Did you hear about the agnostic dyslexic insomniac? He stayed awake at night wondering about whether there really is a Dog.
I think you give me far too much credit or control or whatever it is. I certainly don't intend to push buttons. I post my opinion in the way that I know how and I do so without attacking or making accusations, insults. I'm a guest. I know this. I respect the owner of this site and the people who are part of the community. That said, the reactions I was commenting on are not unique to this thread. I have seen and read that type of retort over and over again. The whole "sky fairies" or "magic man in the sky", calling people stupid, ignorant, clueless masses. For me, atheist is an example of onomatopoiea. It almost requires some kind of mocking commentary. Perhaps you haven't seen the atheist billboard campaign in action. Or the various lawsuits filed via the aclu. If they want to be left alone, then why the formal organizations or groups? There are plenty of them. I know the refrain is about separation of church and state and there are certainly some atheists who are honest in that intent, but there are plenty others whose sole focus is to convince people that God does not exist and they do so with contempt and condescension. I disagree on this point. That narrow theory is dogmatic and precisely why organized religion is not for me. We have free will, each of us and so individual interpretation is not so wrong IMO. There are certainly some basic principles that require no interpretation. The Commandments are pretty clear. As well as love your God with all your heart and love your neighbor as yourself. Within those simple encouragements are a lifetime of opportunities to figure out what is right and wrong.
Absolutely. I love my dog. I have no doubt that she expresses what I would consider happiness, sadness, I been badness, fear. Does she "love" me or is she just loyal? She's an animal. She does not have free will nor is she able to apply human concepts to words in the English language. This whole aspect of animals and their "feelings" is what turned me off to philosophy as a discipline.
Nazi. Do I understand you correctly? It sounds like you object to free speech and civil liberty if it applies to atheists. So what? Freedom of association is another right we all possess. The same can be said of religious people but on a vastly greater scale. I'm seeing a double standard here.
Goodwin baiter. No, I don't think you do. They are absolutely free to post as many billboards and file as many lawsuits as they want. I was simply giving examples of how atheists don't just want to be left alone. They openly and outwardly advocate and they use the court system in an aggressive and purposeful way. It certainly is. However, if one says "I vant to be alone" then BE Gloria Swanson and quit getting together to talk about what they don't believe exists. The fallacy is clear. If you don't believe in ghosts, then does it make sense to form or join a group with the express purpose of talking about that fact? What a waste of time. But feel free to do so. We disagree on intent and scale. Certainly there are likely more people who are "believers" than atheists. The percent of believers who use the fire and brimstone speech to convert people is not the most credible or successful. There are millions of folks who travel the world attempting to convert others to Christianity. They do so through the use of good works and charity. That doesn't seem contemptuous although it could be perceived as arrogant. And if a school, home, or well gets built, that's a good thing I think whether conversion happens or not. Compare.... and You think they are comparable in HOW they communicate their message?
Equating the ACLU with atheist activists seems absurd to me. You are generalizing quite a bit. There are as many types of atheist and agnostic as there are religious people. Most simply don't want religious beliefs foisted upon them. Some activists feel a need to fight what they perceive as discrimination. To each his own. Most women are not feminist activists, but some join together to protect and promote their principles. Most blacks are not civil rights activists, but some join together to protect and promote their principles. Non-religious people are no different. There are also millions of people who travel the world and try to convert people to Islam. They do so through good works and charity . . . and through terror, genocide, and ethnic cleansing. All in the name of God. Much like Christians did during the Crusades. You are trying to introduce a value judgement that does not really apply. Of course. You simply suggest that religious people expressing their beliefs are "good" but non-religious people are "bad".
I'm not equating. The ACLU is the vehicle. Atheist organizations use them because the ACLU is expert in using the court system to exacting change. Generalizations aren't necessarily wrong. However, there is a distinct difference in fighting for the acquisition of rights that do not exist and gathering together to discuss the non-existence of a being or thing. Rights can be acquired. Proving God's non-existence isn't going to happen. The Crusades are over. There is a new testament. No. The nativity is unaggressive and lacking in contempt.
But they are an inference by definition. They cannot apply to all. I've read this three times and I have no idea what you are trying to say. What "rights that don't exist"? Since when has gathering together been a problem? Proving Gods existence isn't going to happen either. is it not obvious that the religious and the non-religous are two sides of the same coin? Missing the point completely or deliberately evading it? You can't have missed that very religious people include some completely fanatical nut jobs--millions of them for thousands of years. What crusade, what jihad has been waged in the name of atheism? Likewise, the philosophical billboard is unaggressive and lacking in sentimentality.
Nor have I ever been accosted by a prosletyzing athiest. But they do exist. I remember Madeline Murray O'Hare was pretty public in her promotion of atheism. And there are others who file lawsuits, some with merit but mostly frivolous about things like the slogan "In God We Trust" being on our money. The only positive thing I can see about attending church would be for the camaraderie of good people. As long as they weren't the kind of people who wanted to dwell on religion after the service was over. Go drink some coffee and eat donuts and chat a little bit and then after the sermon talk about football or anything else and maybe share a good meal. When I'm channel surfing I almost always turn the channel quickly when I encounter a TV preacher but I've seen a few. Joel Osteen's message is pretty shallow but is always positive. If you lose your job its God's plan and you will get a better job. If your wife runs off with another man its Gods plan and you will meet someone better. If you are sick its God's plan and you will get better. Shallow but comforting in a way. Also some black preachers can be entertaining. Black people seem to have more fun in church and for the most part seem more spiritual than most white people. You, my friend, have eaten too much from the Tree of Knowledge. But religion aside the question is not whether you go to a Dante's Inferno style Hades or get fitted for some wings and a halo. The question is does some form of conscious awareness continue after death. Or is that it? The average life span is somewhere in the 70's. Most of us get somewhere from 60 to 85 or 90 years. Not even the blink of an eye in the eons of time. There are lots of stories of people having near death out of body experiences and seeing their dead loved ones. I hope its true. As far as some who have talked about panthiest beliefs that just sounds like some hocus pocus version of Athiesm Lite. When you are dead that's it according to both belief systems
Okay....perhaps it's a failure to communicate. For me it makes no common sense to gather in a group to discuss the non-existence of something. I can't think of any off-hand. I don't find that comparable to people who are gathering to obtain their civil rights. Why? Because I don't believe that atheists are really offended or having their rights impugned by seeing a large cross on top of a mountain or by seeing a nativity scene in a public park. It's my opinion that they do it to be obnoxious and gain attention. To me, they seem more interested in quelling conversation and limiting all rights than to simply be left alone, which was the original point of view that I replied to. No. Frankly there are too many topics being discussed. There is a belief in God, or not....a discussion of organized religion....a discussion of civil rights. I don't know anybody who introduces themselves in terms of their religiosity or lack thereof. A coin clearly has just two sides but I think there are various degrees of being "religious". I saw the point differently. I don't compare the Crusades with the ultra-conservative Christian movement today. Jihad is alive and well and pursued by more than just a few muslims. If atheists want to claim moral high ground because they haven't waged war or jihad, then great, they are welcome. What does that have to do with anything? We disagree. It's not philosophical IMO. It's passive aggressive, condescending, and smug.
