Okay, the answer to Fundamentalist Theocracy in the U.S is not Atheism!!!

[omega minimo]

It's Democracy.

[Selatius]

1. The bigger question is tolerance.

There is too little tolerance exhibited by the Christian right for anything else.

...including Atheism.

[omega minimo]

3. No, the question of Democracy is bigger than playing footsie

with religious Fundamentalists

[Erika]

9. The religious fundies want theocracy

not democracy.

[omega minimo]

10. Um-- did you read the OP?

:wow:

[Wonk]

16. Probably, and I think that's part of the failure to communicate going on.

:shrug:

[Selatius]

14. This is not "playing footsie" at all

People have died over religion, and it is a fundamental issue of tolerance more than anything else. Just because you have elections within a nation does not automatically follow that the nation is tolerant. The exact opposite could be true, especially in an environment of ignorance that fosters prejudice and fear and ultimately hate of all things different.

[Erika]

4. Agreed 100%

Why was atheism singled out? Most wars have been fought on some pretense of religion, and it continues.

[greyl]

2. Democracy and atheism go hand in hand. nt

[Erika]

5. Agreed again

Tnanks.

[omega minimo]

7. This Democracy guarantees freedom of religion

including no religion

[Selatius]

18. The government is atheistic by nature

It endorses no religion. The two are not mutually exclusive, and they never were.

[omega minimo]

20. What do you mean? "The two" what?

"The two are not mutually exclusive, and they never were."

The Constitution grants Freedom of Religion. "Endorsing no religion" in NOT = to "atheism."

[Selatius]

22. Atheism and the government are the two I was referring

The government is atheistic by nature.

The etymology of Atheism literally means godless if you go back to the Greeks. The government, as an institution, is godless.

And it should remain that way.

[omega minimo]

29. On its face, that is a dogmatic statement

"The government, as an institution, is godless."

[Selatius]

30. It's a statement of fact. What's dogmatic about it? n/t

[Jed Dilligan]

27. Wrong.

a- = lacking, the- = god, ism = doctrine.

The government must be atheistic. Even if its employees and constituents are not.

The day of a non-atheistic government is the end of America, and I'm afraid it has already happened.

[BestCenter]

45. There must be limits to its atheism.

Or you piss off the masses.

[Warren DeMontague]

48. Eh?

I'm interested in the details.

[greyl]

160. So? nt

[TallahasseeGrannie]

176. So CAN democracy and Christianity

[pitohui]

6. well you're technically incorrect

do you see why?

actually i guess you don't see why or you wouldn't have posted, sigh, okay, let's take it from the top

democracy is a "majority rules with some limited rights for minorities" type of deal

if you have large numbers of fundy whacks, out breeding the decent people and the people who are skeptical about the invisible cloud being, then "democracy" is just another way to let the whackjobs stomp on those of us with brains

people of critical intelligence will always be in the minority, democracy alone is not an answer because smart people will always be out numbered by the average and the stupid

you have to have social pressure where people are made to realize that worshipping some invisible person you never met is stupid and dumb and embarrassing

we do have a little social pressure like that, but not enough

sorry

a strong atheist movement is truly necessary or democracy can't work in the long term

[omega minimo]

26. You have just shown why this atheism trendiness seems off base

and the OP says Democracy-- not Atheism-- is the antidote to Fundamentalism.

"people of critical intelligence will always be in the minority, democracy alone is not an answer because smart people will always be out numbered by the average and the stupid"

That is absurd.

"you have to have social pressure where people are made to realize that worshipping some invisible person you never met is stupid and dumb and embarrassing"

So what? THAT'S WHAT YOU GET IN A DEMOCRACY THAT GRANTS FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SAYING ATHEISM IS THE ANSWER IS JUST AS "STUPID AND DUMB AND EMBARRASSING" AS WELL AS A BLOODY WASTE OF TIME!!!! Why not fight for DEMOCRACY instead of ANTI-GOD?

"we do have a little social pressure like that, but not enough sorry
a strong atheist movement is truly necessary or democracy can't work in the long term"

That reveals a total ignorance of what Democracy is and how it is intended to "work in the long term"

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

31. "atheism trendiness" ?

Atheism was around before theism, it just didn't need a name since it was the default position.


"Why not fight for DEMOCRACY instead of ANTI-GOD"

:eyes:

Oh brother.

That reveals a total ignorance of what atheism is.

You're begging the question, atheism does NOT mean "anti-god", that's maltheism.

A good indicator of tolerance is understanding the labels you feel you need to pin on others.

[omega minimo]

35. Why are people using "atheistic" when they mean "secular"?

Hi Beam, I agree with you and please don't diss me on misusing these labels-- the confused misuse of the labels is what I am commenting on.

People are equating atheism with governmental secularism and trying to counter religious fundamentalism with "the government is aetheistic" and THEY are the ones saying that means "no god."

That's not my "total ignorance of what atheism is."

"A good indicator of tolerance is understanding the labels you feel you need to pin on others"

I have no "need to pin labels on others." SOME of the people claiming these labels for themselves seem to misapply them frequently on DU-- and misuse them to smack down otherwise potentially interesting discussion. That is the "trendiness" I refer to-- not a knock at atheism or atheists.

It looks like we could all stand to learn more about what the terms really mean. If those who know better could correct the confused "atheists" in their misguided claims about the Founders and the government-- and if the persecution complex isn't too distracting-- some of us would love to hear more about this.

Why are the most interesting subjects on DU so balkanized?



Folks saying, "The government is atheistic by nature" are incorrect. Secular government claims no "ism," including atheism. Secular govenment provides freedom of religion, including atheism.

"The government, as an institution, is godless" is correct in a secular sense, but not if people use sloppy logic to claim that "godless" (as in no endorsement of a particular deity) = "anti-god" (as in equating secular government with a position of total godlessness).

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

38. I don't need to learn anything about the definition of atheism, you do.

Anyone who insists on defining it as "anti-god" has no business correcting "confused atheists" or anyone else.

One more time:

Atheism does NOT mean "anti-god", it's not anti-anything. You're confusing it with maltheism.

I hate to use a match on the strawman in your argument, but secularism DOES mean total godlessness. Gods and/or religious superstitions should be kept OUT of government, period.

Dominionists and other believers in christian supremacy frequently use the term "atheistic government" to frighten christians into voting for conservatives. Too bad so many confused liberals are also falling for it.


We didn't let right wing pundits redefine feminism, so why should I let them redefine my atheism?

Please stop feeding the Coulters and O'Reilly's.

If you have a problem with a particular atheist, kindly take it up with them, because I'm sick of these mini-diatribes and canned lectures that are nothing but poorly disguised attempts to vilify and broad brush the rest of us.

[omega minimo]

40. I am not arguing with you and you could not be more wrong

God Dammit :evilgrin:

"Anyone who insists on defining it as "anti-god" has no business correcting "confused atheists" or anyone else."

Please reread my post with an open mind. You are still mistaken about who's saying what. I clarified that I am referring to those who consider atheism "anti-god" -- not me! I'll only "insist" that you quit accusing me of that.

"If you have a problem with a particular atheist, kindly take it up with them, because I'm sick of these mini-diatribes and canned lectures that are nothing but poorly disguised attempts to vilify and broad brush the rest of us."

This is also totally uncalled for. I have no "problem with a particular atheist" or "poorly disguised attempts to vilify and broad brush the rest of us." That is utter bullshit. I don't have a dog in this fight.

All I'm proposing is the disctinction b/w a secular government that is (theoretically) inclusive of various (or none) belief systems with no state religion and (IMHO erroneous) equation of freedom of religion with atheism.

Please reread my peaceful post and/or stop hitting me with verbal 2x4s :hi:

[beam me up scottie]

51. Why do some liberals go into convulsions whenever the A word is used?

Your op is a strawman. Atheists do NOT claim that atheism is the answer to "Fundamentalist Theocracy" in this country.

And I did read your posts, I'm addressing these in particular:


"So what? THAT'S WHAT YOU GET IN A DEMOCRACY THAT GRANTS FREEDOM OF RELIGION AND SAYING ATHEISM IS THE ANSWER IS JUST AS "STUPID AND DUMB AND EMBARRASSING" AS WELL AS A BLOODY WASTE OF TIME!!!! Why not fight for DEMOCRACY instead of ANTI-GOD?"

Exactly who is fighting for "ANTI-GOD" and not democracy? And who says atheism is the answer? If you're referring to one poster's opinion, why are you including the rest of us in your rant?



"Are atheists mainly fighting against the notion of the old white-bearded sky god?"

Again, atheists aren't fighting AGAINST anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. That's it. Other than that, we are as different from each other as believers are.




"We could face down fundamentalism with Democracy and NOT equate Democracy with "Atheism" as if that is the natural opposite of religious oppression."

Another strawman. Atheists aren't equating democracy with atheism, nor do we believe it's the "natural opposite of religious oppression".




"You're atheist AND agnostic!! Now I'm REALLY confused. I need someone to explain the difference to me, but someone who is BOTH?"

So you admit you know nothing about atheism?

Then why are you creating strawmen arguments and preaching the gospel of democracy to DU atheists instead of educating yourself?

We are constantly being told WHAT we believe by theists on DU (and elsewhere) by believers who know nothing about us and are too arrogant to ask.




A little light reading if you are interested in definitions that aren't tainted by prejudice:

Atheism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Atheism, in its broadest sense, is a lack of belief in a deity or deities. The opposite of theism, this broad definition encompasses both people who assert that there are no gods and those who make no claim about whether gods exist or not. Narrower definitions of atheism typically include only those who assert the nonexistence of gods, excluding non-believing agnostics and other non-theists.

Although some atheists tend toward skepticism, and toward secular philosophies such as humanism, naturalism and materialism, there is no single system of philosophy which all atheists share, nor does atheism have institutionalized rituals or behaviors.Weak and strong atheism

Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the lack of belief in the existence of deities. It does not imply strong atheism, which asserts that no deities exist. Weak atheists generally find a lack or absence of evidence justifying belief in any deity. They occupy a range of positions that entail non-belief, disbelief, and doubt of theism.

Strong or positive atheism is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, consciously rejecting theism. A strong atheist may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common.<9>


Ignosticism

Ignosticism considers the question of the existence of gods meaningless; it sees no verifiable or testable consequences to the question (see scientific method). The term was coined by Rabbi Sherwin Wine, founder of the Society for Humanistic Judaism. Often considered synonymous with theological noncognitivism, ignosticism is popular among logical positivists such as Rudolph Carnap and A. J. Ayer, who hold that talk of gods is literally nonsense. According to ignostics, 'Does God exist?' has the same logical status as 'What color is Saturday?' -- neither has a meaningful answer.

Ignosticism is distinct from apatheism. While ignostics hold questions and discussions of whether deities exist to be meaningless, apatheists hold that even a hypothetical answer to such questions would be completely irrelevant to human existence.

Many sects of Buddhism, especially Theravada, are ignostic. They believe the Buddha ignored the question of the existence of gods as being unimportant to the pursuit of Enlightenment.


Agnosticism

Agnosticism is the philosophical view that the existence or nonexistence of the supernatural or the divine is inherently unknowable. Therefore, the existence of such powers as deities in our universe is irrelevant to the human condition. The term was coined by Thomas Henry Huxley in 1869, and is also used to describe those who are unconvinced of or uncommited to the existence of deities or the truth of religion in general.

The word agnostic comes from the Greek a (without) and gnosis (knowledge). Agnosticism is not to be confused with a view specifically opposing the doctrine of gnosis and Gnosticism—these are religious concepts that are not related to agnosticism.


Antitheism

Antitheism (Anti-theism) typically refers to a direct opposition to theism. However, antitheism is also sometimes used, particularly in religious contexts, to refer to opposition to god or divine things, rather than to the belief in god. Using the latter definition, it may be possible — or perhaps even necessary — to be an antitheist without being an atheist or nontheist.

Antitheists may believe that theism is harmful to human progression, or may simply be atheists who have little tolerance for views they perceive as irrational. Strong atheists who are not antitheists may believe positively that deities do not exist, but not believe that theism is directly harmful or necessitates opposition


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

Types of Atheistic Belief
uberkuh @ November 30, 2005 - 6:32pm

Atheism is popularly polarized as the opposite of belief in a certain deity. This vast oversimplification arises from the presupposition that atheism exists in one easily recognizable form for one obvious reason, namely, that one is stubbornly and of free will unwilling to believe in that deity's existence. In truth, atheism is a multifaceted term encompassing a range of meanings, some of which will be carefully explored in the following analysis.

To begin to uncover atheism's semantic richness, one need only ask why atheists exist. Many reasons can then be found that collectively paint a much less abstract picture of what atheism means to those who identify with it. Until one has attempted to understand why atheists are who they are, one's biases and arguments for and against atheism must be said to be superficial and trite, and should not be taken seriously.

Atheism can be divided into a number of hierarchical types. At the highest level of analysis, atheism can be divided into 'disbelief' (D) and 'belief' (B). 'Disbelief' can then be divided into 'aware' (Da) and 'unaware' (Du) types, while 'belief' can be divided into several types, to be discussed. I will explain each of these types and provide examples during the lowest level of analysis to clarify how atheists identify with them.

First, consider atheism as type D. D represents the absence of belief in one or more deities. This is a relatively passive type as opposed to B, which is relatively active. B contrasts with D as a belief in the nonexistence of one or more deities. As mentioned, D can be divided into Da and Du types. Da can be further divided into 'unmotivated' (Da1), 'incapable' (Da2), and 'unconsidered' (Da3) types, while Du can be further divided into 'able' (Du1) and 'unable' (Du2) types. Below are descriptions with examples for each D type.

http://uberkuh.com/node/341

[omega minimo]

58. "Why do some atheists get so defensive and hostile about godlessness?

First, Dear Beam, I can't believe you are doing this to me. And as you accuse me of using a strawman or overgeneralizations, you are doing the same-- lumping me in with all the people that have insulted or pissed off athiests in the past.

The OP was a response to a particular thread which I read because I was interested in the subject, where there were several posters using the equation that I am calling out. I commented on a particular statement used commonly, incorrectly and loosely on DU. It confuses the issue. I've explained several times that I am not against atheists or atheism. The hostility that you use with such confidence, especially against one of your friends, shows just how bitter the perceived antagonism in the habiltual arguments is. Clarifying some of of the sloppy language and concepts might help everyone concerned.

For the record, I have already stated that I don't have a stake in the battle and am curious about the ambiguity of atheism and agnosticism.

"You're atheist AND agnostic!! Now I'm REALLY confused. I need someone to explain the difference to me, but someone who is BOTH?"

That comment was a bit of humor expressed to someone who is willing to discuss this without the anger. And to point out (as several did here) that those claiming that the US government is "atheistic" probably meant "secular."

All of the comments that you have taken out of context may appear as if make some claims about "atheist" this and "atheist" that. Not the case. I recall using SOME (remember that one?) to clarify where needed-- and in context, my questions are fair in the flow of discussion.

Like this one:

"Are atheists mainly fighting against the notion of the old white-bearded sky god?"

"Again, atheists aren't fighting AGAINST anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. That's it. Other than that, we are as different from each other as believers are."

The "lack of belief in dieties" implies a certainty that deities do not exist. Many folks who dispute the existence of god seem to be reacting to the presence of a particular image of god. How can anyone be SO SURE there is no god or what god it?

I will stay out of this ugly cockfight and chalk up another subject DU can't really discuss because of all the antagonism.

[beam me up scottie]

60. You still don't get it, do you?

I provided you with links and information and you still insist that atheists claim there is no god.

We constantly find ourselves having to explain, defend and justify our atheism thanks to the disinfo of intolerant and uninformed theists in this forum and elsewhere, and you have the gall to ask why we're defensive about it?


I rage against the spin, O, because just like militant feminism is a reaction to militant misogyny, militant atheism is a reaction to militant theism.

[omega minimo]

62. As you know, hostility prevents people from hearing each other

The links I will read later and thank you-- as I said, I won't be revisiting another pointlessly balkanized subject for DU to hatchet each other over. First I addressed your huffiness.

I might have thought I had enough credibility with you to not lift your leg and piss on everything I say.

"Again, atheists aren't fighting AGAINST anything. Atheism is the lack of belief in deities. That's it. Other than that, we are as different from each other as believers are."

You said, "Atheism is the lack of belief in deities."

Then after insulting me about whatever I said (again) to set you off (godlessness?), you said "you still insist that atheists claim there is no god."

Guess this shows just how messy the terms on a board can get-- all the more reason to get off the high horse.


btw way, I am not a deist-- and although SOME here may make assumptions about what I believe, nothing I have said or asked about atheism reveals that.



I don't know what particular line you're pissed off about now. Don't tell me, please. I used "implies" below. That's fair.

"The "lack of belief in dieties" implies a certainty that deities do not exist. Many folks who dispute the existence of god seem to be reacting to the presence of a particular image of god. How can anyone be SO SURE there is no god or what god is?

"I will stay out of this ugly cockfight and chalk up another subject DU can't really discuss because of all the antagonism."

[beam me up scottie]

66. And I thought I had enough credibility with you to not be mischaracterized

Atheists are fighting the same fight as feminists and GLBT people, except it's perfectly acceptable to malign the first group on DU.

When we try to inform, we get told we're too stupid to know how define our own atheism.

When we protest because we have to constantly hear the ACLU, Micheal Newdow and other vocal atheists being tarred and feathered by their fellow "liberals" as well as the talibornagains, we're asked why we're so angry and defensive.

I'm a vocal feminist, liberal and atheist. I refuse to allow anyone to redefine any of those terms to suit their own agenda, regardless of whose side they claim to be on.

I respect you enough to know that you aren't intolerant of atheists and you wouldn't advocate such intolerance. But you must understand why we have to be militant, O.

Just look at where shutting up and sitting in the back of the bus did for us.

Peace

[omega minimo]

77. Accusing me of mischaracterizing you is another insult

You have projected on me-- who you know as an individual-- all your venom from other skirmishes on this subject. Unecessarily.

Another balkanized topic for DU to eat our own over. :eyes:

[beam me up scottie]

79. Did you or did you not try to redefine my atheism?

You didn't even read the information I posted, O.

You've gone from ignorance to willful ignorance by refusing to learn about the labels you're attaching to people.

[omega minimo]

116. Why havent' you apologized yet?

Swear to God, Beam, you are so far out of line it ain't even funny. Does this antagonistic assualt usually work for you?

No I did not-- "Did you or did you not try to redefine my atheism?" This seems completely unhinged, at this point. Are you reading anything I say or is this a stock all-occasion reactionary position?

I told you I was responding to your unrepetant huffiness and WOULD read your quotes when I had time. I came back to do that tonight and find you have heaped on more abuse:

"You didn't even read the information I posted, O. You've gone from ignorance to willful ignorance by refusing to learn about the labels you're attaching to people."

:wtf:
 
So despite that fact of your _______ behavior, here's what I learned from the information you provided:

"Weak atheism, or negative atheism, is the lack of belief in the existence of deities. It does not imply strong atheism, which asserts that no deities exist. Weak atheists generally find a lack or absence of evidence justifying belief in any deity. They occupy a range of positions that entail non-belief, disbelief, and doubt of theism."

"Strong or positive atheism is the philosophical position that no deity exists. It is a form of explicit atheism, consciously rejecting theism. A strong atheist may go further and claim that the existence of certain deities is logically impossible.

"While the terms weak and strong are relatively recent, the concepts they represent have been in use for some time. In earlier philosophical publications, the terms negative atheism and positive atheism were more common."

Well blimey, lookee there. There are actually many STRAINS of atheism and they all have different TERMS which proves that using ATHEISM only, without the specific terms defining the various minute details of non/dis/partial/anti/belief, is SURE to cause the semantic problems that I observed, and OP'd about, and you are perpetuating with pointless hostility.

Gee Whiz-- you mean there ARE terms that specfiy the varions positions of atheism's diversity? Golly, wonder why people don't bother to throw a "strong" or "weak" in front of the A-word once in a while.

Unless it's more fun to just spit and piss and fight about it.

You do not want to get in front of that 2X4.

Peace.

Out.

[beam me up scottie]

117. I have to nothing to apologize for.

You created a straw man argument and then dismissed the atheists who tried to explain why your definition of us was flawed.

Just like the misogynists you love to complain about.

Get back to me when you recognize the hypocrisy in your own mirror.

[omega minimo]

127. Your faith in your (insert specific type of) aetheism is strong

and anger prevents you from reading calmly and trying to comprehend words as they are intended, not as you insist on misinterpreting (with cookie cutter attitude from previous arguments).

That faith and that anger allows you to treat your friends like assholes.

:hi:

[beam me up scottie]

128. What friend?

Atheism does not require faith, remember?

Of course you do. You're using atheism to take a potshot at me since you've discovered that I resent being told that I'm too stupid to understand my own atheism and that I believe something I don't.

"Friends" who do that aren't friends, they're assholes.

[omega minimo]

135. Your faithful friend

:evilgrin: :rofl:

"Atheism does not require faith, remember? Of course you do. You're using atheism to take a potshot at me....."

Tole ya ya din't wanna git in frunna that 2x4 :rofl:

:wow: Since you started in --and continued to be --so damn nasty, yeah i thot I'd give you a little zinger............. B-)


Here's the thing, Beam. I am openminded. I am also a fairly clear writer. You know from that other subject you referred to that I will fastly refuse to be bullied into saying that I said something that I didn't. This whole (pointless?) thread was about clarifying terms that are used in confused ways.

If there is so much anger and mistrust on the part of those who feel already persecuted (and assume my comments are more of the same), they're not gonna hear what's being said. That mote in your eye and chip on your shoulder makes you seem to be the ahole here.

"...you've discovered that I resent being told that I'm too stupid to understand my own atheism and that I believe something I don't. "

That is so ridiculous and you just can't back up and look at whether of not I actually did what you accuse (I didn't)

You didn't acknowledge that the info you provided proves the point that "atheism" has many strains and just throwing the plain word up on a forum allows everyone to make their own (informed or not) assumptions about what's being said and leads to this unecessary antagonism and imaginary persecution. Talking about "atheism" without any of those qualifiers (the second reading had even more hair-splitting variations on the theme) and then stridently insisting that all the shades of grey be automatically acknowledged is unrealistic.

How many times have I said that I don't have a dog in this fight, I have no "attitude" about atheists or atheism and I don't need another subject on DU that's so balkanized discussion is impossible. That's disappointing-- seems to happen to the most interesting topics.......... but when I see you again, I am your friend, whether you BELIEVE it or not.

:evilgrin:

[beam me up scottie]

139. Right. Your claim that words do matter doesn't include the word "atheism".

Spare me.

You've frequently gone on extended diatribes about how language does matter (and I've supported you every time) and yet you throw it all out the window when it comes to defining atheism and atheists.

Melinda Barton did the same thing a little while ago.

She couldn't figure out why atheists resented her straw man and insults either.

[omega minimo]

142. Dear you

haven't comprehended a word I said. "...yet you throw it all out the window when it comes to defining atheism and atheists." Given what I posted last, that doesn't even make sense. I picked up from your reading that being more specific about the various forms of atheism might help discussion. And cause less "angry whackjob" behavior (do people really call you that? :wow: )

Thanks for the info.

[beam me up scottie]

143. O, I don't want to fight with you, I like you.

But your comments about atheists aren't confined to this thread, you've implied that atheism is a religion before and I let it go.

But when someone posts a thread in this forum that encourages and invites DU's atheist bashers to insult us, I can't.

There is obviously a lot of history here, and you can't possibly be expected to understand it, but I'm not the only atheist to take issue with your premise.

[omega minimo]

144. Let's kiss and make up

"But your comments about atheists aren't confined to this thread, you've implied that atheism is a religion before and I let it go."

Did I? Don't think so. I may have made tongue in cheek comments in passing but I don't claim opinions about atheism b/c I don't know enough about it. But I do know that saying this government is "aethistic" is incorrect and I reacted to that.......

"But when someone posts a thread in this forum that encourages and invites DU's atheist bashers to insult us..."

....by OPing in GD, not this forum-- it was moved. No invitation to bashers was ever intended. Sorry.

"There is obviously a lot of history here, and you can't possibly be expected to understand it, but I'm not the only atheist to take issue with your premise."

The premise? I'm sorry, BMUS, the premise was that a secular government is not an "atheist" government. I apologize to you and those who took issue and to you for feeling insulted. The posts and thread that I reacted to may have been uninformed (oh yeah-- that was the point) and that was not an invite to bash or call atheists "stupid."


The tongue in cheek comment, the only one I recall making, is a little humor...... I'll spare you........ based on the notion that there is an -ism for something that is an absence (if I may put it like that). You and Zhade have provided clues to a whole realm of inquiry and thought....... that may be similar at points to my own............ that I don't call anything at all.


Is there a name for that? :evilgrin: :hug:

[beam me up scottie]

145. I am sorry, O.

This is such a touchy subject in R/T, I was surprised that you would post it here. I didn't realize it was moved from GD.

After the raw story disaster, which left me shocked and hurt by the words of so many people I liked and respected, I've been jumping at shadows on DU.

I should have asked you for clarification regardless.

Please forgive me.

:)

[omega minimo]

146. No worries, Beam

:hi:

There's so many vs.'s here..... seems a hazard of the internets.

[beam me up scottie]

150. Thanks, O.

:hug:

But I think even you won't be able to forgive me for http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2159426&mesg_id=2159426">this.

Bad BMUS! :spank:

[omega minimo]

151. Further proof that public education is TOTALLY inadequate!

People need to come up with better ideas, FAST :eyes:

[Zhade]

115. "implies a certainty that deities do not exist"

You could not be more wrong. Atheists (excepting 'strong' atheists who assert there are no gods) do not believe that.

I do not believe that. I am an agnostic atheist, in that I don't have knowledge of gods (due to the lack of evidence for them) and thus do not believe in them...the same way I do not believe in unicorns.

Until you understand the difference between "there are no gods" (an assertion regarding the existence of gods) and "I don't believe in gods" (an assertion regarding an atheist's internal thoughts, which you don't know), you will not understand the self-defensive 'antagonism'.

The two are diametrically opposed, and most atheists state the latter, which serves only to explain our view on the matter: we don't believe. That's it. It is NOT a statement that we believe there are none. We can't know there are none, since we don't know all knowledge in the universe.

But until someone produces evidence that isn't subjective and usually internal, I don't believe in gods any more than I believe in Martians.

[beam me up scottie]

118. I've explained that several times. She obviously doesn't care, Zhade.

When we ask for the same respect given to believers, we're called angry whackjobs by our fellow "liberals".

[omega minimo]

141. Yes, thank you Zhade, we've learned here that

it might help discussion if "strong atheist" or "agnostic atheist" or any other "atheist" from the menu were used-- rather than generic atheist.....

from 135. 

"the info you provided proves the point that "atheism" has many strains and just throwing the plain word up on a forum allows everyone to make their own (informed or not) assumptions about what's being said and leads to this unecessary antagonism and imaginary persecution. Talking about "atheism" without any of those qualifiers (the second reading had even more hair-splitting variations on the theme) and then stridently insisting that all the shades of grey be automatically acknowledged is unrealistic."

Thank you also for sharing some more of the subtleties of the whole realm of atheism.

"Until you understand the difference between "there are no gods" (an assertion regarding the existence of gods) and "I don't believe in gods" (an assertion regarding an atheist's internal thoughts, which you don't know)... we don't believe. That's it. It is NOT a statement that we believe there are none. We can't know there are none, since we don't know all knowledge in the universe."

Ya know, that sounds a lot like openminded people who don't need any "-ism" at all. :hi:





 

[Zhade]

114. I get what you mean regarding secular - most believers here...

...are secular (they support the 1st Amendment en toto and are for the separation of church and state) - but atheism isn't a religion. It's the lack thereof.

[Zhade]

113. Atheism isn't "anti-gods". What a silly statement!

How, exactly, can one be anti-things-they-don't-believe-in?

Are you anti-Unicorn?

(I do disagree with the above poster's desire to make believers feel stupid, but you're not helping your argument with such remarks as above.)

[TallahasseeGrannie]

177. So a week later I dredge this up and ask...

are atheists (or some) anti belief in God?

[Leopolds Ghost]

53. You are advocating Platonic Republicanism.

Ironically, after Katrina you suggested that large swaths of New Orleans will not be redeveloped because they are floodplain, regardless of the property rights of the (what you are now labelling) "ignorant religious people" who used to live there. If you still believe that, fair enough. But it makes me question the contention that atheism is inherently progressive.

A prominent environmentalist who lives up the street from me, an otherwise great guy who wrote a book predicting the disaster, would agree with the notion of ignoring the property rights of the ignorant people who, blinded by their superstitious notions, chose to live on a floodplain.

Thus proving that enlightened meritocracy by atheists and Plato's "philosophers" (technocrats) is not all it's cut out to be.

That's why I call myself a "radical Christian" (http://jesusradicals.com)
since I regularly encounter atheists on the left who detest notions
of "radical" anything, especially social justice (chiefly because it
would affect their comfort level), and my affluent, non-religious
neighbors have just as much contempt for the working class masses
as anyone else in the upper middle class. In other words, they are
social libertarians, not leftists.

Why put them in charge? They are no more progressive than the average
liberal Christian (who outnumber fundamentalists, BTW, so your premise
is incorrect.)

Thus leading me to agree
with Michael Lind and Thomas Frank that the problem is class,
not religion. Do you want two parties of the overclass?
That is what you will get with one fascist (allegedly "fundamentalist")
party and one avowedly atheist party.

Religious radicals on the LEFT instituted Separation of Church and
State because it was part of their religious and political beliefs,
after centuries of persecution for their religious beliefs.

[beam me up scottie]

57. Gee what a shock. A "radical christian" who's intolerant of atheists.

since I regularly encounter atheists on the left who detest notions
of "radical" anything, especially social justice (chiefly because it
would affect their comfort level), and my affluent, non-religious
neighbors have just as much contempt for the working class masses
as anyone else in the upper middle class. In other words, they are
social libertarians, not leftists.

Radical christians need to redefine words and malign people who disagree with them.




Sorry about that No True Christian fallacy thing you've going on, but they ARE christians, not atheists.

[Leopolds Ghost]

63. I am intolerant of intolerance expressed by the constant posts on GD

Insulting religion, as in the logical fallacy you are committing here

(Argumentum Ad Hitlerum; e.g. "Say what you will, Hitler was a Christian, therefore your arguments have no worth and furthermore I am insulting you and implying that your beliefs are intolerable by association"; to wit, intolerance.)

Ironically, every time I post a message politely asking why anti-religion posts on GD (of the "Fat Republican Women joke" variety)
are not locked or banished to the Religion forum the way posts
defending LIBERAL CHRISTIANS are banished to the Religion forum
(never mind the fact that if this post had taken the other side
of the issue and said "The Answer To Fundamentalist Theocracy is Atheism" it would still be on GD") The thread itself gets locked
or... you guessed it... banished to the religion forum.

Moreover, almost nobody but atheists on DU reply to threads having anything to do with Christianity, radical or otherwise, they are
invariably insulting, and yet they are never alerted or banned for
insulting us, perhaps because those of us who are religious are
unwilling or afraid to do so. (and any self-identified
radical, understands to mean left of the Democrats on many issues
-- fascists DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS RADICAL.)

Finally, there is the irony that if there are this many hostile
and defensive atheists (or agnostics or whatever they identify
themselves -- the common thread is hostility towards religion in
the public realm, or indeed, anywhere outside of personal life,
including as a justification for social justice efforts that were
originated by the religious left) yet they constantly wonder why
people in "the rest of the party" do not share our understanding
of what is wrong with the country, and conclude that the problem
is they do not share your values when it comes to religion or
lack thereof. DU is at risk of becoming a haven for "values voters"
who have a litmus test for participation in the new Democratic party
and are quite willing to insult people who do not share their
faith in science, the Tao, the nonexistence of divine beings, etc.

[beam me up scottie]

70. Atheists "are never alerted or banned for insulting us" ? ROFLMAOAIPIMP!

:rofl:

You're a scream!

Insulting religion, as in the logical fallacy you are committing here

(Argumentum Ad Hitlerum; e.g. "Say what you will, Hitler was a Christian, therefore your arguments have no worth and furthermore I am insulting you and implying that your beliefs are intolerable by association"; to wit, intolerance.)

So now you're redefining fallacies? I guess I shouldn't be surprised, after all, it does go hand in hand with the false accusations. Tsk tsk tsk, inferring that I'm insulting you with nothing to back up your accusation, your god must be so proud.

You are right about one thing, though, I am intolerant of intolerant beliefs, but don't take it personally, I feel the same way about GW's intolerant beliefs as well.

Ironically, every time I post a message politely asking why anti-religion posts on GD (of the "Fat Republican Women joke" variety)
are not locked or banished to the Religion forum the way posts
defending LIBERAL CHRISTIANS are banished to the Religion forum
(never mind the fact that if this post had taken the other side
of the issue and said "The Answer To Fundamentalist Theocracy is Atheism" it would still be on GD") The thread itself gets locked
or... you guessed it... banished to the religion forum.

Oh those poor things. Christians are just so oppressed on DU, and admin and the mods absolutely refuse to do anything about it?
I'm crying just thinking about it.
And the persecution christians face daily in this country, it just breaks my cold little atheist heart.
:nopity:

Moreover, almost nobody but atheists on DU reply to threads having anything to do with Christianity, radical or otherwise, they are
invariably insulting, and yet they are never alerted or banned for
insulting us, perhaps because those of us who are religious are
unwilling or afraid to do so. (and any self-identified
radical, understands to mean left of the Democrats on many issues
-- fascists DO NOT IDENTIFY THEMSELVES AS RADICAL.)

"and yet they are never alerted or banned for
insulting us, perhaps because those of us who are religious are
unwilling or afraid to do so."
:spray:
That is the second funniest thing I've ever read in here!

Goodness gracious, if it's so unbearable in here, you really should do something about it, alert on our posts, email skinner, picket, boycott pink unicorns, send out mass mailings about the EAC, whatever is necessary. Dear me, the perpetrators of such horrid persecution shouldn't go unpunished.

And I know all about radical christians, LGP, ;) I work and live with them, why, we're practically infested!
I call them fundamentalists, dominionists, the Amerikkkan Taliban, etc. I posted pictures of some of them in my last post.

Finally, there is the irony that if there are this many hostile
and defensive atheists (or agnostics or whatever they identify
themselves -- the common thread is hostility towards religion in
the public realm, or indeed, anywhere outside of personal life,
including as a justification for social justice efforts that were
originated by the religious left) yet they constantly wonder why
people in "the rest of the party" do not share our understanding
of what is wrong with the country, and conclude that the problem
is they do not share your values when it comes to religion or
lack thereof. DU is at risk of becoming a haven for "values voters"
who have a litmus test for participation in the new Democratic party
and are quite willing to insult people who do not share their
faith in science, the Tao, the nonexistence of divine beings, etc.

My, how christian of you to dismiss the concerns of non-believers.

And how hypocritical of you to do so while complaining about the alleged insults you've been subjected to.

[Leopolds Ghost]

81. I'm sorry you feel that way. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

64. By the way, you should really address my point about the Plato's Republic

theory that atheists are a tiny minority who therefore have a duty to save every other tiny minority in religious thought (there are many) from ourselves, simply because some religions have more in common with each other than they do with your beliefs.

Other athiests, such as a few otherwise upstanding gentlemen and women in my (extremely "progressive") hometown, take it a step further. Religious, working class types are basically invisible to them. One candidate for mayor even asked whether there wasn't a way to get rid of "all the churches taking up space in our town" since most of their members were from out of town. Naturally he preferred to replace them with luxury housing. That is what the secular elite seem to appreciate -- not schools or churches. Where is this radical (in the good sense) community of atheists you speak of? They are every bit as outnumbered as radical (in the good sense) christians.

The reason? Human nature. People vote their pocketbooks. Working Class people, who are largely religious in this country, take social justice alot more seriously than the largely affluent people who participate in political activism and the political process. In countries where the populace has been turned off traditional religion (largely because of the murderous policies of the state-sponsored European church) they tend to put their faith in other things to protect them, such as the State.

[beam me up scottie]

73. I don't discuss my atheism with intolerant DUers, coworkers or relatives

I find it an exercise in futility. Banging my head against a brick wall does the job quicker and it's less painful.

[Random_Australian]

174. Why on earth would dear Bmus have any reason to address the 'points'

of what you say?

Do I discuss matters of faith with people who say muslims are goats? No, I don't.

See! Open your eyes to what you said about people!

[Trajan]

8. As usual ....

A completely fallacious non sequitur ....

I am not surprised ....

[omega minimo]

13. As usual

you are responsible for your lack of comprehension
:hi:

[Trajan]

21. The solution to car accidents is ....

Fried Chicken ! ...

-----------

R e l e v e n c e . . F a l l a c y . . . .

[greyl]

28. You've proven that you comprehend the OP just fine. ;) nt

[Warren DeMontague]

11. For a lot of us, it is.

Maybe it's not YOUR answer- but, then, if people could leave their own personal belief systems in their own heads and not try to use government to impose them on their neighbors (not something I see atheists engaging in on a widespread basis) then we wouldn't have the problem of creeping Fundamentalist Theocracy.

So, yes, Atheism IS the answer. As is Diversity. As is Democracy. As is free thought. As is science. As is representation. As is Gay Rights. As is Tolerance.

[omega minimo]

17. Thank you for that but Atheism tilting at the windmill of Fundamentalism

seems misguided. It is becoming this either/or black/white monster-- at least as played out on DU-- that misses the mark.



We could face down fundamentalism with Democracy and NOT equate Democracy with "Atheism" as if that is the natural opposite of religious oppression.

Right?

[Selatius]

19. There is no answer to religious fundamentalism except Atheism in one...

very special arena: The arena of government.

The government is atheistic by nature precisely because many original supporters of the Constitution could not agree as to which religion should be endorsed. The best avenue was no God in the Constitution. In other words, Atheism.

Outside of the government, things are different, but with respect to the government itself, it should remain atheistic.

[Warren DeMontague]

24. The word "secular" works better, I think.

And yes, the Government should favor no gods, deities, or religions.

[Leopolds Ghost]

55. Actually, it's not because they couldn't agree on which religion

It was because most of them were Deists, and most of their constituents on the front lines were adherents of various persecuted religious sects which had a RELIGIOUS OPPOSITION to state religion.

For the same reason, it was seriously considered to make German or Greek the official language, not because they couldn't decide whether to speak English but to prove a point.

Both the Deists and the persecuted religious sects had -- AS PART OF THEIR ABSOLUTIST, THEIST BELIEF SYSTEM -- they believed in a Higher Power -- atheists like Thomas Paine were equally absolutist, of course, none of them believed in that "your truths are just as valid as mine" stuff -- but they all agreed that the government was not, and should not be a religious institution and therefore the establishment, OR DISCOURAGEMENT of religious belief (which is what avowedly secular government is, e.g. banning headdresses in French public schools) had no place in government. In other words it was a philosophical and religious belief in the separation of church and state.

Some of the biggest promoters of separation of church and state were:

The Deists (as mentioned, they dominated political thinking among the small elite who drove the creation of the Republic)

The Quakers (religious belief in separation of church and state)

Jewish people (most in Rhode Island)

English Catholics (persecuted back home; also the Jesuits had morphed into a semi-liberal institution)

Episcopalians (least interested in separation of church and state, even today they consider their cathedral the NATIONAL Cathedral and are the religion of the elite -- but they split off from the Angligan church of necessity -- since we were at war with England -- and were in no position to argue)

Congregationalists (former Puritans, who retained a strong memory of persecution but nevertheless had no problem persecuting everyone else. After the first Great Awakening the Puritan movement split apart in New England, in part due to an influx of immigrants (the legendary Boston Mob of Sam Adams and Thomas Paine) and reverted to its present-day ultra-liberal stance on issues.

The Baptists (originally anarchists, their religious belief in separation of church and state stemmed from their left-libertarianism)

[Warren DeMontague]

23. Except, for many of us, it IS the natural opposite.

And our public, unapologetic acknowledgement that we DON'T believe in "god" is a healthy, good thing.

I think you're grossly oversimplifying the situation. There are numerous fronts in this battle.

I think the evidence bears out, even here, that many people really aren't used to seeing "out" atheists in our society- we're expected to keep our mouths shut A LOT- just like people a couple decades ago weren't used to seeing large numbers of "out" gay people. It freaked a lot of people out, in fact.

The fact is that out gay people are part of our diversity and our strength. Embracing out gay people, and even embracing "in your face" out gay people isn't the same as saying everyone has to become gay for us to win. In fact, it'd be ridiculous to think anyone is making that argument.

(And shoving those gay people back into the closet isn't the way to win, either.)

Likewise, the threat of hordes of aggressively proseltyzing atheists trying to rip the bibles out of the hands of millions of believers is not likely to materialize any time soon, either.

[omega minimo]

36. Thank you impeachdubya, for everything

You are one of the rare folks on DU who can reach across the vast (any of the numerous) divide in various issues suffering from blackandwhiteism and the hazards of rapid typing conversations. Thank you for engaging me on this one and some others where we don't see eye to eye, but can look for some middle ground.

I had a decent reply to your post sent but it disappeared when the thread was moved last night.

Please see:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=88141&mesg_id=88259

[Warren DeMontague]

37. I agree with you. In the context of talking about government

"secular" is the proper word to use, not "atheistic". (I think I made that same point above, in this thread) Although it is correct to say that the government should "have no gods", to say that the government should be atheistic is to imply that it should be actively promoting atheism. This is, obviously, incorrect. The government should stay out of the religion/theology/worldview promoting business entirely*

*there is an asterisk there b/c inevitably someone will take that as to mean, for instance, evolution shouldn't be taught in public schools. Scientific FACT, as we discover it, is part and parcel of good public education. That means, we teach the scientific facts as we understand and can validate them- now, if tomorrow, good scientific evidence turns up for Jehovah or the divinity of Jesus or a 6,000 year old Earth, science-minded people would and should demand their inclusion in science curriculum, because at that point something like "intelligent design" or creationism will have crossed over into the realm of science; through playing by science's rules. (although, personally, I wouldn't hold my breath)

Likewise, just because scientific fact may seem to validate the idea of "no gods" or doesn't prove the existence of a particular god, doesn't mean science is crossing into the realm of unconstitutionally promoting religion or lack thereof. Science fact needs to be taught regardless of whose toes it steps on.

Anyway, thanks- and right back at ya. You make a very valuable contribution to the dialogue here.

FWIW, sometimes I've found I can recover disappeared stuff with the "back" button on my browser. There's nothing I hate more than writing some massive screed and then losing it!

[omega minimo]

42. Fascinating

Not qualified to join the elbow-swinging regarding atheism-- I'm more of one of those "new physics" types that annoys you so :hi: :evilgrin:

The ideas are interesting. Maybe too subtle for online. But what if all our expectations of what we're dealing with are blown wide open and the terms prove truly inadequate (not just "confused" or "misapplied") when we are -- as IMM says -- "free to be ourselves" and "see the ____ for what it really is....."

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=88141&mesg_id=88319

I'm not so sure that "scientific fact may seem to validate the idea of "no gods" "-- on another thread we tossed around "consciousness" "awareness" -- Part of my curiousity about atheism (which I admitted I don't know much about) is the need to insist (openmindedly of course) that there definitely is no god. Is it really an insistence that cartoon Yahweh doesn't exist? An argument against a Particular Image of God?

If we quit fighting the cartoon character, does that leave room for other meta/physical realities to be acknowledged as "scientific" and part of Nature?

And do DU discuss Deism ever, since that what most of the Founders were?

:bounce:

[Warren DeMontague]

46. I'm probably more "new physics" than you know.

Of course, "new physics" can cover a wide stretch of ground; on one end, you have stuff like the (in my mind, absolutely atrocious) film "What the bleep do we know", which I had recommended to me by scads of people and which I had to turn off halfway through b/c I thought it was done so poorly. After passing through the still-respectable Fritjof Capra, on the other end you have stuff by people like Nick Herbert- the linked book is a real solid work despite being a couple decades old.

I just don't think you can party with the new physics and simultaneously disregard the systems (i.e. scientific method based on physical evidence and verifiable results) which have brought us them.

So without overtly referring to the other individual that I suspect you're referencing in your post above, I have seen people here attempt to argue that, for instance, Quantum Physics in general and Bell's Theorem in particular not only imply but necessitate the existence of "God"- not "consciousness", mind you, but a central planning authority with distinctly biblical, cartoon outlines.

My response to this individual, time and time again, has been that while anyone who tells you they understand what quantum weirdness implies is a damned liar, my personal opinion is that if it implies anything, it certainly doesn't imply a Jehovah-centric Universe, overseen by one all-powerful, all knowing, all observing being. Were that the case, he/she/it would collapse every probability wave and quantum weirdness wouldn't be an issue. Rather, if anything, I think QM implies a solipsistic/buddhist outlook (which happens to be the one I have- go figure!) because of the primacy of not just any observer, but ultimately (see Schrodinger's Cat and Wigner's Friend) the one you find in your mirror.

Some have argued consciousness is "god". I grok the idea that we are all one, I know how the song about the Eggman goes. But in my mind, again, that's like saying "nature is God" or "everything is God". If it works for you, cool cool- but IMHO that renders the word "God" meaningless and I like the sound of "Tao" better, anyway.

Like I said; for purposes of the lowest chakra political debate in this country, I categorize myself as atheist. I'm also agnostic. Discordian. Taoist. Spiritual free agent. I find much of the back-and-forth amusing, not just between believers in "God" (whatever that means) and others but also on subjects such as so-called psychic or paranormal experiences. Every now and again I'll drop into one of those threads, in which inevitably someone is trying to "prove" such experiences are "real" and someone else is trying to "prove" that they "aren't." Which to me, is about as much a waste of time as trying to teach my cat to mow the lawn.

The assumption being, that there is an objective, external "real" to which these experiences can or cannot be ascribed without question. This is the second time in as many weeks I've posted this, but I find this Zen teaching/joke instructive for these matters:

Zen Student: "Master! Master! I understand! That rock over there is inside my head!"

Zen Master: "You must have a very big head, to hold a rock that size"

Or, it's worth asking, is the sky really blue? Donovan once wrote a little song which the Allman Brothers took the words out of and turned into a beautiful jam. The words were:

First there is a mountain, then there is no mountain, then there is.

1) Yes. The sky is blue because blue-ness is an intrinsic feature of a bricks-and-mortar reality of which your perception is a clear window upon.

2) No. The blueness of the sky comes from your head, which takes the oxygen-scattered light impulses from your eyes and creates the blueness that you see.

3) Yes. The sky is blue because perception- and only perception- in the end is the "real" reality with which we must contend.

I've had experiences that defy so-called "common sense" and "logic", and no amount of arguing or cajoling can or will convince me that they weren't "real". But, I also have no- absolutely none- desire to proseltyze about them or even convince anyone one way or the other. Their meaning is intensely personal and while I take them as part of the proceeding of the design of my life, it would be pointless to extrapolate them into other people's heads. It is my humble opinion that people who have had intense personal experiences with "God" or "Jesus" or "Zeus" or Aliens or Scientology feel the same way- the trouble comes in, IMHO, when they take their subjective experience to be indicative of ALL "external" "reality", and then run around trying to forcibly drag other people along for the ride.

Now, where does science fit in to all this? Particularly, the scientific method with its emphasis on physical evidence for which I repeatedly argue? Good question. For the job it is tasked with, the scientific method does just fine with everything. It does not need help from religion, philosophy or elsewhere. Those pursuits, like science, must be given free reign in their explorations (not impositions) however, I trust -completely- the scientists to work on the science end as much as I distrust anyone -however well intentioned- who would seek to change the rules by which science operates because they don't like the results. If you want to hear weird, out there ideas about other realities and trippy metaphysics, you don't need to go to some New Age guru (although you can) .. just get a subscription to Scientific American. (Best forty or so bucks you'll ever spend) Believe me, the scientists on the cutting edge right now know things are weird; but since they're scientists, they're not wedded to any particular conclusion out of the gate.

And all this stuff, while undoubtedly subtle, is also not, in my mind, legitimate fodder for government, except that I think it's the duty of government to foster scientific research, knowledge and exploration.

Let me put it this way; Government -even the most benign form- is inevitably coercive in nature. The overarching truth that I've found in my explorations is that when it comes to metaphysics, the journey is 100% internal in nature. And most of our problems in this regard happen when people try to impose their view on others.

Again, as usual, I think the "answer" lies in more freedom. More freedom for individuals to try to work this stuff out on their own. More freedom for people to live lives outside of corporate cookie-cutterdom. More freedom for communities to try to develop different ways of living and organic cultures, counter cultures, anti-cultures, what have you. Our rigidly stratified, gray, meat n' potatoes society doesn't allow, much less encourage, the self-discovery which can bring people into different understandings of reality.

As for Deism; I see it mentioned here all the time. Jefferson, a Deist, is one of my heroes. But he was no stranger re: antagonism towards "organized" religion, either- just look at the context of the quote on the Jefferson Memorial, mis-appropriated to make it seem as if he was reverently mentioning a deity to whom the reference was clearly intended to be ironic, if emphatic:

http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm


"The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, & they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly; for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me. . ."

He was calling religion, organized religion, the tyranny over the mind of man. I tend to agree, but I also think what works for me doesn't work for everyone- nor should it. I think his larger point, like mine, is that people need to work it out for themselves.

So Many Roads, and Your Mileage May Vary.

[omega minimo]

50. In Memory of Elizabeth Reed?

I'll see your lawnmowing cat and raise ya one chakra. :hi:

What a great post, ETA.

As I understand it, Central Planning Authority is now under the jurisdiction of Homeland Security. :evilgrin:

You're atheist AND agnostic!! :wow: Now I'm REALLY confused. I need someone to explain the difference to me, but someone who is BOTH? :yoiks:

"Their meaning is intensely personal and while I take them as part of the proceeding of the design of my life, it would be pointless to extrapolate them into other people's heads. It is my humble opinion that people who have had intense personal experiences with "God" or "Jesus" or "Zeus" or Aliens or Scientology feel the same way- the trouble comes in, IMHO, when they take their subjective experience to be indicative of ALL "external" "reality", and then run around trying to forcibly drag other people along for the ride."

Bear with me as I suggest that this great observation supports the (oversimplified) OP premise. The Founders provided for not imposing our personal views on others and for the State to not impose an official View. You have encapsulated that inclusive spirit and its opposite: Democracy vs. Fundamentalism.

Just one thing-- those observations of the "design of life" and "different understandings of reality," whether based on intensely personal subjective experiences or via "the scientific method with its emphasis on physical evidence" can be understood (by the individual) as common to shared reality, not to "to extrapolate them into other people's heads," but to recognize how the world works.

Karma, dude. And even our non-theistic Government contains the spirit of the great truths.

Word. :thumbsup:




note to self: look up "solipsistic"

[Jed Dilligan]

25. It is government, not people,

who must be atheistic.

That's the source of your and everyone else's confusion.

In order for people to have or not have god(s), the government must be godless. (Or, if you prefer, god-neutral.)

If there is any religion in government all other religions as well as secularism will suffer.

[Leopolds Ghost]

54. If Atheism is the Answer, so is Theism. If Diversity is the answer,

so is Coommonality. Just because something is "the answer" for you doesn't mean that you can say "anyone who believes in absolutes should be corrected; that is the only absolute."

That is the sort of anti-absolutism that is common not just in secular postmodernists, but postmodern thinkers in general. It is a misinterpretation of postmodern theory on which most contemporary liberal political science is based (see: Postmodernism, or: the Cultural Logic of Late Capitalism.)

Dismissing anyone who believes in absolutes, and dismissing arguments grounded in absolutes in general, has the effect of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Occam's Razor dictates that the simplest explanation is usually the best one. The simplest explanation for the ethical system on which "social justice" is based is that they are grounded in a worldview which provides for absolutes (usually but not always theist; in any case, traditional liberal humanism, such as Deism, inherently allows for the possibility of theism because both traditions value absolutes.) That, not a crusading endeavor to promote the notion that nobody's beliefs apply to others, is the belief system on which our country's laws were written, like it or not.

The notion of the government being inherently secular does not come from "the government shall make no laws respecting the establishment of any particular religion". It comes from a crusading postmodernism, or worse, a crusading modernism (that academically discredited philosphical notion on which the technocrats are still running our country.) The crusading postmodernism, secular by definition, is rooted in the creative and professional classes which seek to supplant Republicans as the dominant Overclass (per Michael Lind.)

Thus leading to two parties of the Overclass as we have seen with the DLC (who are just as secular as anyone else in the American upper class, but seek to exploit religious belief the way the neocons, who are atheist to a man, do -- thus leading to the most common, and irrelevant, criticism of the DLC on these boards, e.g. that they are not secular enough.)

[beam me up scottie]

56. "the neocons, who are atheist to a man"? What horseshit.

If neocons are atheists, I'm Jesus Christ.

I'll just quote another DUer when he was confronted with the same nonsense:

What is exercising Godlessness mean to you? Do you think that atheists walk around beating up gays, condemning abortion and stem cell research, and hating people who believe in a different invisible men? I'm sorry, my friend, but the "godless" people aren't the ones strapping bombs to themselves. The "godless" people aren't the one who hypocritically judge other peoples gods, while proclaiming themselves the one true religion. They godless people have no reason to hate gays, and no pulpits from which to scream that hatred.

Not only are conservatives christians (DEAL WITH IT), they are about as far from godless as possible. There is no difference between Conservatives calling Liberals godless, or Liberals implying conservatives are godless. Its nothing but a smear against atheists, whose minds, apparently, you are unable to comprehend. If you believe in god, you are no atheist. And atheist behaviour is not evil, no matter what your fucking church or bible say.

The neocons are christians, to a man.

[Leopolds Ghost]

65. You can believe all you want that everyone you hate must be a Christian

And that means you are exercising PROJECTION when you
complain that Christians simply MUST "accept their own".

After all, you would be the first to protest that you
simply WILL NOT "accept" that Neocons are, almost to
a man, atheist or agnostic.

They are followers of Leo Strauss. Strauss advocated
the cynical manipulation of religion as a tool (among
many) of a secular elite to control the masses.

The DLC (the neoliberal component to the neocons)
advocate the same thing. They want two parties of
the Overclass, who are overwhelmingly secular (again,
in addtion to Leo Strauss, check out Thomas Frank
and Michael Lind.)

Secondly, Most of the Neocons are lapsed Marxists.
They didn't "find God." They decided Nixon was right.

Finally, I want you to write Krauthammer, Wolfowitz,
and the rest of the neocons with your theory that
regardless of how much they might think otherwise,
they are irrevocably Christian.

Some people seem to have some sort of misplaced
antichrist complex going on with the Dobson/Pat Robertson
crowd. They think that fundies control the country.

They think that fundies are more than just bread and
circuses whose leaders are little more than the Religion
equivalent of sold-out civil rights leaders funded by
the Overclass to keep people distracted, and convince
them they are to blame for their own problems.

[beam me up scottie]

78. Oh brother, here we go. I'm getting tired of this so let's wrap it up.

You can believe all you want that everyone you hate must be a Christian

Straw man. False accusation.

And that means you are exercising PROJECTION when you
complain that Christians simply MUST "accept their own".

Straw man. You have no more credibility than any other christian. We accept your word that you believe in the christian god, don't we?

After all, you would be the first to protest that you
simply WILL NOT "accept" that Neocons are, almost to
a man, atheist or agnostic.

False analogy. The neocons don't claim to be atheists, they claim to be christians.

They are followers of Leo Strauss. Strauss advocated
the cynical manipulation of religion as a tool (among
many) of a secular elite to control the masses.

Fascinating. You should advertise your psychic abilities, there's a ton of Barnum's children out there just waiting to be parted from their money.

The DLC (the neoliberal component to the neocons)
advocate the same thing. They want two parties of
the Overclass, who are overwhelmingly secular (again,
in addtion to Leo Strauss, check out Thomas Frank
and Michael Lind.)

yawn

Secondly, Most of the Neocons are lapsed Marxists.
They didn't "find God." They decided Nixon was right.

Wow, more psychic analysis. You're very talented. It's a shame you didn't use your superpowers to help us win the last two elections.

Finally, I want you to write Krauthammer, Wolfowitz,
and the rest of the neocons with your theory that
regardless of how much they might think otherwise,
they are irrevocably Christian.

Oh dear, my reference to the No True Christian fallacy really bothers you, doesn't it?
Sorry, LPG, anyone who claims to be a christian is one. You cannot prove otherwise.

Some people seem to have some sort of misplaced
antichrist complex going on with the Dobson/Pat Robertson
crowd. They think that fundies control the country.

As deluded as the ones who believe they have psychic superpowers?

They think that fundies are more than just bread and
circuses whose leaders are little more than the Religion
equivalent of sold-out civil rights leaders funded by
the Overclass to keep people distracted, and convince
them they are to blame for their own problems.

Do other people fall asleep when you're addressing them? Terribly sorry about that, I just get so bored with the No True Scotsman fallacy.

Tell you what, you get back to me with proof that people who say they are christians and claim to believe in the christian god AREN'T christians and I promise to stay awake.

[Leopolds Ghost]

86. As a Direct Descendant of Robert The Bruce, I assure you

No True Scotsman would support the BFEE. :evilgrin:



To change the subject, because we are clearly going
to have to agree to disagree:

I recently saw a book in the bookstore (mis-placed in the fantasy
section, ironically enough) called "Black Rednecks, White Liberals".

It was written by a right-winger who attempted to assert that
rednecks (in the original sense of the term, i.e. Scotch-Irish
traitors who fled the highlands for Ulster and the Scotch lowlands and ultimately, the American South) were the source of
(a) all the world's problems and (b) the allegedly eeevil "ghetto
culture" of the modern-day inner city.

Having read about the origins of "redneck culture" before, and how they colonized the Great Valley east of the Appalacian mountains (the largest homogeneous geographical and cultural region in the US, which is a fascinating subject) I skimmed the book to see where he was going with this.

However, he had a problem with his theory:

His assertion that modern day Scotsmen (and modern-day white Southerners!!!) have somehow "repudiated" those old, corrupt values
of redneck culture which he had just described in lurid historical
detail that would make H.L. Mencken or Mark Twain proud.

Of course, no evidence is given for this notion of "reformed rednecks"
and "enlightened, anglicized Scotsmen."

Poor African Americans, he reasoned, were the only rednecks left...
thereby explaing all the problems of the inner city not due to racism
or what-not, but cultural contamination from Scotch-Irish hillbillies!

Modern day scotsmen, or rosy-necked puritans in Branson Missouri, are not mentioned, except to note that they have somehow overcome this part of their heritage (it is not suggested that they merely bought respectability when they became honorary Englishmen/honorary white folks.)

I give you... the ultimate "No true scotsman" argument.

[beam me up scottie]

90. Wow. Just when I think they can't get any more idiotic, they write a book.

I wonder how long it took the publishers to translate all of that crayon scribbling...

I have never been able to grok how they think, and I live and work in fundy/redneck-ville.

This is one for the books, the depth of their bigotry and the creativity of their delusions never cease to amaze me.

[okasha]

124. BMUS, your prejudice is showing.

Finally, I want you to write Krauthammer, Wolfowitz,
and the rest of the neocons with your theory that
regardless of how much they might think otherwise,
they are irrevocably Christian.

Oh dear, my reference to the No True Christian fallacy really bothers you, doesn't it?
Sorry, LPG, anyone who claims to be a christian is one. You cannot prove otherwise.

By the same token, then, anyone who claims to be Jewish is Jewish, not a Christian. Perle, Feith, Wolfowitz, Krauthammer et al identify as Jews. How observant or secular--or indeed agnostic or atheist--they are is another question. Just for giggles, I suggest you take Leopold's Ghost up on his challenge and tell them they're not really Jewish. I know you can do it.

Incidentally, I have the displeasure of personally knowing an atheist neocon. She's virulently homophobic and misogynist as well as thoroughly bought into the notion of American exceptionalism. But then, maybe you wouldn't recognize her as a "true atheist."

[beam me up scottie]

129. okasha, your lack of reading comprehension skills is showing. :D

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

I simply turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was.


I further clarified by posting "I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.".

I know, I know, reading the whole thread is hard, isn't it?

Keep trying though, I have faith in you. :evilgrin:

[okasha]

130. BMUS, I read you loud and clear,

subtext and maintext. And what I read is "Oh, boy, I am really gonna have to try and cover my ass with a misstatement like that one." :eyes:
Keep trying, though. That's a slightly better explanation than the one you gave downthread.

Hey, when you write to Wolfie and his buddies to tell them they're Christians, would you ask for permission to post their replies? Pretty please?

[beam me up scottie]

131. "I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian."

Gee, who said that?

You really should pay closer attention, okasha. You'd be a better writer if you did.

[okasha]

136. Which is just a wee bit different from

I simply turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was. Make up your mind, SweetPea.

Then, of course, you admitted you're not real sure what a neocon is anyway. . .. :rofl:

[beam me up scottie]

138. Still confused, I see. Your word games are getting boring, okasha.

And by getting, I mean they've been a snore for quite some time. Just ask trotsky, the other atheist you snipe at constantly.

Pay attention this time:

The poster I replied to made an absolute claim that neocons are atheists:

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

I turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was:

The neocons are christians, to a man

I further clarified my point:

I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.

Goodness gracious, okasha, everyone else understands it, why can't you?

Such confusion is usually indicative of a lack of reasoning skills.

I'm beginning to understand why you believe dinosaurs still walk among us...

[okasha]

154. Which would be a nice bit of spin,

except that you presented the two "explanations" separately, and your repeated assertions that neocons are Christians don't jibe with the latest recension. Nice try, though. C- for effort.

[beam me up scottie]

156. You are the resident expert on spin, okasha. :)

A simple search of your post history in this forum shows that's your thing. You take our posts and try to twist the words around as if your newly hatched straw man will justify your sniping at us. After several skirmishes with trotsky or myself, you realize that you can't argue your way out of your little word maze and you quietly retreat before having to admit you were wrong.

Don't you have anything else to do?

Isn't there a romance novel you could be writing or something?




One more time for the linguistically challenged individuals:



The poster I replied to made an absolute claim that neocons are atheists:

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

I turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was:

The neocons are christians, to a man

I further clarified my point:

I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.

[Random_Australian]

121. I call bull, and I back myself up.

These two points:

1) Projection.

Projection refers to a mechanism to resolve tension between unconscious impulses for something we want, and something that we know is punished socially.

Who cares what the social punishment is - in this case, it is the desire that is important. In projection, we attribute to another group what we ourselves subconsciously want.

In other words, you are implying that atheists secretly desire to be Christian (or have a relationship with God)

Which is a load of horse shit.

2) "Neocons are, almost to a man, atheist or agnostic."

You've intruiged me. After all that stuff about God, they don't believe? Fascinating!

I should like to see some well sourced quotes about how they lack a belief in God.

OR

Some measure by which you can tell whether or not someone believes in God, regardless of what they say.

[Finder]

68. They are for the most part atheists who use religion as an opiate...

and tool.

[beam me up scottie]

74. No, they're christian. They have just as much credibility as any other.

The "real" christians don't get to kick others out of their club because they might embarrass them any more than the Bush family can disown McChimpy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

80. I'm happy to note that evil so-called "christians" exist just like evil

so-called "humanists" exist.

The reason for the "so-called" is the same: Christianity, like Humanism, is an ETHICAL stance. Unless you are saying that Christianity is EVIL (which is pretty insensitive, I would not
claim to know if it was against DU rules but nobody would stop
you from saying it, whereas if I thought atheism was EVIL, and
said so, I would be banned) you can't argue that it is not an
honest attempt at creating its own ETHICAL stance. Same with
humanism.

Atheism should be compared to Theism. They are philosophical
stances that do not touch on the issue of ethics. Thus, it
makes no sense for an atheist to "disavow" Stalin, but a humanist
would definitely "disavow" one of any number of "enlightened,
philospohical" rulers who have found excuses to massacre people
over the years. Similarly, a Christian can fairly disavow, say,
Pat Robertson just as we would disavow Jim Jones or David Koresh.

You would disavow a person who believed in God but
claimed to be an atheist. You won't see me asking
you to disavow Stalin because atheism in itself is
a theory of pholosophy that has no bearing on ethical claims.

Saying Christians must "answer for" people who are only nominally
Christian is saying Christians can't provide their own definition
of the term. That's why there are different denominations of
Christianity. Hell, that's why political parties split apart --
when not all their members can decide that some individual party
leaders have gone off the deep end. You prefer to lump them all
(Christians) together. I am not going to lump you in with Deists
or anti-theists in a similar way, because you would take offense to me doing so.

[beam me up scottie]

87. Ah, the Stalin card. What a surprise. You guys just LOVE him, don't you?

Christians just love to bring up bad people in history who didn't believe in gods, as if that debunks the No True Scotsman fallacy.

I think it's because they're so confused about the concept of atheism.

The reason for the "so-called" is the same: Christianity, like Humanism, is an ETHICAL stance. Unless you are saying that Christianity is EVIL (which is pretty insensitive, I would not
claim to know if it was against DU rules but nobody would stop
you from saying it, whereas if I thought atheism was EVIL, and
said so, I would be banned) you can't argue that it is not an
honest attempt at creating its own ETHICAL stance. Same with
humanism.

I'm not a humanist so your argument is just another invention.
And I'm getting sick of your accusations, if you have some evidence that I or any other atheist is getting preferential treatment on DU, either produce it or can the muling. It's sad.

Atheism should be compared to Theism. They are philosophical
stances that do not touch on the issue of ethics. Thus, it
makes no sense for an atheist to "disavow" Stalin, but a humanist
would definitely "disavow" one of any number of "enlightened,
philospohical" rulers who have found excuses to massacre people
over the years. Similarly, a Christian can fairly disavow, say,
Pat Robertson just as we would disavow Jim Jones or David Koresh.

Egad, you still think atheism is a religion. How disconnected from reality can you get? Do you even know how to look up definitions? That whole meme is an invention of christian supremacists who use it to scare their sheep.

And your selective redefinition of "christian" is nothing but an attempt to justify your belief in the No True Christian fallacy.

Try again.

You would disavow a person who believed in God but
claimed to be an atheist. You won't see me asking
you to disavow Stalin because atheism in itself is
a theory of pholosophy that has no bearing on ethical claims.

That was barely coherent. Atheism is the lack of belief in gods, stop trying to redefine it.

Saying Christians must "answer for" people who are only nominally
Christian is saying Christians can't provide their own definition
of the term. That's why there are different denominations of
Christianity. Hell, that's why political parties split apart --
when not all their members can decide that some individual party
leaders have gone off the deep end. You prefer to lump them all
(Christians) together. I am not going to lump you in with Deists
or anti-theists in a similar way, because you would take offense to me doing so.

Jesus Christ on a trailer hitch, how many of those suckers do you have in there? I haven't seen this many strawmen since the last pResidential address.

When did I say that christians must answer for anyone else?
And your use of the NTSF is really getting old. You don't get to redefine words to suit your pet beliefs any more than Falwell, Coulter or * do.

[Random_Australian]

122. I call bull, and back myself up.

"Unless you are saying that Christianity is EVIL"

Oh really? I would say that is a false dilemma - the option the most of us choose is a neutral one, in other words, you can have good and bad people in the religion WITHOUT it being evil. Or should I say "EVIL".

"nobody would stop you from saying it, whereas if I thought atheism was EVIL, and said so, I would be banned"

Oh really? Have a look at this un-deleted post:

(Atheists are mentally ill)
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=64719&mesg_id=64933

Yeah, that's right. Atheists get a free ticket all right! :sarcasm:

Wanna see me go the rest, as in are you gonna read and respond or have you already gone?

[Finder]

93. No, they do not call themselves Christians either...

but most do consider themselves Jews, albeit cultural rather than religious Jews.(disclaimer:I am not saying it is a jewish conspiracy)

Of course I am talking about the original founders of the movement. There are many that consider themselves or are considered Christian in the movement today but they are not the roots but shrubs, shoots, and trees.

None of this is secret and they are upfront about it in their writings. Unfortunately the media and others make the mistake of lumping all opposition to progressives into one neat albeit mislabeled box.

"Know thy enemy" is good advice.

[Leopolds Ghost]

96. Some Trotskyists believe it is a Stalinist conspiracy and vice versa

Hey, just telling you what they said.

[Finder]

98. LOL, That is true...

It actually was a Trotskyist movement in NY during the formation of the group.

[beam me up scottie]

97. Um, I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.

I don't see them as representative of all christians, and they're certainly nothing like the liberal ones I know and love.

If someone tells me they believe in the christian god, who am I to argue they're lying?

Of course, I'm only talking about belief in a certain deity, not a philosophy.

[Leopolds Ghost]

101. I am a historical pessimist. My feeling is it takes all kinds

And even if we all could find and agree upon the True Path that could
all live together by, we would never be able to keep evil people from
twisting that philosophy to suit their selfish interests.

That, and what you might call Leopold's Hypothesis, although it probably has a name already on the Internet, which states that (a) As human history moves forward while (b) posessing the knowledge of nuclear weapons, then (c) the probability of nuclear armageeddon approaches one. Corollary: It would take a disaster of magnitude equal or greater to a nuclear armageddon for a global civilization such as ours to lose the knowledge of nuclear weapons. :cry:

[Finder]

104. Which is precisely why we need rational minds in control....

and honestly, I do not want someone who sees satan behind every tree or that there is a reward in the afterlife for those who proclaim a certain deity holding their finger near any buttons.

[Leopolds Ghost]

110. Funny you should use that phrase

More's ruthless aide: "You would use the laws of England to defend the devil himself."

Sir Thomas More: "Would you cut down every tree in the forest to get at the devil?"

More's ruthless aide: "Absolutely."

Sir Thomas More: "And when he turns on you... where then will you hide?"

[beam me up scottie]

107. You and me both.

We're getting closer to nuclear armageddon all the time.

[Finder]

103. We really should have a separate thread for this but...

who do you consider a neocon?

I am referring to Straussians in particular when I use the term neocons. Most Christians would be paleocons at best. Although they have teamed up since the 80s under the tent of the Republican party primarily, they are still very different groups with different agendas. Gaining power over Dems was the only thing they had in common. The three factions of the Repub party are struggling amongst themselves for control of the party as we speak.

[beam me up scottie]

106. I'm not really clear on the difference between neo and paleo-conservatives

But I consider Reagan and the first and current Bush neocons.

[Finder]

112. Bush 41 perhaps but not Reagan and W...

who were/are just figureheads for the public consumption. The power behind both Reagan and this president are the same.(think Iran/Contra and the players)

[beam me up scottie]

119. I agree with that.

But I also believe they considered themselves christians.

[Finder]

123. Yes, they were/are Christians...n/t

[okasha]

125. Back-pedalling, are you?

No, you said that all neocons are Christians (or at least, all male neocons.) You said it right here:

The neocons are christians, to a man.

[beam me up scottie]

132. Trouble reading the whole thread, okasha? Okay, I'll help you, but

the next time you have to do the work yourself, I can't explain everything to you whenever you don't want to make an effort.

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

was the quote I was referring to when I used the poster's own religion to show how ridiculous absolute statements like that are:

The neocons are christians, to a man

Is that clear enough for you or is it still too confusing?

Maybe this will help:

I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.

Let me know if you need more help. :hi:

[okasha]

137. No help needed, thanks.

You've already given two mutually contradictory explanations of "what you really meant," and I don't doubt a third is on the way. Carry on.

[beam me up scottie]

140. And yet you're still confused.

You do need the help, obviously, since I didn't contradict myself.

Try to follow along this time, m'kay? I even included pictures.

The poster I replied to made an absolute claim that neocons are atheists:

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

I turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was:

The neocons are christians, to a man

I further clarified my point:

I was talking about living neocons who do claim to be christian.

See, that wasn't hard at all, was it?

:rofl:

[okasha]

155. See above. N/T

[beam me up scottie]

157. I did. You're still confused.

The poster I replied to made an absolute claim that neocons are atheists:

the neocons, who are atheist to a man

I turned that phrase around by using the poster's own religion as an example of how ridiculous that statement was:

The neocons are christians, to a man

[Leopolds Ghost]

75. I agree. Now some of us think it IS an opiate, some of us think it is not

That is democracy.

The problem I have with Beam Me Up's statement that militant atheism is like militant feminism is that, if we truly want separation of church and state, it makes no sense to equate the two. Militant feminism could be considered a political stance. If you consider militant atheism a political stance you have to throw out the notion that government is neutral on the subject of who or what "God" is, just as government is neutral on the subject of whether welfare works (I think Clinton's welfare reform was immoral; most of the people I know in real life have forgotten about the issue) or whether political parties should exist, for that matter. Or ideally, rulership at all. (My particular religious beliefs, which are similar to those of the early Anabaptists, have pushed me towards a belief in direct democracy.)

My beef is that the mods really should consider whether or not all the posts about atheism, at least on GD, would be treated the same if you replaced "atheism" with the name of some religion in the subject title.

There is so much hostility on the issue that I get the feeling that if you replaced "atheism" with "Christianity", even posts like mine saying stuff like "people should stop hating on progressive (Christians/atheists)" they would be banned with the word "Christian" in the subject title.

Especially if you said "I am a militant Christian and that cause is so important to the future of our country" instead of "I am a militant atheist and that cause is so important to the future of our country."
In the first case, you would be banned.

I won't claim to have a position on the subject of "militant" atheism but I am generally queasy at the notion of "militant" anything unless it is politically related (since all politics having to do with, or influence, the state ultimately has coercion at its root.)

So I'm definitely not a "militant" religious person but I DO consider myself a "radical" religious person, in the sense that most people in real life consider my opinions "radical" (meaning usually but not always to the left of liberal), and I derive a lot of my political beliefs from my philosophical and religious outlook, just like a lot of people do. But I suspect I would be alerted for saying so by a "militant (fill in the blank)" who imagines that surely Democrats should feel a certain way on the subject, just as Democrats generally have a certain stance towards feminism or some other authentically political issue. In other words, it is a litmus issue for them, in terms of who they think should be welcome (or leastways comfortable) on the left, which is problematic.

[beam me up scottie]

83. Went with the family plan on straw men, eh? Cheaper that way.

Militant atheism is not a political stance, no one said it was. It's a reaction to radical/militant monotheism, and its radical supporters.

My beef is that the mods really should consider whether or not all the posts about atheism, at least on GD, would be treated the same if you replaced "atheism" with the name of some religion in the subject title.

So you're saying the mods are discriminating against christians? Then take it up with them.

There is so much hostility on the issue that I get the feeling that if you replaced "atheism" with "Christianity", even posts like mine saying stuff like "people should stop hating on progressive (Christians/atheists)" they would be banned with the word "Christian" in the subject title.

What an ridiculous thing to say. You accused ME of hating christians, remember? Not one single atheist in this thread has said they hate christians, you made it up.
Look up the definition of hypocrisy.

Especially if you said "I am a militant Christian and that cause is so important to the future of our country" instead of "I am a militant atheist and that cause is so important to the future of our country."
In the first case, you would be banned.

:spray: :rofl: You act as though you've never met our resident fundamentalists. They've said much worse than that and gotten away with it. And rightfully so, since statements like that don't violate DU rules. Your accusations of discrimination by the mods might be, however, since you have no evidence to back up your claim.

I won't claim to have a position on the subject of "militant" atheism but I am generally queasy at the notion of "militant" anything unless it is politically related (since all politics having to do with, or influence, the state ultimately has coercion at its root.)

:spray: The "radical" christian gets queasy at the notion of militant atheism, which is simply a reaction to radical theism.:rofl:

[Leopolds Ghost]

88. If your beef is with militant Christians, take it up with them

radical does not equal militant. They are two different things.

radical is the antonym of conservative, though, and since the only forms of militant christianity you've cited are state sponsored religion (which people of my belief system have been fighting for over 500 years) and fascist dominionism, I would simply say that radical activism in the US, both atheist and religious, is oposed to those things.

Just because I'm religious doesn't mean you have to get upset with me. I do not want to get up in your face about your philosophical beliefs. For one thing, it doesn't matter what anyone thinks if you don't believe it's based in reality. If I believed in the Voodoo Loa, why would that offend you? Or would you insist that I have to answer for Baby Doc Duvalier?

I'm simply pointing out that while it's OK to say "we must free people's minds of the tyrrany of religion" it's not OK to say that the govenrment, or the Democratic Party, or DU must repudiate religious people in order to "get back" at the theocrats (who don't have all that much power and are simply tools of the fascist military industrial complex. Racism and Abortion, not religion per se, motivate the so-called "values voters". If America were a Buddhist nation or a Communist nation, they would fund a Buddhist or Communist group to go out and comfort people that the evil blacks or the evil abortionists were taking over their culture.)

I said I was a radical Christian. Another poster said radical means extreme. I guess he disagrees with people who consider themselves to have been "radicalized" on any issue. Certainly there are lots of Democrats out there who detest "radicalism" in any form. They preach moderation in all things. They are the "pink tutu Democrats" we are always complaining about.

To radical Christians (who get to make their own definition just like everyone else) radical refers to the political implications of their beliefs, i.e. generally left of liberal on most issues. They are the only people who self-identify with the term "radical"; see, e.g. http://jesusradicals.com. When a conservative brings up the old "radical derives from radix" argument, he is merely piggybacking on a Christian Left argument. They do not identify themselves as radical, however.

Most "radical Christians" are Mennonites (Anabaptists) or Mennonite fellow-travelers or house-church Christians (like the Dorothy Day Catholic Workers).

[beam me up scottie]

89. Who else would I take it up with?

I got upset with you because you maligned and falsely accused DU atheists of "bashing" believers.

Thanks for the explanation of the terms, I never called myself an atheist until a few years ago. I didn't like the baggage that came with the label. I am way past that now. I have to defend atheism, the ACLU can't do it all by themselves.

I really don't care about your personal beliefs, you don't need to explain or justify anything to me.

If you're a liberal and agree to defend the Constitution, you are my ally.

I just checked out your website, you are definitely on the same side.

And most of my friends, relatives as well as other people I respect are christians.

I don't hate them, I love them.

[Leopolds Ghost]

92. If you can excuse my Scotch ancestry, you can excuse anything. :-)

Friends...? :pals:

[beam me up scottie]

94. Of course!

I always did make friends the hard way...and boyfriends, too. It took me a while to realize boys don't like it when girls beat them up. :D

:hug:

[Leopolds Ghost]

99. Must be love at first sight then! ;-) You see...

When I was young, just a small little kid,
My momma noticed funny things I did.
Like shootin' puppies with a BB gun.
I'd kill some guppies / and when I was done /
I'd take a lil' kitty-cat an' bash in its head.
And that's when my momma said...

(what did she say?)

She said my boy, I think some day!
You'll find a way.
To make your natural tendencies pay!

(Oh.... Mamma!)

-- Steve Martin, "You'll Be a Dentist" :loveya:

[beam me up scottie]

100. ROFLMAO!!!

I'd forgotten all about that song!

I remember laughing so hard I almost peed in my pants when he did the King Tutt routine on SNL.

I was just a kid then too, and I naively believed that tv would always be that good.

[Leopolds Ghost]

105. That's one I don't remember... but The Dentist is good for a Bush routine!

You don't even have to change the words, just the title
(You'll be the Preznit") and the picture on the wall:

Oh.... Momma.



Featuring Karl Rove II

Feed me, Colin, Feed me now!

Colin Powell as Seymour:

I don't know...
I have so...
many deep reservations.
Should I go...
and commit... (gulp) mutilation?

At the end, Colin Powell goes off to live in Iraq with Condoleeza Rice after feeding Mr. Rumsfeld to Karl Rove II. :evilgrin:

I know one day I'll meet a guy
who doesn't think I'm full of greed.
I'll cook like... Betty Crocker
And I'll look like Donna Reed!
Our life will look just like
the pictures in a magazine
And we'll live in a zone together
Somewhere that's... Green!

[beam me up scottie]

109. Brilliant!

Isn't it amazing how humour like that never goes out of style?

Hell, IMO, Monty Python's Life of Brian and cockroaches will be the only things that survive nuclear armageddon.

[Leopolds Ghost]

111. Don't forget Computers and Lasers -- we'll begin working on those Day One!

EVIL: "I'm feeling particularly Good about myself today."
Minion: "Oh, SORRY Master!"
EVIL: "It'll pass, it'll pass!"
Minion: "Are you sure you wouldn't like to smite me, Master?"
EVIL: "Not now! We have too much work to do before we take
over the world. Tell me more about multi-level
marketing schemes!"

--Terry Gilliam, Time Bandits

[beam me up scottie]

120. "Are you sure you wouldn't like to smite me, Master?"

Don't make me use this...

[trotsky]

162. BMUS! What did I tell you about using that?!?

How DARE you! ;-)

[Finder]

95. I do not necessarily think radical or extreme is negative though...

--sometimes it is required. Nor do I think militantism is always a bad thing.

[Finder]

84. Terms like militant, radical, secular, democratic, etc are well defined...

Militant means one will use force to promote said cause/belief.

Radical means extreme.

Democracy has two major forms...direct and indirect(representative).

Governments are either Secular or Theocratic by definition of their laws. Even some countries with an official religion can still be secular if they do not use said official religion's set of laws.

[Danger Mouse]

102. You are right....

They think they believe in God, and use their religion to further their own purposes such as it is. I can't see into their hearts, but godless certainly doesn't describe them. They are Christians (those that are Christians as opposed to some other religion, but I think most of them are), but that doesn't mean they are good Christians. Honestly, it's about time we accepted it...why deny it? There are many evil men who pervert faith. These are just more of them, but particularly noteworthy sorts.

[beam me up scottie]

108. Thank you.

I think liberal christians have a lot more sway in the defrocking department than atheists.
It's not your job to call them on their hypocrisy, and I don't hold any christian responsible for the actions of another, but you guys will be the ones to expose wonderboy and his cabal.
Nobody listens to us, look at what decades of spin have done to the reputation of the ACLU.

[Wonk]

12. Which question about fundamentalist theocrats were you asking yourself?

Okay, the answer to 8 is not 2 + 3 + 3, it's 2^3!!!!

:/

[CarbonDate]

15. Well, the two are not mutually exclusive.

And I happen to think the religion serves no purpose in a free society. But that's just me.

[trotsky]

32. Nope, it's secularism.

Which many people confuse with atheism, unfortunately.

Secularism protects democracy and freedom from the corrupting effects of religion.

[Finder]

33. Well stated. n/t

[Leopolds Ghost]

61. Two questions

1. What makes you think the Founders saw it that way? The vast majority of them believed in God and furthermore had no quarrel with "the church" in the US, which, consisting as it did of a large number of denominations and sects, supported deparation of church and state for the same reason the Founders did: To prevent the perversion of religion by the values of the State, i.e. Statism, as in England.

2. What makes you think the corrupting effects of religion are what drove the American overclass to amass obscene sums of wealth and institute an organized program, the corporatocracy (if you will) to deprive us of democracy and freedom, using whatever tools are available to sway men's minds? Before theology existed as a lens through which bigotry should be filtered, ancient rulers found it even easier to convince their followers to massacre people who were not like them. Indeed, there was so much bloodletting going on, it was not possible to keep and hold wealth long enough to "enslave men's minds".

I am immensely amused by those on the left who maintain that "irrationality" is an outside imposition on the unstained human psyche.

[Finder]

67. The "Founders" stated they saw it that way and thankfully documented it.

Do you have an example of what you state in #2?

[Jed Dilligan]

69. Re-read your Max Weber

For an answer to #2

[trotsky]

148. Two answers.

1) The vast majority of the Founders were deists, which makes them believers by technicality only. Please don't buy into the right-wing lie that the Founders were churchgoing Christians, okay?

2) Calvinism. When people are convinced that their god is rewarding them materially, they can do some pretty nasty things.

[More Than A Feeling]

34. I'm confused, please explain further.

Are you saying that people are becoming atheist in response to the Bush-Cheney Mafia being in charge? Where is the evidence of that?

[immoderate]

39. Atheism is not the answer to anything, except...

What's a rational reaction to religion?

Actually, atheism is not an answer, because it's not a thing -- it's the absence of a thing. And then you can be free to be yourself and view the universe as it is.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

41. That's very interesting

What if you "view the universe as it is" and find the thing you were certain isn't there in a different form than the one you consider absent?

Are atheists mainly fighting against the notion of the old white-bearded sky god?

[immoderate]

43. We're more alike than you think. Or rather the differences...

in our thinking and conceptions do not manifest as differences in our behaviors or the way we live. (Just a guess here.)

The old white-bearded sky god (with or without his red suit and reindeer) isn't the issue. That concept is beyond reality testing.
And certainty is a word I avoid outside of legal matters. I am a person, with a brain, and that poses some limitations. It's hard to get into discussions of philosophical matters without setting up some strict definitions of terms we'll use. So I'll keep it light, because I don't want to make this interminable in the way philosophic discussions can be.

I do experience some things that I consider "spiritual" such as love and wonder and awe and a kind of oneness with the universe. Some might relate these things to entities outside of nature, I don't. And while I see all things that exist as part of the physical world, I don't succumb to reductionism. I don't think things can be predicted by their static structure. Let's call it emergent behavior.

On the other hand, I think the rules of nature apply to everything in the universe, and the notion of transcendency is an illusion. It may be a beautiful illusion, but nonetheless, an illusion. We know the universe through our senses, and new information is integrated into our world view, which is a model that lives solely in our respective heads. Viewing the universe "as it is" is an ideal that assumes that we can shed the filters of our individual perceptions. I think this is similar to some Taoist ideas. But in the end I think we are bound by matter and energy and their properties, and that's enough to wonder about for many lifetimes.

--IMM

[omega minimo]

44. What if the Transcendant Entity IS Nature?

:hi:


edit:

OMG!! That's Deism!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! :wow:

[Warren DeMontague]

47. Words?

No Words!

Word.

:hi:

[omega minimo]

49. Word UP

:rofl:

[immoderate]

52. Brings us back to what I said about defining words.

I wouldn't think that nature transcends itself.

Deism implies an entity that, to me, is superfluous in the universe. What happened before the initial cosmic event is unknown. Whatever happened since then is nature. Could there be a transcendent entity that observes the unfolding of existence in time? Nobody knows. Does it make a difference? Not a bit. A cosmic cheerleader? It has no effect on the game.

How would a Deist (who understands current cosmic theory) behave differently than an atheist?

--IMM

[omega minimo]

59. Humbly

[immoderate]

71. LOL!

Pshaw! You should see me when I'm not being humble.:hi:

--IMM

[omega minimo]

76. I have

:yoiks: :evilgrin:

[immoderate]

85. Ah! That was nothing!

:D

--IMM

[Finder]

72. Deists are freethinkers.

Their worldview is closer to atheism than theism.

[immoderate]

82. Yeah, I was implying that.

Or, that's what would make sense to me.

--IMM

[Leopolds Ghost]

91. What game? Consider monism

The belief that we are all part of one indivisible thing.

The perception of, say, that shampoo bottle in the store
as an entity separate from you is a product of the way
your mind works. Note that you already consider your
mind to be part of you.

That is an example of transcending concepts of "nature"
that most people are familiar with.

Another example is cutting edge science, which also
attempts to transcend reality in order to understand
how the real physical world works.

Consider change. How do things move in space? Is time
dependent on change or is it the other way around? These
are the sort of questions that physicists talk about but
cannot really prove or disprove, because they are
metaphysical in nature. Same with God and the concept
of a soul.

Just because something is ineffable does not make it
superfluous. Are colors superfluous to someone who
can only see in black and white? Arguably yes - and no.
Is the 4th dimension superfluous to us because we can
only intersect it at a single point? What about people
who say that our minds are no more than an instantiation
of a function (functionalism)? Does it matter if I
assert that ethics are important, or that qualia exist,
or that the survival of life on this or any other planet
matters?

Your belief or lack thereof in transcendent world beyond
human understanding will affect your answer.

[WhollyHeretic]

126. Well said. People need to realize that

the demoncrats want to take away our bibles and burn down our churches. When they take away people's bibles they plan on recycling them and making manuals on how to force kids to become gay. They must be stopped!!!!

[beam me up scottie]

133. !

:rofl:

[neebob]

134. Democracy is majority rule, right?

So if the majority want the government to support their religion or don't have a problem with the government supporting that religion and/or have a problem with atheists or members of other religions, then that has the potential to create an environment that's unfriendly to atheists and members of the other religions. Therefore, democracy is not the answer.

Democracy allows whatever majority happens to develop - or, with what passes for democracy in America today, a loud minority with a lot of money - to impose its will on everyone else.

The answer is for the government to be uninvolved and impartial to religion. If you don't like the word atheistic, call it non-theistic or extratheistic. Or secular.

[BillE]

147. I was wondering when someone would point that out.

U.S. isn't a true democracy, but a limited one. In the words of ol' Ben Franklin "it's a republic, Madam, if you can keep it". Right now we are on the verge of losing it. Too many people misunderstand what a democracy is. It is a system where majority rules, and usually end up with a dictatorship or theocracy (or both). We are now into a one party rule, and if they continue to amass power even our limited democracy will be gone.

[omega minimo]

152. The Constitution established the separation of Church and State

Why are you throwing in this red herring about "what democracy is"? Since this is a republic, democracy doesn't exist? :puke:

[BillE]

158. They exist side by side, they are not mutually exclusive.

The U.S. is both a republic and a democracy. A democracy where we elect representatives from local to federal levels. These representatives are sworn to follow and uphold the constitution. The constitution is what limits what our representatives can do for their constituents. Church State separation is one of them, and yes it does make it atheistic in context that it cannot have any laws that are theistic in nature, but that is it. It also gives individuals freedom practice any religion they want or none at all, as long as it doesn't infringe on others rights.
I also know that many theists treat the word atheist as a dirty word. Secular is a better word, but even that is becoming a dirty word, to neo-cons mostly.
Be aware that the neo-cons and the administration are destroying both our republic and democracy. It is no longer clear that our votes are being counted fairly, eligible voters are being barred from voting, and many places are getting bad voting equipment or either not enough voting equipment, almost always in democratic locations. As for the constitution, the president feels he is exempt from it and congress is allowing it.
Our arguing may be pointless if we the people allow this administration to continue its current direction.

[omega minimo]

164. Atheism does not counter theocracy, democracy does

Your lectures might make good OPs to start a new thread, although you are preaching to the converted.

[BillE]

166. Atheistic was just a description, it has nothing to do with government

Unless you are saying someone was suggesting that the U.S. become atheistic where no one could practice religion. Which I find ridiculous and would be no better then a theocratic government. The constitution as it was written is "atheistic" in nature, meaning it is godless. Your comparison of atheistic and democracy is a non-sequester(I think some other posters already mentioned this). There's no relationship. As for democracy countering theocracy, I doubt it. Majority rules in a democracy and if the majority is theocratic then you will end up with a theocratic government.
I would like to know how you think a democracy can counter a theocracy?

[Dogmudgeon]

149. Is that your FINAL answer?

You still have at least one lifeline left.

--p!
Who Wants to be a SAVIO(U)R?

[omega minimo]

153. Hey Brainiac! Talk to the two guys above who think

"Democracy is majority rule." :banghead:

[neebob]

159. What do you think it is?

From m-w.com, boldfacing mine:

Main Entry: de·moc·ra·cy
Pronunciation: di-'mä-kr&-sE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -cies
Etymology: Middle French democratie, from Late Latin democratia, from Greek dEmokratia, from dEmos + -kratia -cracy
1 a : government by the people; especially : rule of the majority b : a government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised by them directly or indirectly through a system of representation usually involving periodically held free elections
2 : a political unit that has a democratic government
3 capitalized : the principles and policies of the Democratic party in the United States <from emancipation Republicanism to New Deal Democracy -- C. M. Roberts>
4 : the common people especially when constituting the source of political authority
5 : the absence of hereditary or arbitrary class distinctions or privileges

P.S. I'm not a guy.

[omega minimo]

163. I would emphasize "b." rather than shorthand it to "majority rule"

:thumbsup:

[Finder]

161. Direct Democracy is majority rule...

Representative Democracy as we supposedly have in our Republic is supposed to allow minority voices to have an equal vote.

[bloom]

165. "Control the Dictionary, Control the World"

I saw that title over in Editorials and it reminded me of this thread.

I tend to agree with the idea that part of the problem that we face is that democracy is partly about persuading the majority in regards to various opinions. This includes the opinion about whether people of different religions - or of no religion - should be treated equally. If the majority are convinced that fair treatment of people in minority categories (or unempowered people) is not their best interest - then that does not bode well for those in those groups.

We see that with Republicans. That is a big part of their strategy. To marginalize groups and convince people (who perceive themselves to be in the dominant group) not to care about people in "fringe" groups. Like people who are gay, women (esp. single mothers), blacks, atheists, liberals, intellectuals, etc.

The trick is to have enough people who see themselves in the majority group who feel like they don't have to care or even that it is against their own self-interest to care. But then they have their back-up procedure of stealing the elections if Limbaugh, Rush, O'Reilly, Coulter, Savage, Falwell, Dobson, Robertson, Pipes, and Horowitz don't do the trick.

Having rights in the constitution is not a guaranteer of rights if the majority (or the powerful enough) don't care about those rights. Or if enough people do not demand that our rights be protected.

___

About the Atheists definition debate - it's like a lot of things - if you say that some atheists think such and so - you can say whatever you want. Some atheists might think that the moon is made of green cheese - just like some Christians think that the earth is 6000 years old and they must consequently think that nearly all of our scientists are delusional. Some atheists like to insult people over imaginary slights - other atheists like to try to foster peace and understanding.

___

What I notice that can get lost around here - is that there are a lot of liberally religious people (of many persuasions) whom atheists and agnostics would do well to side with - religious people who see themselves on the same side as atheists/agnostics/secular people. I think that that is the point of your post. It's very simple and it relates to the democracy idea. We are stronger as a group when we embrace like-minded people - not when we insult them and drive them away into separate groups.

Not everyone on this thread seems to share that POV. Some atheists are dividers - they think that it helps their cause to insult people who do not think exactly as they do - or those who have not studied their specific terminology - or are as tuned in to all the ways that atheists are marginalized by society. I understand that our culture is VERY prejudiced against atheists - in general. I don't understand the level of animosity that some atheists display here - against people who are on their side.

(speaking from the POV of a religiously liberal atheist)

[beam me up scottie]

167. Oh, I get it!

It's like the women who constantly bash men instead of trying to foster communication.

O's very good at bridging that gap too.

I notice it because, just like her, I don't stay in the groups where everyone agrees with me.

My personal belief is that it's healthier in the long run to mix it up with people from all different groups than it is to sit in the corner and cry because one's afraid of getting hurt.

The communication and understanding such scraps eventually lead to make the scabby knees seem inconsequential.


By the way, bloom, I was mentioned frequently in the Talk About Your Beliefs thread, have you seen it?

I just love the regular contributors to this forum. :loveya:

[Evoman]

168. Oh baby, the sweet, SWEET irony

"in general. I don't understand the level of animosity that some atheists display here - against people who are on their side."

Aren't you the one who just started a thread about Sam Harris, a liberal in almost every sense of the world, and denounced him as being a neocon because you don't agree with some of his points?

And why do you always act like the atheists need to "side with liberally religious"? Last time I checked, we are all on the same side politically. EVERY atheist here IS siding with the liberally religious, when it comes to politics. If we weren't, then we wouldn't be on the same website, Democratic Underground. In the religious forum, there CAN NEVER BE A RECONCILIATION, because you either believe or you don't, your either okay with religion or your not. If there are insults flying around (and I'm not saying there are), they are aimed at religion or atheism, not religious or atheist PEOPLE.


The only way you could make an argument that atheists are being divisive, is if you argue that they are trying to purge religous liberals from the democratic party. And they aren't, so they're not. The only calls I've seen for purging have been towards atheists. So maybe its really the liberal DUers who should be trying to side with the atheists, huh?

And again, this "SOME atheists are divisive and want to eat your babies" shit is a right wing ploy, and frankly, I'm sick of it. "Some people say liberals like to fuck dogs" is the kind of thing you hear on fox. Quit with those fucking tactics, please. Nobody appreciates them.

[beam me up scottie]

169. You said a bad word. Liberals don't swear. You're not a liberal.

I just made that up.:)

It's kind of fun, actually.

Who else can we purge, I mean what other words can we redefine?

[Evoman]

170. Fuck you, I am so a fucking liberal.

;)

[beam me up scottie]

171. You are NOT a fucking liberal.

Oh, great.

Now look what you made me do.

Now I gotta change the rules again.


Okay, you can say the f-word but that's it.

No dissing Barney, though.

[Evoman]

172. So I'm still a fucking liberal?

Sweet.

[Random_Australian]

173. You said other naughty words too.

So you are still are not a not am liberal are and when then new define perspex a liberal is a liberal's brother if the brother is liberal.

Telegraph poles are not the answer to fundamentalism, so we ought to purge them!

[omega minimo]

175. Sounds like we need a philosophy of openminded tolerance

"In the religious forum, there CAN NEVER BE A RECONCILIATION, because you either believe or you don't, your either okay with religion or your not. If there are insults flying around (and I'm not saying there are), they are aimed at religion or atheism, not religious or atheist PEOPLE."


:hi: