘forced’? Really, when we look at it very few people, especially in socially free societies, are ‘forced’ to follow any religion. What I think we have to look at is the reason or reasons, individuals follow religions.
We can say we have had ‘experiences’ that give us ‘faith’ but that is not exactly faith then is it, because we are building on events or observations that we believe ‘prove’ God exists. Because, again, blind faith without reason is just action based on fear, the fear of death mostly and a very large percentage of people are very afraid of death of the unknown.
So we have to be very careful about learning about why we believe what we do regardless of whether we are atheists or theists.
Can we put our preconceived ideas aside, our books, our family environment and start from a clean slate without thinking God is this or that? Can we find God or nothingness whatever exists or doesn’t from completely within ourselves beyond the fear that man has built his idols on? Because if we can’t if we must settle for socially defined ‘gods’, then our lives are illusions and our worship is just a tool to ease our troubled fears and in the end we have settled for mediocrity.


Subjugation and mind-control? Aren't you subjugated and controlled by your own beliefs, as well? It would seem to be a matter of degree. Whether believer or non-believer, when a belief system is imposed and taken to the extreme, maybe the weak and helpless can be victimized that way. But to paraphrase the man many of you would argue never existed, "You have no power over me but that which comes from above." I believe that there are no victims, only willing acomplices. Nobody can subjugate or control me unless I allow them to.

Yes, but again, in the end it is your fear and my fear that controls us and until we understand that fear and how it manipulates our actions we are never free we can never find ‘god’ if indeed ‘god’ exists.

This is a crucial statement. In a sense, contrary to your implication, I think we believers and you non-believers are, in a sense, on equal terms here. This world is important. It is what we have here and now. I would think that you choose to live your life and behave in such a way so as to make this world as good a place as possible for you, your children, and the others with whom you share it. I try do do the same.

So then why do we need religion? Can’t we simply live by bring no harm to anyone regardless of whether there is a ‘god’ or not. Because socialized religions have left a wake of war and suffering in this world and if we are a part of those religions then we are responsible, at least in part , for that suffering.

The difference is that for you, the non-believer, when the lights go out there's nowhere else for you to go. My belief says that when the curtain on this show goes down, the next one goes up. What role I will play in that show, will depend on how I performed in this one. Believing that this is not a one act play gives me comfort. You can call that belief misguided, if you want, I don't care. What you think of my beliefs won't change my reality, it won't change yours, and certainly neither of us should feel threatened by what we each may characterize as the other's misguided beliefs.

Yes but where is the proof that your beliefs are valid? Faith? You have to ask then why you have faith. My belief is that faith is a mask for fear.

[Darkimbolc]

I think I'd like to :stir: a little.

The single biggest thing that chapps my ass in all of these discussions is that it becomes a staunch athiests vs. the fundamentalist Christians. Not everyone who questions religion or spirituality is an atheist (deists and agnostics) and not every theist is fundamentalist, let alone Christian!

:soapbox:
By the Gods people! Get a grip. Neither religion NOR science has a complete picture of the universe. Religion and science are NOT MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE! Every single time one of these discussions starts it degenerates into "We, the oppressed Christian Majority..." and "Prove God exists." Faith and skepticism are healthy compliments, not absolutes at opposing ends of the spectrum!
:soapbox:
There have been and are great people who are atheists.
There have been and are great people who are theists.
An oppresive secularist state is not good for people.
An oppresive theocratic state is not good for people.
People have the right to believe or not believe what they wish. GET OVER IT AND KEEP IT THE HELL OUT OF OUR GOVERNMENT!
:soapbox:

[pop pop]

Yes but where is the proof that your beliefs are valid? Faith? You have to ask then why you have faith. My belief is that faith is a mask for fear.

The proof is in my heart and mind and the experiences I have had that absolutely can't be explained by anything else. My proof is in the inner peace I have gained so recently that I never had before. That's enough proof for me. I wish you could feel it, I really do. I don't judge you because you choose not to. That's all it takes is making a choice. You can call it a "mask" for fear if you want. I prefer to consider it a cure.

Joshua 1:9 provides some insight to the fear thing.

[Chills]

I dont know who said this
Yes but where is the proof that your beliefs are valid? Faith? You have to ask then why you have faith. My belief is that faith is a mask for fear

I have to ask.... dont you have faith in your own judgement etc?

[Robert]

The proof is in my heart and mind and the experiences I have had that absolutely can't be explained by anything else.

No, YOU can’t explain events by anything else. Does that make our faith any more valid, because we use it as catch all for everything we can’t explain?

Go jump off that cliff you won’t get hurt, you’ll be fine. Have a little faith, ‘god’ will save you.
Drink this and go to heaven. Trust me I’m Jim Jones, ‘god’ spoke to me and I know. Burn those people at the stake, they’re ‘evil’, read ‘your’ book it tells us they are ‘evil’. Have faith in ‘our’ book. Those people are the enemy of ‘god’, kill them our holy book tells us so and we have faith in it.

So goes the danger of belief without reason, without inquiry. Why would we have faith? What is the core of it? What kind of a ‘god’ would leave man guessing, would say, ‘I’m not going to give you the answer, you’ll just have to have faith and if you do I’ll bless you for it’. What kind of a ‘god’ says you can’t ask me this or that question?

My proof is in the inner peace I have gained so recently that I never had before. That's enough proof for me.

That’s no proof at all it is easing you mind with your own illusions. Do it if you like but remember the horrors that have been perpetuated on faith and realize that you are a part of that when you don’t question every thing, when you act without reason. And when we act without reason we are in danger of bringing suffering to others. When we act without reason we make despots.

I wish you could feel it, I really do. I don't judge you because you choose not to. That's all it takes is making a choice. You can call it a "mask" for fear if you want. I prefer to consider it a cure.

A cure for what? We are afraid of death, we need something to ease that fear. Someone says there is this God who will save you from that, all you have to do is accept him and you will be fine.
Has anything changed? No we are just sticking our head in the sand, closing the door on reason. The ability God gave those of you who believe in God is to reason.

Can man find God without faith? I think he can. How many of you have tried?

A0, sorry for the thread drift, someone start another thread on faith and I’ll be happy to go into it.

[Robert]

I dont know who said this
Yes but where is the proof that your beliefs are valid? Faith? You have to ask then why you have faith. My belief is that faith is a mask for fear

I have to ask.... dont you have faith in your own judgement etc?

No, my judgements are based on reason as most judgements are.
My car stops on the road. What do I do, say I have faith it ran out of gas and go get a can of gas? No I look at the gas gauge. If it’s full I don’t waste time getting gas I look for another problem. I use reason.

Is every thing provable? Of course not but we can certainly form a hypothesis through reason.

[Chills]

Robert

You say you use reason. Interesting.

Personally I think there is a disconnect over semantics happening here.
Seems to me different people are using different words i.e.faith in different ways.
When this occurs I tend to suspect that people generally end up talking AT rather than TO others and fail to communicate successfully.
Communication has to be reciever oriented to be useful.

Perhaps a consensus on the meaning of the words may be helpful.

If you have the time and inclination chek out the definitions that lcb provided..I believe it was in the ..intel design =god thread.. yesterday.


Just some thoughts.

[pop pop]

Disconnect indeed. I agree.

Let me first define my terms: belief = belief in God; faith = certainty of the existence of God without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof.

Months ago when I first timidly ventured in here and then fled, one person said something that brought me back (after I went to the mountain for forty days, figuratively speaking of course). If she hadn't said what she did, likely I would not have returned.

Because I saw so many here get into such a feeding frenzy when a "believer" posted, I asked, "If you don't believe in any God or any higher power whatsoever, why do you give a damn if I do?". Anita's response was a bit longer, but it boiled down to understanding. To her way of thinking, questioning the validity, reality, logic, sanity, or provability of what I believe is not what was important, rather it was WHY I believe what I do.

I take no offense when people here question my sanity because I believe in God. I am secure enough in myself and my beliefs that their doubt, or maybe their absolute certainty, doesn't bother me. Likewise, the atheist's lack of belief in God does not bother me. I just don't understand it. Like Flynn said months ago about me, "You are an object of curiosity. Something to be studied."

[Chills]

Disconnect indeed. I agree.

Let me first define my terms: belief = belief in God; faith = certainty of the existence of God without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof.

Months ago when I first timidly ventured in here and then fled, one person said something that brought me back (after I went to the mountain for forty days, figuratively speaking of course). If she hadn't said what she did, likely I would not have returned.

Because I saw so many here get into such a feeding frenzy when a "believer" posted, I asked, "If you don't believe in any God or any higher power whatsoever, why do you give a damn if I do?". Anita's response was a bit longer, but it boiled down to understanding. To her way of thinking, questioning the validity, reality, logic, sanity, or provability of what I believe is not what was important, rather it was WHY I believe what I do.

I take no offense when people here question my sanity because I believe in God. I am secure enough in myself and my beliefs that their doubt, or maybe their absolute certainty, doesn't bother me. Likewise, the atheist's lack of belief in God does not bother me. I just don't understand it. Like Flynn said months ago about me, "You are an object of curiosity. Something to be studied."


POP--- correct me if I am wrong...
but I assuming, your defining your terms in the context of this thread or your own post.

BTW-- I have no problem with what people believe.
Speaking for myself.... I find it incredibly fascinating that there is such a rich diversity in beliefs and/or lack there of, within the human experience.

Again I think for people to discuss in any meaningful way ..there has to be some kind of consensus as to the definitions of terms used or at least as you have done an explaination of the terms..

For the most part I see most of the discussions here and else where..as lacking any logical continuity because of the failure to define things..

But hey that's just my take on things...

[Robert]

Let me first define my terms: belief = belief in God; faith = certainty of the existence of God without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof.

belief is fine that’s your specific belief. You believe in ‘god’.

Faith is defined by Webster as basically one of two definitions. A. My faith, as in Harry’s faith is Zoroastrianism or B. Acceptance without proof.

So you can’t come up with a new definition for ‘faith’. You can say, “My belief is that god exists” or my faith, Zoroastrianism, expresses the belief in God, which would be a religious persuasion.
You can’t say faith = a certainty in the existence of God. This would be the same as someone deciding to call a white fence blue and then being confused when others don’t understand what fence he is referring to when the fence looks white to them. We need a common ground for definitions or we will never understand each other.

[pop pop]

My how we can nit-pick. So be it ...

My previous statement/definition of one of my terms (faith):

...certainty of the existence of God without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof.

Your cited Webster's partial definition for faith: Acceptance without proof.

My now cited Dictionary.com partial definition for acceptance: n 1: the mental attitude that something is believable and should be accepted as true

ERGO, "certainty of the existence of God" is the something

AND

"without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof" satifies Webster's second requirement. THEREFORE, mine is not a new definition, simply a qualified one.

Nice try. :poke:

[Robert]

My how we can nit-pick. So be it ...

My previous statement/definition of one of my terms (faith):

...certainty of the existence of God without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof.

Your cited Webster's partial definition for faith: Acceptance without proof.

My now cited Dictionary.com partial definition for acceptance: n 1: the mental attitude that something is believable and should be accepted as true

Acceptance isn’t the key word. ‘Without proof’ is and Webster’s quoted primary, not ‘partial’, definition is:

“Firm belief in something for which there is no proof”. Acceptance was my abbreviation and you notice there were no quotation marks.

Faith can never be “certainty of the existence of God” regardless of your ‘acceptance’ of that premise. ‘Certainty’ is an aspect of facts and where there are facts we don’t have faith our ‘certainty’ is a product of reason and faith isn’t required.

ERGO, "certainty of the existence of God" is the something

Yes, but it is not faith and neither is acceptance ‘faith’. Do you honestly want to introduce a “partial definition” of acceptance as your defense for you definition of faith? What about my correlation to the fence? Faith has nothing to do with ‘god’ as you stated in your personal definition of faith


"without the need for empirical evidence or earthly proof" satifies Webster's second requirement. THEREFORE, mine is not a new definition, simply a qualified one.

Think about what you are saying. “Certainty of the existence of God”. Again, you can’t simply substitute ‘acceptance’ for faith.

It’s not nit picking. If we are going to communicate then lets communicate without introducing our own definitions and your definition of faith is wrong.

Lets be logical. I have been locked in a dark, sound proof room for two days but have faith that the day I’m released it won’t rain. Is there any foundation for that faith? No. Does it have anything to do with God? No.

[pop pop]

:rofl: