# Question for Atheists & Agnostics



## Couchie

Christians and other religious people are invited to participate, but I only ask you mind Matthew 7:1-6. Most of us are aware of the prevailing attitude that "people who lose their faith were never saved" (Even I thought and said this before I lost my faith). I suggest that it will do no good to reiterate that sentiment.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

I apostatized from pastafarianism after realizing that my favorite noodly god was a lie. So were his gospels. And so was the cake. 

[sorry, I had to say it]


----------



## Polednice

I've never had any kind of religious identity - religion was never mentioned as I was growing up (though there was the UK typical exposure in school, which all sounded like jibberish to me). I should say also that there was never anything anti-religious mentioned either.

I never had a moment of realisation - I always seemed to think it was nonsensical, and I just consolidated those thoughts with books, logic, and YouTube when I was 18.


----------



## violadude

I identify as a Christian but I'm sort of wavering on that. I don't really like how a lot of Christians act and I don't like a lot of what the bible and Christianity says. On the other hand, it's how I was raised and there's still a part of me that still has a little belief that it's true. 

Of course no matter how much faith you have in your religion, no one really knows for sure what happens after you die.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

I've never seriously believed in Christianity. Okay, okay, I *pretended* to dabble in Satanism as a metalhead teenager, but that was just to fit in. I didn't actually *believe* in Satan. :devil:

I was always far more interested in science than religion, and, in the church I was sent to as a kid, you had to choose between one or the other. So I chose the risk of going to Hell when I die.


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Fsharpmajor said:


> I've never seriously believed in Christianity. Okay, okay, I *pretended* to dabble in Satanism as a metalhead teenager, but that was just to fit in. I didn't actually *believe* in Satan. :devil:
> 
> I was always far more interested in science than religion, and, in the church I was sent to as a kid, you had to choose between one or the other. So I chose the risk of going to Hell when I die.


Wait, so my observations somehow turned out to be true!


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Here is the official website of the Church of Satan:

*http://www.churchofsatan.com*

:devil:


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Polednice said:


> I never had a moment of realisation - I always seemed to think it was nonsensical, and I just consolidated those thoughts with books, logic, and YouTube when I was 18.


*YouTube?*

Surely the link I've just posted would be less able to corrupt a young mind.


----------



## Jeremy Marchant

violadude said:


> Of course no matter how much faith you have in your religion, no one really knows for sure what happens after you die.


Everybody knows what happens after you die - they're just scared to accept it.

The idea that buying into a religious dogma (ie holding a belief in your mind) is some guarantor against the inevitable ravages of nature is simply preposterous.


----------



## Weston

I'm not sure how to vote. I was terrified of religious matters growing up, so I must have had some belief in them, but I never really liked them. Now I am terrified by religious zealots of any kind. The phrase "God fearing" is thrown about in this culture as some kind of virtue. Fear is never a virtue, nor is promoting it. I have reached the point of being sick and tired of humoring the unfortunate, brainwashed, stultifying, child abusing, science hindering, education rejecting, apocalypse mongering, violence promoting, curiosity quelling, not to mention downright tedious and annoying, creeps.


----------



## Polednice

Fsharpmajor said:


> *YouTube?*
> 
> Surely the link I've just posted would be less able to corrupt a young mind.


YouTube is one of the most marvellous resources on the web if you know how to use it! 

I must have watched over a hundred hours by now of lectures, high-brow interviews, debates (both formal and informal), and documentaries; and certainly less than one hour in total of "funny videos".


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Well, that may be true, but things might be different if it allowed itself to be a bit more smutty.


----------



## Kopachris

Weston said:


> I'm not sure how to vote. I was terrified of religious matters growing up, so I must have had some belief in them, but I never really liked them. Now I am terrified by religious zealots of any kind. The phrase "God fearing" is thrown about in this culture as some kind of virtue. Fear is never a virtue, nor is promoting it. I have reached the point of being sick and tired of humoring the unfortunate, brainwashed, stultifying, child abusing, science hindering, education rejecting, apocalypse mongering, violence promoting, curiosity quelling, not to mention downright tedious and annoying, creeps.


The key word in all that being, of course, "zealots." As in, a minority, like people who use guns for murder are a minority of people who own guns. I think everyone who's not a zealot hates zealots.


----------



## Fsharpmajor

Weston said:


> I'm not sure how to vote. I was terrified of religious matters growing up, so I must have had some belief in them, but I never really liked them. Now I am terrified by religious zealots of any kind. The phrase "God fearing" is thrown about in this culture as some kind of virtue. Fear is never a virtue, nor is promoting it. I have reached the point of being sick and tired of humoring the unfortunate, brainwashed, stultifying, child abusing, science hindering, education rejecting, apocalypse mongering, violence promoting, curiosity quelling, not to mention downright tedious and annoying, creeps.


This is the reason I worship Satan, rather than God.


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> I identify as a Christian but I'm sort of wavering on that. I don't really like how a lot of Christians act and I don't like a lot of what the bible and Christianity says. On the other hand, it's how I was raised and there's still a part of me that still has a little belief that it's true.
> 
> Of course no matter how much faith you have in your religion, no one really knows for sure what happens after you die.


what do you mean by "what happens after you die"?


----------



## Weston

Kopachris said:


> The key word in all that being, of course, "zealots." As in, a minority, like people who use guns for murder are a minority of people who own guns. I think everyone who's not a zealot hates zealots.


I was very careful to specify that. I do not dislike people of faith as a group, and I even give thanks to some undefined higher power when things go well for me. I do strongly dislike those who would use faith to control others. Faith seems to lend itself to that all too easily.


----------



## Couchie

While I am quite envious of people who have always been nonbelievers, do apostatized Atheists have more "street cred"?


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> what do you mean by "what happens after you die"?


I mean that, while there isn't hard evidence of an afterlife by any means, I don't think that the possibility of one existing is absolutely improbable.


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> I mean that, while there isn't hard evidence of an afterlife by any means, I don't think that the possibility of one existing is absolutely improbable.


is there a beforelife?


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> is there a beforelife?


I don't know that. Those of the Hindu faith seem to think so.


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> I don't know that. Those of the Hindu faith seem to think so.


so there would be a soul?


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> so there would be a soul?


Maybe. I don't know that either.


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> Maybe. I don't know that either.


well, i wouldn't know either... i'm just trying to feel the believer vibe -- like when i put a fork in the outlet, i feel the electricity vibe.


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> well, i wouldn't know either... i'm just trying to feel the believer vibe -- like when i put a fork in the outlet, i feel the electricity vibe.


Sorry, maybe I have a weak personality or no strong beliefs, but with so many things in the world still unexplained I don't think it's my place to snuff anyones beliefs.


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> Sorry, maybe I have a weak personality or no strong beliefs, but with so many things in the world still unexplained I don't think it's my place to snuff anyones beliefs.


but is a non-belief really a belief? like cold vs hot, cold just being the absence of hot..


----------



## Klavierspieler

Philip said:


> but is a non-belief really a belief? like cold vs hot, cold just being the absence of hot..


It isn't really non-belief, it's belief that there is no God.


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> but is a non-belief really a belief? like cold vs hot, cold just being the absence of hot..


Wait...what are we talking about? lol I'm just saying that I don't believe anyone knows anything definite about a spiritual world (if there is one).


----------



## Philip

Klavierspieler said:


> It isn't really non-belief, it's belief that there is no God.


i'm not sure... what if the person hasn't been exposed to the idea of god? does that person believe that there is no god?


----------



## starthrower

Apostasy? Losing faith? Aren't these euphemisms religious folks like to use for people who doubt and question what's been drilled into their heads from childhood. I look at it from the opposite point of view. I'd call it self liberation for those who dare to think for themselves.


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> i'm not sure... what if the person hasn't been exposed to the idea of god? does that person believe that there is no god?


Not necessarily I suppose...


----------



## HerlockSholmes

Is not-smoking a habbit?


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> Wait...what are we talking about? lol I'm just saying that I don't believe anyone knows anything definite about a spiritual world (if there is one).


i'm just trying to translate this in first order logic. if you don't know... then (logically) do you not-believe? ie. if i present you a closed box, which may or may not contain something, what is your belief with respect to its contents?


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> i'm just trying to translate this in first order logic. if you don't know... then (logically) do you not-believe? ie. if i present you a closed box, which may or may not contain something, what is your belief with respect to its contents?


My belief is that there may or may not be something inside. lol


----------



## Philip

violadude said:


> My belief is that there may or may not be something inside. lol


that would be a tautology... or a statement that is always true.


----------



## violadude

Philip said:


> that would be a tautology... or a statement that is always true.


Does that mean I'm always right?


----------



## Weston

Three pages (on my browser) and no thread lock yet? We must be a fairly civilized lot.


----------



## Couchie

Weston said:


> Three pages (on my browser) and no thread lock yet? We must be a fairly civilized lot.


Almaviva is also away someplace consuming too much wine. But thread's pretty tame, so far. Lukecash12, where are you?


----------



## Polednice

Considering that we are all atheists of at least 10,000 of the gods mankind has made up over the years, why should anyone cling onto one last constructed deity?


----------



## Couchie

Polednice said:


> Considering that we are all atheists of at least 10,000 of the gods mankind has made up over the years, why should anyone cling onto one last constructed deity?


Indeed, this was one of the central arguments that shattered my faith. With the regional distributions of religions, how many people actually go about researching other faiths just to be sure that the one they happened to be born into because they live where they do is the right one after all? I did, and unfortunately they were all just as silly as mine, so I quit it.


----------



## GoneBaroque

Fsharpmajor said:


> I've never seriously believed in Christianity. Okay, okay, I *pretended* to dabble in Satanism as a metalhead teenager, but that was just to fit in. I didn't actually *believe* in Satan. :devil:
> 
> I was always far more interested in science than religion, and, in the church I was sent to as a kid, you had to choose between one or the other. So I chose the risk of going to Hell when I die.


Is it possible for a person who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God to believe in the Judeo-Christian God of Evil?


----------



## Kopachris

GoneBaroque said:


> Is it possible for a person who does not believe in the Judeo-Christian God to believe in the Judeo-Christian God of Evil?


First of all, Satan isn't the Judeo-Christian God of Evil, as there is none. Satan, according to the Bible, is just a fallen angel and nothing more. The concept of Satan ruling hell came from (IIRC) _Paradise Lost_ by John Milton. Secondly--and forgive me if I get this wrong, since I've never done much research into this--I don't think all "satanists" actually worship Satan, but the idea Satan represents. I think it's more about the idea of complete freedom, anarchy, and chaos that they worship and practice. There was a documentary on History, Discovery, or National Geographic many years ago where a self-proclaimed satanist said something like, "The idea is to do something bad, know you're doing something bad, and enjoy it."


----------



## Operafocus

Oh, boy. I guess one must be careful of what one says about religion and non-religion here. :lol:

I was never a believer in God. I _had to_ go through Lutheran confirmation when I was 14-15, otherwise my grandmother would have had a huge problem, and at that age you're forced to take that into consideration. So I've gone through 9 years of religion studies at school as well as every Tuesday after school for 12 months. None of it made me a believer. I treated it more like _alternative history_ than something I believed in. Basically, I don't understand all the prejudice that comes with _some_ religions and religious individuals. If you do *this*, go you to hell. If you *don't* do that, you go to hell. Basically, whatever you do, you're doomed - but you can confess all your sins whatever you do and go to heaven. OK, then. Sexuality is made into something sinful. This combination was basically what rendered me a "non-believer" in the traditional sense.


----------



## mmsbls

I never did believe in God or religion. I went to private schools when I was young, and we had a chapel service 3 days a week. The service was Christian with readings from the Bible. I remember at that time thinking that God and religion were like Santa Claus. Everyone talked about it, books and movies were made about it, but no one actually believed it was real. I'm not sure how old I was when I realized that people were serious about religion.


----------



## starthrower

As far as heaven and hell are concerned, I can't understand how people can believe that they are physical destinations for reward or punishment? For myself, heaven is a clear conscience, and hell is the guilty conscience as a result of wrongful conduct towards my fellow man/woman.

I would call myself an agnostic rather than an atheist, as I cannot possibly have the knowledge of what lies beyond the grave, if anything? I have a hard time accepting the idea of a personal god who loves and looks after human beings. At the same time, I'm grateful for the good fortune that has come my way in this life. I'm troubled by the wretchedness and suffering of much of humanity, especially at the hands of so-called "christian nations". Maybe if more people believed this life is a one shot deal, we'd treat each other more kindly, and not wait around for things to be made better in the afterlife?

The "nothing really matters" syndrome brought up by Ravellian in another thread seems like it should apply more to believers than unbelievers. At least that's the way I see it.


----------



## Weston

I finally voted "Apostatized from Christianity" although that makes it sound like it was Christianity's decision. 

I suppose I never really had much chance of being brainwashed by religion. I grew up in a peacefully split religion household. Early in life I went with my mother to her Southern Baptist church services where I learned what a horrible incompetent wretch I was and that I would be tortured forever if I didn't accept this violent Guy who created me as a horrible incompetent wretch. Then at about 10 years old or so, my father yanked me out of that indoctrination and into the Jehovah's Witnesses where I learned I wasn't exactly a wretch, but that everyone else was, though I would still die a horrible death if I didn't accept this violent Guy who created me sick while commanding me to be well. And I had until 1975 to get well. 1975 came and went and that was also about the time I became an adult and an agnostic believer in science. Yet to this day I am still uncomfortable at Christmas time and do not celebrate birthdays.

Thank whatever God(s) there may be, I am free of both of those horrors. I haven't come entirely out of the closet to be militant and obnoxious about my beliefs, nor do I plan to. I only wish the Believers would humor me as I have been forced to humor them for decades. I wish I could talk about the wonders of cosmology and evolution in public without being "corrected." I wish I could help elect a leader who believes in the separation of church and state in the US as the founding fathers (who were largely deists, not theists) planned it.

Ahh - what's the use? I am surrounded and outnumbered.


----------



## starthrower

Weston said:


> Thank whatever God(s) there may be, I am free of both of those horrors. I haven't come entirely out of the closet to be militant and obnoxious about my beliefs, nor do I plan to. I only wish the Believers would humor me as I have been forced to humor them for decades. I wish I could talk about the wonders of cosmology and evolution in public without being "corrected." I wish I could help elect a leader who believes in the separation of church and state in the US as the founding fathers (who were largely deists, not theists) planned it.
> 
> Ahh - what's the use? I am surrounded and outnumbered.


I can relate to your sentiments. Unfortunately, we live in a country that is the equivalent of a spoiled, selfish, delusional child. I don't think she'll be growing to maturity in our lifetimes.


----------



## Philip

starthrower said:


> As far as heaven and hell are concerned, I can't understand how people can believe that they are physical destinations for reward or punishment? For myself, heaven is a clear conscience, and hell is the guilty conscience as a result of wrongful conduct towards my fellow man/woman.


I think the common interpretation is that heaven and hell are non-physical 'destinations' for the non-physical soul. Consequently, this raises the question of how the non-physical soul interacts with the physical body, Descartes, God bless him, proposed it was through the pineal gland...... of course this is absurd.

Nevertheless, if we ignore this problem, perhaps your approach of heaven/hell as a clear/guilty conscience is in fact the true Christian meaning. Maybe Jesus did not actually convert water into wine, but his charisma was enough to entertain people regardless of what was on their plate. I would call this mild Christianity.


----------



## Almaviva

Couchie said:


> Almaviva is also away someplace consuming too much wine. But thread's pretty tame, so far. Lukecash12, where are you?


OK, this is my first participation, at 4:20 PM, after yesterday's birthday party for my wife, during which 17 bottles of sparkling wine, 10 bottles of red wine, 4 bottles of white wine, 24 bottles of beer, and about 40 shots made of 1/3 rum, 1/3 Irish cream, and 1/3 grenadine were consumed by about 40 adults. Some 5 children had some soft drinks.

Look, threads that remain civil won't be locked just because the topic is religion. It's the behavior of thread participants that leads to locks, not the topic in itself.

I can't vote because my own story is not represented by the options.

I was raised in a Catholic family but never really believed in any of it. I went through the moves as required by mom, but at age 11 I rebelled. I said to my mom at breakfast on a Sunday that I wasn't going to church. She asked why, I said 'because I don't believe in this crap." She got mad, and I threw my breakfast in the garbage as a gesture of protestation. My mom called dad and asked him to fix the boy. My dad who was a very fair and just man grilled me with a bunch of questions regarding why I didn't believe in any of that. I replied to his satisfaction. He turned to mom and said, 'the boy knows what he's doing, he made his choice, he's not going to church." Then he grounded me for throwing my breakfast in the garbage and disrespecting mom, but supported me in my lack of faith. Ever since, I've been to churches only for weddings, and I cherish the memory of my father who was willing to really listen to me and to support me in spite of his Italian Catholic upbringing.


----------



## starthrower

Philip said:


> I think the common interpretation is that heaven and hell are non-physical 'destinations' for the non-physical soul.


And yet believers speak of the day they will encounter the physical presence of their departed friends and loved ones in heaven. Many evangelicals believe they will be physically caught up in the heavens to meet the lord before Armageddon destroys the evil unbelievers.


----------



## Philip

starthrower said:


> And yet believers speak of the day they will encounter the physical presence of their departed friends and loved ones in heaven. Many evangelicals believe they will be physically caught up in the heavens to meet the lord before Armageddon destroys the evil unbelievers.


...and the thought of your dead relatives looking down at you when you have premarital sex


----------



## starthrower

Philip said:


> ...and the thought of your dead relatives looking down at you when you have premarital sex


My paternal grandmother got knocked up as a young single girl, so I guess she wouldn't be offended. My maternal grandmother was divorcee, so she probably wouldn't care either!


----------



## Philip

starthrower said:


> My paternal grandmother got knocked up as a young single girl, so I guess she wouldn't be offended. My maternal grandmother was divorcee, so she probably wouldn't care either!


actually my first thought was to say "when you're ************" but that word is censored


----------



## myaskovsky2002

Jeremy Marchant said:


> Everybody knows what happens after you die - they're just scared to accept it.
> 
> The idea that buying into a religious dogma (ie holding a belief in your mind) is some guarantor against the inevitable ravages of nature is simply preposterous.


You do? I really don't think so...I will go to paradise as...Superman! (pronounce as superstar!)










Martin


----------



## Rasa

I apostasized when church made me consider my beliefs in catechism.


----------



## TxllxT

It's a pity that there exist language barriers. It happened in 1921 that a Swiss theologian named Karl Barth shocked German speaking theologians with his assertion: _Religion ist Unglaube_. Karl Barth later on was expelled from Germany in the thirties, because of has sharp opposition to Hitler and his theological followers who equated being Christian with being German. Atheism & agnosticism I consider to be a kind of religion as well. 'Religion' is something very very sticky indeed.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

TxllxT said:


> It's a pity that there exist language barriers. It happened in 1921 that a Swiss theologian named Karl Barth shocked German speaking theologians with his assertion: _Religion ist Unglaube_. Karl Barth later on was expelled from Germany in the thirties, because of has sharp opposition to Hitler and his theological followers who equated being Christian with being German. Atheism & agnosticism I consider to be a kind of religion as well. 'Religion' is something very very sticky indeed.


Just as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby, right?


----------



## Taneyev

Don't care a damn thing about any religion.


----------



## TxllxT

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Just as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby, right?


When you are pro it sticks and glues, when you are against it sticks and glues. Example: Just try to get rid of the label 'Mormon' on your forehead!


----------



## Kopachris

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Just as not-collecting-stamps is a hobby, right?


No, more like how asexuality is a sexual orientation.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> No, more like how asexuality is a sexual orientation.


I think Kaerb is closer. The hobby/lack-of-hobby analogy is closer because theism involves an active engagement in a certain belief system and way of thinking, whereas atheism is not a construct ('hobby') in itself. All it denotes is a lack of that 'hobby'. Sexuality is more of a multiple choice spectrum.


----------



## science

I think there are two right answers here. 

If you look at it from an intellectual point-of-view, where the existence of a god is a hypothesis to be considered, then atheism is a kind of default option. 

If you look at it from a cultural or societal point-of-view, theism is the norm and rejection of it is the exception - a lot of people, maybe most, receive theism as a given, so it feels like the default option, and atheism feels like a positive assertion. 

That's why the contrast with, say, Celtic deities is so instructive. No one around us believes in them, so the cultural default option is unbelief, so in cases like this the intellectual and cultural points-of-view are the same. 

From a cultural point of view, religion is just not an intellectual thing at all. An old Irish joke makes the point clear: during a particularly tense time, a new guy arrives in town, sits down at the bar (or whatever they have in Ireland), and the people ask, "Are you Catholic or Protestant?" "Atheist," he says. They respond, "Yeah, but are you a Catholic atheist or a Protestant atheist?" 

The joke is funny because it draws surprising attention to the way religion blends intellectual and cultural elements. We understand it perfectly well because we know that religion is primarily cultural; but we laugh because it skewers religion's occasional pretension to be purely intellectual. 

Whether you consider "atheism" to be a default option or a positive assertion depends largely on your attitude to religion. 

So here's an observation related to that. For most people, religion is not primarily an intellectual thing. But for some it is. When you see a young person struggling with religion, it is often a person from a strongly religious background but whose personality is to take religion primarily intellectually. That person is likely to go through a painful conversion to atheism - because intellectually it is the easiest position to defend. The less intellectual and more cultural the person's religiosity is (in terms of personality), the less likely is the conversion, the more likely is the person just accepting that "faith can't be proven" or something like that.


----------



## Polednice

^^ (Yes, I'm stealing your thing, Sid James) A very insightful, new perspective on that particular issue. Thanks.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> I think Kaerb is closer. The hobby/lack-of-hobby analogy is closer because theism involves an active engagement in a certain belief system and way of thinking, whereas atheism is not a construct ('hobby') in itself. All it denotes is a lack of that 'hobby'. Sexuality is more of a multiple choice spectrum.


I respectfully disagree. Perhaps "religion" is the wrong term, though; "theistic orientation" might be better, but since that's not in use, I consider "religion" and "theistic orientation" to be synonyms in this case. Just as asexuality means "a lack of sexuality" and is a sexual orientation just the same as heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pansexuality, atheism means "a lack of theism" and is a theistic orientation just the same as monotheism, panentheism, and pantheism.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> I respectfully disagree. Perhaps "religion" is the wrong term, though; "theistic orientation" might be better, but since that's not in use, I consider "religion" and "theistic orientation" to be synonyms in this case. Just as asexuality means "a lack of sexuality" and is a sexual orientation just the same as heterosexuality, homosexuality, and pansexuality, atheism means "a lack of theism" and is a theistic orientation just the same as monotheism, panentheism, and pantheism.


I think the awkwardness of your approach is evident in the fact that it would make sense to say: "My sexuality is a lack of sexuality" or "My theism is a lack of theism."


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> I think the awkwardness of your approach is evident in the fact that it would make sense to say: "My sexuality is a lack of sexuality" or "My theism is a lack of theism."


Nevertheless, asexuality is generally considered to be a valid sexual orientation.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Nevertheless, asexuality is generally considered to be a valid sexual orientation.


Of course it is, which is why I suggested it lies on the spectrum like all other orientations.


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> Of course it is, which is why I suggested it lies on the spectrum like all other orientations.


Then we agree that atheism should be classified as a theistic orientation? It seems to me that not doing so would imply that atheism is a disorientation. You certainly don't seem theistically disoriented.


----------



## science

I can't see the analogy between theism and sexuality for cultural reasons. The majority of cultures in human history have been polytheistic. Monotheism is a historical phenomenon, like agriculture or weaving or astrology. Sexuality is almost universal in multicellular life in a way that religion is not at all. Is the idea that there are monosexual and polysexual humans? Would a religion that identifies God with the self be analogous to ************? Is a person who can't find a mate analogous to a person who can't persuade herself that a deity exists? The dissimilarities between sexuality and religion jump out at me much more powerfully than the similarities. 

Also, the word "spectrum" is bothering me. To me, that word implies a 1-dimensional phenomenon (like color: it is a line from red to purple, not a plane or a space). If I want to conceive of sexuality with a geometrical metaphor, at the very least I'm going to need two dimensions (one for strength of libido and another for attraction to the two sexes). 

If I want to conceive of religiosity like that, I don't even know where to begin. I suppose one dimension could be for ability to experience the supernatural, with people who slip easily into possession or trance at one extreme and people who cannot do it at all on the other extreme. Perhaps another dimension relating how "intellectual" a person is about her religion, with people who take it literally as facts about the physical world at one extreme and people who make a strong implicit distinction between the spiritual and physical worlds on the other. But that doesn't account for the number or type of deities (or spirits) experienced. Perhaps we could make a dimension for number of spirits believed in, with zero at one extreme and infinite at the other. I'd have to ask a mathematician if it makes sense to talk about a discontinuous dimension - there is a gap between "zero deities" and "one deity" - or perhaps we could have it continuous by taking account of degrees of certainty, so that a .6 theist is someone who has about a 60% belief in one god, or a 30% belief in 2 gods... 

Sorry, I think that's too much work, and it doesn't seem to be generating a really useful conceptual paradigm. I'm not seeing how religion could be a multidimensional field, let alone a single spectrum.


----------



## science

Oh my goodness, I've been censored! But I think you'll figure it out...


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> Then we agree that atheism should be classified as a theistic orientation? It seems to me that not doing so would imply that atheism is a disorientation. You certainly don't seem theistically disoriented.


This all depends on what exactly you mean by a theistic orientation. If you mean "having an opinion about theistic ideas", then yes, I suppose it would have to be, but I don't think it's helpful (and it's obviously a little confusing!) to lump atheism in with other theistic propositions because atheism is set apart from a million theistic belief systems for some quite significant reasons.


----------



## Kopachris

science said:


> I can't see the analogy between theism and sexuality for cultural reasons. The majority of cultures in human history have been polytheistic. Monotheism is a historical phenomenon, like agriculture or weaving or astrology. Sexuality is almost universal in multicellular life in a way that religion is not at all. Is the idea that there are monosexual and polysexual humans? Would a religion that identifies God with the self be analogous to ************? Is a person who can't find a mate analogous to a person who can't persuade herself that a deity exists? The dissimilarities between sexuality and religion jump out at me much more powerfully than the similarities.
> 
> Also, the word "spectrum" is bothering me. To me, that word implies a 1-dimensional phenomenon (like color: it is a line from red to purple, not a plane or a space). If I want to conceive of sexuality with a geometrical metaphor, at the very least I'm going to need two dimensions (one for strength of libido and another for attraction to the two sexes).
> 
> If I want to conceive of religiosity like that, I don't even know where to begin. I suppose one dimension could be for ability to experience the supernatural, with people who slip easily into possession or trance at one extreme and people who cannot do it at all on the other extreme. Perhaps another dimension relating how "intellectual" a person is about her religion, with people who take it literally as facts about the physical world at one extreme and people who make a strong implicit distinction between the spiritual and physical worlds on the other. But that doesn't account for the number or type of deities (or spirits) experienced. Perhaps we could make a dimension for number of spirits believed in, with zero at one extreme and infinite at the other. I'd have to ask a mathematician if it makes sense to talk about a discontinuous dimension - there is a gap between "zero deities" and "one deity" - or perhaps we could have it continuous by taking account of degrees of certainty, so that a .6 theist is someone who has about a 60% belief in one god, or a 30% belief in 2 gods...
> 
> Sorry, I think that's too much work, and it doesn't seem to be generating a really useful conceptual paradigm. I'm not seeing how religion could be a multidimensional field, let alone a single spectrum.


It's just a way to classify and organize terminology. It has nothing to do with history or geometry and everything to do with semantics. (_The Language Construction Kit_ by Mark Rosenfelder has an excellent chapter on semantics, by the way.)


----------



## science

Kopachris said:


> It's just a way to classify and organize terminology. It has nothing to do with history or geometry and everything to do with semantics. (_The Language Construction Kit_ by Mark Rosenfelder has an excellent chapter on semantics, by the way.)


I don't understand though. It's not clarifying the terminology for me. Trying to figure out how sexuality could be analogous to theism or religiosity creates confusion in my mind rather than illuminating anything about either issue. Trying to figure out how theism or religiosity could be a spectrum is even worse. Maybe you can explain either or both of them in a more enlightening way?


----------



## Kopachris

Polednice said:


> This all depends on what exactly you mean by a theistic orientation. If you mean "having an opinion about theistic ideas", then yes, I suppose it would have to be, but I don't think it's helpful (and it's obviously a little confusing!) to lump atheism in with other theistic propositions because atheism is set apart from a million theistic belief systems for some quite significant reasons.


That's exactly what I mean. I'm not lumping atheism in with organized religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. I'm categorizing it as an answer to the question: "What do you believe about the nature of your god or gods?"
Panenthesim - "I believe in a god that permeates the universe."
Pantheism - "I believe that the universe is my god."
Polythesim - "I believe in multiple gods and/or goddesses which are physical entities."
Monotheism - "I believe in one god or goddess which is a physical entity."
Atheism - "I believe there are no gods or goddesses."

Theoretically, these could be combined, such as believing in multiple gods and goddesses which are physical entities, _and_ one that permeates the universe.

The analogy with sexuality is merely in how atheism is a theistic orientation. I didn't mean to make specific theistic orientations analogous to specific sexual orientations.


----------



## Polednice

Kopachris said:


> That's exactly what I mean. I'm not lumping atheism in with organized religions such as Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, etc. I'm categorizing it as an answer to the question: "What do you believe about the nature of your god or gods?"
> Panenthesim - "I believe in a god that permeates the universe."
> Pantheism - "I believe that the universe is my god."
> Polythesim - "I believe in multiple gods and/or goddesses which are physical entities."
> Monotheism - "I believe in one god or goddess which is a physical entity."
> Atheism - "I believe there are no gods or goddesses."
> 
> Theoretically, these could be combined, such as believing in multiple gods and goddesses which are physical entities, _and_ one that permeates the universe.


OK. In that case, to clarify our original discussion over the sexuality/hobby issue (not that I think it matters any more!), the hobby analogy is more appropriate if the question it assumes is: "Do you believe in God?" If the question were yours, then yes, yours would be more appropriate.


----------



## TxllxT

I live in the same country where Erasmus lived: he was a so-called 'humanist'. Is it possible to do the same with humanism, asserting that one is a-human or anti-human (analogue to sexuality & theism)? The problem with religion, theism etc. is its centering on Theos, Deus, .... That's easy stuff for speculation. But why not go for the vulnerable side that's cuts into my own flesh: what about the inhumanity of _Homo sapiens_? Where does 'humanity' come from? (from Mars, from Venus: from the gods or .....)


----------



## science

You know, the fields analogy issue got me thinking. We could make a 3-dimensional space representing any work of music. One dimension would represent pitch, another volume, and another time. A pitch at a volume at a moment of time would be a solid: and then any work of music would be represented by a (series of) 3-dimensional shape(s). Or, any 3-dimensional shape could be turned into a work of music (or noise at least). 

I imagine the computer program for this would not be too complicated. So, someone, find a professor and persuade him or her to assign it to a grad student.

Edit: It occurs to me that in practice the series of shapes would not represent the work of music abstractly, but as it sounded in a particular case, which would have to include the acoustics of the physical space in which the music occurred. So we wouldn't be able to portray Beethoven's 5th symphony, we would have to portray something like Kleiber's recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony.


----------



## Philip

science said:


> You know, the fields analogy issue got me thinking. We could make a 3-dimensional space representing any work of music. One dimension would represent pitch, another volume, and another time. A pitch at a volume at a moment of time would be a solid: and then any work of music would be represented by a (series of) 3-dimensional shape(s). Or, any 3-dimensional shape could be turned into a work of music (or noise at least).
> 
> I imagine the computer program for this would not be too complicated. So, someone, find a professor and persuade him or her to assign it to a grad student.
> 
> Edit: It occurs to me that in practice the series of shapes would not represent the work of music abstractly, but as it sounded in a particular case, which would have to include the acoustics of the physical space in which the music occurred. So we wouldn't be able to portray Beethoven's 5th symphony, we would have to portray something like Kleiber's recording of Beethoven's 5th symphony.


the definition of your problem is not quite rigorous. fundamentally, a "work of music" is sound; and practically, an audio signal is considered one-dimensional, as it consists solely of amplitude values (related to volume) acting on the discrete-time domain. perhaps surprisingly to some, all the frequency information (pitch) is actually contained within this amplitude signal.

mathematical operations such as the fourier transform are used convert signals to the frequency domain and back (inverse transform).


----------



## science

Philip said:


> the definition of your problem is not quite rigorous. fundamentally, a "work of music" is sound; and practically, an audio signal is considered one-dimensional, as it consists solely of amplitude values (related to volume) acting on the discrete-time domain. perhaps surprisingly to some, all the frequency information (pitch) is actually contained within this amplitude signal.
> 
> mathematical operations such as the fourier transform are used convert signals to the frequency domain and back (inverse transform).


I will have to look into that. I don't understand how frequency information could be contained within the amplitude.

Anyway, we will need at least 2 dimensions, because we need time.


----------



## Guest

One thing to ask is whether the UV or UV's came into existence accidentally or not, now if you know the answer to this then you are qualified to say whether there is or is not a Creator and all that goes with it. IMO of course


----------



## Philip

science said:


> I will have to look into that. I don't understand how frequency information could be contained within the amplitude.
> 
> Anyway, we will need at least 2 dimensions, because we need time.


no, its actually only one-dimensional, ie. the signal x[t] is represented in the discrete-time domain. to perform spectral analysis, one would apply the 1D discrete fourier transform.


----------



## mmsbls

Andante said:


> One thing to ask is whether the UV or UV's came into existence accidentally or not, now if you know the answer to this then you are qualified to say whether there is or is not a Creator and all that goes with it. IMO of course


We are deviating from the OP, but that happens in many posts. I assume UV means universe. Some cosmologists try to understand how our universe came into being by starting with the most basic state of reality that physicists understand - the quantum vacuum state. This state is not so simple and does NOT contain "nothing". There is some agreement that universes will randomly spring into existence from this vacuum state following phenomena that are similar to well understood phenomena in our universe (e.g. the decay of uranium nuclei, the decay of black holes, etc.).

In this sense the creation of universes are believed to be random (accidental). In fact the properties of universes are believed (by some significant number of cosmologists) to be random as well. The issue here is that while universes may spring into existence at random we still do not understand the genesis of the quantum vacuum state or whether it has always existed. Obviously a God could have created that vacuum state and let things go from there.

The main point I think is that it appears that we do not _need_ to invoke a God to explain the physical universe.


----------



## Guest

Thanks for the interesting reply *mmsbls* If I can just make a short reply to "the vacuum state does NOT contain "nothing". The theory that I have in my mind is that from the moment of the BB the expansion itself created space, so I assumed that there was nothing and space was filling it and still is.
As you will no doubt laughingly see I am not a scientist but have always had an intense layman's interest in cosmology and I apologise for going off topic. :tiphat:


----------



## mmsbls

Andante said:


> Thanks for the interesting reply *mmsbls* If I can just make a short reply to "the vacuum state does NOT contain "nothing". The theory that I have in my mind is that from the moment of the BB the expansion itself created space, so I assumed that there was nothing and space was filling it and still is.
> As you will no doubt laughingly see I am not a scientist but have always had an intense layman's interest in cosmology and I apologise for going off topic. :tiphat:


I would say your description is essentially correct. It's always a bit hard to discuss these things since words don't work so well. Before a universe is created (the Big Bang), there is no space AND no time. The creation of a universe creates spacetime which expands. Our universe continues to expand (and always will as far as we know).


----------



## science

Philip said:


> no, its actually only one-dimensional, ie. the signal x[t] is represented in the discrete-time domain. to perform spectral analysis, one would apply the 1D discrete fourier transform.


Sorry man, I just don't understand. I'm familiar with Fourier transformations being applied to waves, which I'm used to visualizing in 2D. I guess I can imagine the 1D equivalent - essentially, pulses. But without doing something tricky (i.e. digitizing the information - but then I'd guess that we'd have to decode it to work Fourier's magic on it...) I'm not sure how the sound could be represented that way.

I'm just not familiar with the physics well enough to understand what you're talking about.

Anyway, as far as I know, even if a 1D representation is possible, we could choose to visually represent sound in 3D with frequency in one dimension, volume in another, and time in a third.


----------



## Philip

science said:


> Sorry man, I just don't understand. I'm familiar with Fourier transformations being applied to waves, which I'm used to visualizing in 2D. I guess I can imagine the 1D equivalent - essentially, pulses. But without doing something tricky (i.e. digitizing the information - but then I'd guess that we'd have to decode it to work Fourier's magic on it...) I'm not sure how the sound could be represented that way.
> 
> I'm just not familiar with the physics well enough to understand what you're talking about.
> 
> Anyway, as far as I know, even if a 1D representation is possible, we could choose to visually represent sound in 3D with frequency in one dimension, volume in another, and time in a third.


well the graph on which you plot a 1D signal is 2D itself, but practically the signal is 1D because its domain has 1 variable, eg. x(t) is one-dimensional, x(n,m) is two-dimensional, etc.










the 3D representation of an audio signal is called a spectrogram, computed with a short-time fourier transform (STFT). usually it is plotted as a 2D image (frequency and time as spacial dimensions, and amplitude as color or brightness), but it can be plotted in 3D:










note that, although visually convenient, a spectrogram contains redundant information, since frequency information is already contained in the original waveform.

your media player likely displays "bars" when a file is playing, this kind of spectrogram is computed in real-time with a sliding fourier transform, which contains even more redundancy because it is calculated at every instant of time with an arbitrary frequency resolution.


----------



## science

The root question I have is, how is amplitude and frequency a single thing? Let me know what I misunderstand: 

As I understand it, amplitude ~ volume and frequency ~ pitch. So 440 Hz is a measurement of frequency, but it could be a quiet or a loud tone, so the amplitude is independently variable.


----------



## Sid James

I doubt there is a God but I still think the churches/religions are important, or can be important, to bring societies together, to be like a hub of society. Of course, that's less of a case now, esp. in the West, but still, religion does have good things to offer, not just extremism (which I hate as well, but let's face it, an arseh*le is an arseh*le, regardless whether they're religiour or atheist or whatever). I think it's a matter of doing good things, of building the civil society, and there are a number of charities like the Salvation Army which does these things on a religious basis, but looking at it's practical application not just empty rhetoric/dogma.

I think you can, for example, be a Christian and still believe in evolution. You don't have to have a literal "take" on the Bible, it's only a guide. As someone said above, there are human (or Humanist) values, as well as things like the Natural Law & Natural Justice.

So I'm "agnostic," I chose the first option, but there should be maybe an option for people who are atheist/agnostic but not necessarily anti-religion. I'm just against dogma and control, I think all relgions have some good potential, it's just some humans that screw it up big time...


----------



## graaf

Sid James said:


> not necessarily anti-religion. I'm just against dogma and control


And there goes 99% of content of religion out of the window... I guess that makes you (and me too) only 99% anti-religion? 

Religion is one of the most vague terms ever used (and has plenty of its own vague terms, like God, for example), that it's almost impossible to talk about it without someone saying something like "well, that's not true religion" or at least "that's not what I mean by religion". Attacking religion is often doomed to fail, simply because you can never be sure what you're attacking in the first place. Or as Hitchens said - I never get bored of debating religion, because I never have a slightest idea what I'm going to hear this time.

So, I hold nothing against religion per se, because one can never be sure what "religion per se" even means. It can mean whatever religious person wants it to mean. I have a lot against bad ideas, like sexual discrimination, frightening people, and especially children, with hell, attitude that AIDS is bad, but condoms are worse, etc...

If religions would abolish all these destructive ideas, how could one attack them for anything? But really abolishing, not stopping bashing gays and infidels. Imagine every Christian priest, Islamic mullah, every religious preacher saying only two things, during their regular sermon:

1) All homosexuals are God's children as much as heterosexuals are, and God loves both equally. Homosexual love is as beautiful as heterosexual love, or any other sexual orientation.

2) There is no hell or any place where those who do not believe in God go to suffer eternally. Atheists might be denied paradise or not - that is upon God to decide, for he knows the best, but there is no hell for anyone to go to.

Can you see 99% of people leaving the church without ever coming back? Well, people who think gays are as good as us, and there's no hell for anyone to go to - those people don't go to the church in the first place. I always leave 1% as a statistical error.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> I doubt there is a God but I still think the churches/religions are important, or can be important, to bring societies together, to be like a hub of society.


Sid, Religion separate communities Iraq, Ireland, Muslim, Christian etc etc etc they are self serving and have caused a lot of strife throughout history, personally I want no part of them. :angel:


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> I doubt there is a God but I still think the churches/religions are important, or can be important, to bring societies together, to be like a hub of society. Of course, that's less of a case now, esp. in the West, but still, religion does have good things to offer, not just extremism (which I hate as well, but let's face it, an arseh*le is an arseh*le, regardless whether they're religiour or atheist or whatever). I think it's a matter of doing good things, of building the civil society, and there are a number of charities like the Salvation Army which does these things on a religious basis, but looking at it's practical application not just empty rhetoric/dogma.


This is OK as a defence of religion, demonstrating that it isn't always _totally_ ****, but the good things it does are not enough to redeem it. Why? Because all of those good things can be (and are) done by secular groups and means.

As such, society would be much better off if we replaced the good parts of religion with secular alternatives, thus keeping the good and getting rid of the bile and hatred and judgement and bigotry in the process.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> As such, society would be much better off if we replaced the good parts of religion with secular alternatives, thus keeping the good and getting rid of the bile and hatred and judgement and bigotry in the process.


Do I see a tormented conscience behind these angry, uneasy words? That would be the first faltering step towards the Kingdom of Heaven


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Do I see a tormented conscience behind these angry, uneasy words? That would be the first faltering step towards the Kingdom of Heaven


No you don't. My words weren't in any way angry or uneasy. They were emotionless, cold, factual, and rational.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> No you don't. My words weren't in any way angry or uneasy. They were emotionless, cold, factual, and rational.


*sigh* It was only the faintest of hopes.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> *sigh* It was only the faintest of hopes.


For your proselytism, perhaps. For me, I am happy and that's all that matters. I couldn't care less whether anyone thinks I'm going to be granted eternal salvation or not. Keep it to yourself - it's like spreading germs.


----------



## Kopachris

science said:


> The root question I have is, how is amplitude and frequency a single thing? Let me know what I misunderstand:
> 
> As I understand it, amplitude ~ volume and frequency ~ pitch. So 440 Hz is a measurement of frequency, but it could be a quiet or a loud tone, so the amplitude is independently variable.


You can think of frequency as a function of amplitude over time. When you play an audio signal on your speakers, it is represented as a series of voltages. These voltages directly correlate to the amplitude of the wave. For a single, pure sine wave tone, the voltages might look something like this: 0 0.38 0.7 0.92 1.0 0.92 0.7 0.38 0 -0.38 -0.7 -0.92 -1.0 -0.92 -0.7 -0.38 0 ...

When figuring out the frequency of such a wave, the peaks would be where the voltage reaches its highest and the troughs would be where the voltage reaches its lowest. The frequency is then how often the wave reaches its peak amplitude.

Another way of understanding it is by plotting a sine wave on a graph. For _y_ = sin _x_, _y_ represents amplitude and _x_ represents time. Frequency is just a way of describing how the amplitude changes over time.


----------



## Philip

science said:


> The root question I have is, how is amplitude and frequency a single thing? Let me know what I misunderstand:
> 
> As I understand it, amplitude ~ volume and frequency ~ pitch. So 440 Hz is a measurement of frequency, but it could be a quiet or a loud tone, so the amplitude is independently variable.


let's continue this through PM or with a separate thread 

edit: Kopachris you're invited too


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> For your proselytism, perhaps. For me, I am happy and that's all that matters. I couldn't care less whether anyone thinks I'm going to be granted eternal salvation or not. Keep it to yourself - it's like spreading germs.


You must understand we need to cast the pearls once before we discover....nuff said


----------



## graaf

Chris said:


> You must understand we need to cast the pearls once before we discover....nuff said


Calling someone a swine might be seen as an infraction by moderators, I know I got my "infraction warning" for less.


----------



## Chris

graaf said:


> Calling someone a swine might be seen as an infraction by moderators, I know I got my "infraction warning" for less.


It will be a sad day when to merely allude to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ invokes the displeasure of moderators.


----------



## graaf

Chris said:


> It will be a sad day when to merely allude to the words of the Lord Jesus Christ invokes the displeasure of moderators.


I guess you're right. So enjoy your Matthew 23:33...


----------



## Guest

I like the term swine and more to the point Schweinegrippe Hund, such beauty in the sound lol


----------



## Almaviva

@ graaf - about your warning "for less" I sent you a PM

@Chris and all other participants:

As you know, there is now a group for religious discussions. Old, established discussion threads like this one are being allowed to continue in the Community area, but we the moderation team strongly prefer that you guys progressively migrate all discussions of religion to the group. 

New threads with religious and politics topics are very, very strongly discouraged, currently. We've been letting them gather a couple of replies, have been posting ourselves on them inviting participants to join the groups, instructing them how to, and then closing the thread.

The Social Groups area is the ideal venue for these threads, since it is very loosely moderated (the actual moderator for the threads is the person who has created the group, not the official moderation team). Our policy regarding the groups is to not actively seek intervention unless the group creator asks us to intervene, or unless we receive a direct complaint from a member. So, more freedom for you all, and less work for the moderation team, a win-win situation.

So, please, consider wrapping up this discussion and moving it there, and please, only start new threads for religious discussions over there.

For those who don't know it: to access the social groups, click on the word "Community" on the bar that is at the top of your screen, right below the "what's new?" button. When you click on Community a drop down menu opens, and then you click on "groups." 

Thank you all for your cooperation.


----------



## Sid James

^^ I agree we should wrap up this thread. There's been enough said, we all know where we stand. I won't reply in depth to the guys who replied to me, but I have to say that I've been at pretty low points before, and some of the people who helped in some ways were of religious persuasion. Of course, there were others involved, some atheists as well, if we want to label people. My family are basically atheists. I am kind of wavering, "agnostic" or whatever. There are Christians, I have met them, who are not dogmatic and shove their religion down your throat. They are human. Anyway, that's what I want to say. Unfortunately it's always the zealots who tend to dominate the discourse as some have kind of suggested. Don't forget that some of the most horrible people have been atheist as well, eg. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Even Saddam Hussein and Soeharto of Indonesia played the religion card - eg. went to Mecca or whatever - to "prove" that they were good Muslims to certain religious cliques in their countries. It was a political act to be seen to be religious, but in reality, based on the horrible sh*ts these "people" were, they were not religious, were they?...


----------



## Chris

My participation in this sort of discussion is only reactive and I am more than happy to see an end of these threads. But I won't be going anywhere near the new Groups. Visiting a Group is hardly reactive. More like spoiling for a fight.


----------



## Philip




----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> My participation in this sort of discussion is only reactive and I am more than happy to see an end of these threads. But I won't be going anywhere near the new Groups. Visiting a Group is hardly reactive. More like spoiling for a fight.


I think 'provocative' would describe your posts more accurately.


----------



## Chris

Polednice said:


> I think 'provocative' would describe your posts more accurately.


Reactive. If you examine my posting history (not sure if this is easy to do) I think you will discover I generally enter these discussions late, and defensively; such as, in response to an atheist's post which asserts that religion has a component of 'bile and hatred and judgement and bigotry'. It is _just possible_ that some readers, who knows no better, might lay these charges at the door of Evangelical Christianity. In these cases I feel a response is called for.


----------



## Guest

Chris said:


> My participation in this sort of discussion is only reactive and I am more than happy to see an end of these threads. But I won't be going anywhere near the new Groups. Visiting a Group is hardly reactive. More like spoiling for a fight.


I wish there was a "dislike" button, because I would have to click it here. That is absolutely not the reality in the groups. Oddly enough, the Political Junkies group, which now has over 200 posts in a variety of discussions, has stayed more tame than many of the political discussions in the regular forum. As for the Religious Discussion group, it has also stayed pretty civil. There are some heated comments, but relatively tame. I think that only those who are truly interested in discussion bother to deal with the groups, whereas in the general forum, you get a lot more passersby that like to toss in their provocative 2 cents. So don't dismiss the Groups so quickly.


----------



## Chris

DrMike said:


> I wish there was a "dislike" button, because I would have to click it here. That is absolutely not the reality in the groups. Oddly enough, the Political Junkies group, which now has over 200 posts in a variety of discussions, has stayed more tame than many of the political discussions in the regular forum. As for the Religious Discussion group, it has also stayed pretty civil. There are some heated comments, but relatively tame. I think that only those who are truly interested in discussion bother to deal with the groups, whereas in the general forum, you get a lot more passersby that like to toss in their provocative 2 cents. So don't dismiss the Groups so quickly.


Calm down, Dr. Mike. I was only talking about my own case, not the good people who subscribe to the groups.


----------



## Polednice

Chris said:


> Reactive. If you examine my posting history (not sure if this is easy to do) I think you will discover I generally enter these discussions late, and defensively; such as, in response to an atheist's post which asserts that religion has a component of 'bile and hatred and judgement and bigotry'. It is _just possible_ that some readers, who knows no better, might lay these charges at the door of Evangelical Christianity. In these cases I feel a response is called for.


P-r-o-v-o-c-a-t-i-v-e.


----------



## Guest

Sid James said:


> ^^ Don't forget that some of the most horrible people have been atheist as well, eg. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Even Saddam Hussein and Soeharto of Indonesia played the religion card - eg. went to Mecca or whatever - to "prove" that they were good Muslims to certain religious cliques in their countries. It was a political act to be seen to be religious, but in reality, based on the horrible sh*ts these "people" were, they were not religious, were they?...


That is interesting Sid I always believed Adolf was a devout Catholic?


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Sid James said:


> ^^ I agree we should wrap up this thread. There's been enough said, we all know where we stand. I won't reply in depth to the guys who replied to me, but I have to say that I've been at pretty low points before, and some of the people who helped in some ways were of religious persuasion. Of course, there were others involved, some atheists as well, if we want to label people. My family are basically atheists. I am kind of wavering, "agnostic" or whatever. There are Christians, I have met them, who are not dogmatic and shove their religion down your throat. They are human. Anyway, that's what I want to say. Unfortunately it's always the zealots who tend to dominate the discourse as some have kind of suggested. Don't forget that some of the most horrible people have been atheist as well, eg. Stalin, Mao, Hitler, etc. Even Saddam Hussein and Soeharto of Indonesia played the religion card - eg. went to Mecca or whatever - to "prove" that they were good Muslims to certain religious cliques in their countries. It was a political act to be seen to be religious, but in reality, based on the horrible sh*ts these "people" were, they were not religious, were they?...


Hitler was religious, Stalin attended a seminary (it's hard to say whether he was a rebelious religious person or not religious - statistically, probably the former). A cult of personality is a form of religion, too.

Also, atheism isn't a set of beliefs or a doctrine. Atheists do not form a unified group. That's like saying "Don't forget that some of the most horrible people wore mustache." Doesn't make any sense, does it? It's been proven beyond any doubt that religion isn't the basis of morals - certainly those about murder or theft.

What you're doing here is called No true Sctosman fallacy, among other fallacies.


----------



## Guest

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Hitler was religious, Stalin attended a seminary (it's hard to say whether he was a rebelious religious person or not religious - statistically, probably the former). A cult of personality is a form of religion, too.
> 
> Also, atheism isn't a set of beliefs or a doctrine. Atheists do not form a unified group. That's like saying "Don't forget that some of the most horrible people wore mustache." Doesn't make any sense, does it? *It's been proven beyond any doubt that religion isn't the basis of morals - certainly those about murder or theft.*
> 
> What you're doing here is called No true Sctosman fallacy, among other fallacies.


Interesting - could you show me that proof? I'm not saying one way or another, but I'm always interested in seeing the proof for anything that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Hitler was nominally religious - a large consensus holds that he was religious inasmuch as it helped his position, but that he was highly critical of Christianity, and was planning on taking it on once the war was over. He was born Catholic, but had no affiliation with the Church once he left home. He associated with some Protestant beliefs, but created his own hybrid that incorporated many of his racist views.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

DrMike said:


> Interesting - could you show me that proof? I'm not saying one way or another, but I'm always interested in seeing the proof for anything that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.


It has, at least for people who accept the Theory of Evolution [at least in this in this aspect]:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality

Simple reading of the Bible tells us that it has to be the case. Jews have murdered, raped, plundered and enslaved all in the name of their God. It's not as if there were no slaves at the time of the New Testament either. In other words - current ethics are completely different to the ethics of the Bible.



> Hitler was nominally religious - a large consensus holds that he was religious inasmuch as it helped his position, but that he was highly critical of Christianity, and was planning on taking it on once the war was over. He was born Catholic, but had no affiliation with the Church once he left home. He associated with some Protestant beliefs, but created his own hybrid that incorporated many of his racist views.


You don't have to be part of organized religion to be a religious person.


----------



## samurai

KaerbEmEvig said:


> It has, at least for people who accept the Theory of Evolution [at least in this in this aspect]:
> 
> http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-biology/
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_morality
> 
> Simple reading of the Bible tells us that it has to be the case. Jews have murdered, raped, plundered and enslaved all in the name of their God. It's not as if there were no slaves at the time of the New Testament either. In other words - current ethics are completely different to the ethics of the Bible.
> 
> You don't have to be part of organized religion to be a religious person.


What exactly are we talking about here with your inclusion about the Jews? Which part of the Bible describes them as being rapists and plunderers? Enlighten us, please.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

samurai said:


> What exactly are we talking about here with your inclusion about the Jews? Which part of the Bible describes them as being rapists and plunderers? Enlighten us, please.


For example this one?

_When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys - everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)_

Or this one?

_"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)_

http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm

Why are you asking me to prove it? I though you had read it. I'm not christian, but I had.


----------



## samurai

I'm not Christian either, but Jewish. I was just wondering how this fits into the ongoing discussion; what is the point you are trying to make or illustrate? Just asking.


----------



## Philip

KaerbEmEvig said:


> For example this one?
> 
> _When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it - men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys - everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)_
> 
> Or this one?
> 
> _"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)_
> 
> http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
> http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm
> http://www.evilbible.com/Slavery.htm
> 
> Why are you asking me to prove it? I though you had read it. I'm not christian, but I had.


using an old book to dismiss religion is just as bad using an old book to motivate religion, if you ask me


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> using an old book to dismiss religion is just as bad using an old book to motivate religion, if you ask me


Using a specific religion's "sacred book" and pointing out the atrocities (or inaccuracies or contradictions) within it in order to dismiss that specific religion is a valid argument, if you ask me.


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> Using a specific religion's "sacred book" and pointing out the atrocities (or inaccuracies or contradictions) within it in order to dismiss that specific religion is a valid argument, if you ask me.


that doesn't make any sense to me, since even if the bible didn't have atrocities "(or inaccuracies or contradictions)", i would still reject christianity. but i'm guessing you wouldn't reject it... because if you did that would render your argument superfluous.


----------



## Dodecaplex

Philip said:


> that doesn't make any sense to me, since even if the bible didn't have atrocities "(or inaccuracies or contradictions)", i would still reject christianity. but i'm guessing you wouldn't reject it... because if you did that would render your argument superfluous.


By the same token, the opposite is also true for yourself. After all, if the Bible, for the sake of argument, was historically and scientifically accurate, didn't contain such atrocities, and was therefore able to back up its claims, then there would be no reason to reject Christianity. Of course, that's not the case in reality, which is why I do reject it.


----------



## Sid James

KaerbEmEvig said:


> Hitler was religious, Stalin attended a seminary (it's hard to say whether he was a rebelious religious person or not religious - statistically, probably the former). A cult of personality is a form of religion, too.
> ...


As I said in my post, Saddam Hussein and Soeharto also liked to be seen as being religious, but in terms of their actions, they weren't very religious, where they? I know about Stalin going to the seminary, but so did the children of many poor people then to be able to eat and get some form of education. As for Hitler, he oppressed religious dissent in Germany when he was in power, eg. that Bonhoeffer guy was executed for doing that. So as I said, despite any issues of their image, whether they considered themselves religious or not, in practice, they were not religious, they had no right to call themselves human, let alone Christians, they were monsters, they were pure evil...

& BTW, how convenient, you didn't contradict me about Chairman Mao...is that being fallacious?...


----------



## starthrower

Saddam, Stalin were classic sadists.
Hitler, having no talent for creativity, made his mark with unparalleled destruction.

American leaders like to believe they are god blessed. They don't see themselves as evil monsters,
but look what they've done to millions of people around the world. I will never forgive my country
for what they did to the people of Southeast Asia. Absolutely horrific crimes against humanity on
a grand scale. And that's only one chapter in our history.


----------



## KaerbEmEvig

Sid James said:


> As I said in my post, Saddam Hussein and Soeharto also liked to be seen as being religious, but in terms of their actions, they weren't very religious, where they?


This is called "No true Scotsman" fallacy. Religiosity is in the brain and is not tied to one's actions. Disobeying laws set by a religion doesn't necessarily mean one does not believe in a higher power (say, God).



> I know about Stalin going to the seminary, but so did the children of many poor people then to be able to eat and get some form of education. As for Hitler, he oppressed religious dissent in Germany when he was in power, eg. that Bonhoeffer guy was executed for doing that. So as I said, despite any issues of their image, whether they considered themselves religious or not, in practice, they were not religious, they had no right to call themselves human, let alone Christians, they were monsters, they were pure evil...


I'll say it again, because it seems you're not quite getting it. Just because a person does not subscribe to an organized religious group does not necessarily mean that the person doesn't believe in a higher power. This is "No true Scotsman" fallacy...



> & BTW, how convenient, you didn't contradict me about Chairman Mao...is that being fallacious?...


I'm merely pointing out things you were wrong about.



samurai said:


> I'm not Christian either, but Jewish. I was just wondering how this fits into the ongoing discussion; what is the point you are trying to make or illustrate? Just asking.


That morals of today are not based on what's inside the Bible. Far from it. On the contrary, one could say that what's in the Bible is based on what has been seen as moral at the time it was being written.



Philip said:


> using an old book to dismiss religion is just as bad using an old book to motivate religion, if you ask me


That's not what I'm trying to do here. See above.


----------



## Polednice

DrMike said:


> Interesting - could you show me that proof? I'm not saying one way or another, but I'm always interested in seeing the proof for anything that has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.


Proof that our most basic morals are innate is that Moses' followers didn't all murder each other before being given the commandments.


----------



## Polednice

Sid James said:


> they had no right to call themselves human, let alone Christians


I think this makes the mistake of assuming that "Christian" means "lovely" or "nice" or "kind to other human beings". "Christian" in fact means whatever an individual interpreter of the religious texts wants it to mean.


----------



## Guest

Blah, blah, blah, when evil people have some passing association with religion, we can use that to beat over the head of religious people, but when evil people are atheists, that is purely coincidental.


----------



## science

Fair is fair. Most of the time the argument is that you have to be Christian to be good.


----------



## Guest

No, science - in fact, if you will do an honest search through my posts on this forum, I made the point that you can obviously be good without being Christian, and that hypothetical arguments to the contrary are ridiculous, because clearly there are innumerable examples of non-Christian or non-religious people being good. But I suppose if you just want to score points, you could just say what you posted.


----------



## Kopachris

science said:


> Fair is fair. Most of the time the argument is that you have to be Christian to be good.


I thought the argument was usually that you have to be good to be Christian. I know a few people who would say that anyone who's not a Christian is evil (my mother, for example), but that's usually not the case. Of course, it's also not the case that all Christians are good, so neither argument really works.


----------



## Philip

Dodecaplex said:


> By the same token, the opposite is also true for yourself. After all, if the Bible, for the sake of argument, was historically and scientifically accurate, didn't contain such atrocities, and was therefore able to back up its claims, then there would be no reason to reject Christianity. Of course, that's not the case in reality, which is why I do reject it.


i hate to drag this on further, but no, it would not be true for myself. i cannot think of anything that could be written in the bible that would convert me. as far as i know, the bible doesn't treat any historical or scientific matter, therefore anything follows from supposing that it is "historically and scientifically accurate", this time rendering your argument contradictory in itself.


----------



## mtmailey

i stay out of religion because there are to many fakes and man made crap-most religions are not even in KING JAMES 1611.


----------



## Sid James

I agree with Dr. Mike, although I'm not really religious now, there are/were probably just as many bad people who were religious as non-religious/atheist, & vice versa, "goodness" doesn't have much to do with religion or lack of it.

I have equal respect for our own the late Fred Hollows as our Reverend Bill Crews. Mr. Hollows was an opthamologist who was an atheist/communist, but worked to improve health here of Australian Aboriginal people, as well as set up clinics in third world countries. His charity is still going 20 years after his death, good work is still being done under his name & he in fact went almost bankrupt funding & setting up this charity. As for Bill Crews, his Exodus Foundation has done many things for the disadvantaged and needy, eg. in terms of services for the homeless, and also a school for children who slipped through the cracks of the mainstream education system (eg. "delinquents" if you want to label). In terms of ideology, they are both the same, they are both left of the spectrum. Despite being a reverend, Mr. Crews believes in gay rights, evolution, women's rights (incl. abortion), and so on.

As I said, what you do practically, how you think, can have nothing to do with religious dogma, but putting things into practice, whether religion or communism, etc. These two Australians get my respect, but ideologues with extremist views, relgious or not, who don't really do much good for this earth, simply don't cut the mustard with me at all...


----------



## science

DrMike said:


> No, science - in fact, if you will do an honest search through my posts on this forum, I made the point that you can obviously be good without being Christian, and that hypothetical arguments to the contrary are ridiculous, because clearly there are innumerable examples of non-Christian or non-religious people being good. But I suppose if you just want to score points, you could just say what you posted.


Of course I didn't accuse you!


----------



## mtmailey

good point real Christians are more about helping the poor,but these fake christian care more about money & material.Also they have photos of a Edomite Jesus but he had hair as lamb's wool & feet like unto fine brass.Also these fakes are idol worshipper but true christian worship the living GOD not images made by men.


----------



## Polednice

mtmailey said:


> good point real Christians are more about helping the poor,but these fake christian care more about money & material.Also they have photos of a Edomite Jesus but he had hair as lamb's wool & feet like unto fine brass.Also these fakes are idol worshipper but true christian worship the living GOD not images made by men.


Who on earth has the authority to define a "good" and "bad" or "fake" Christian?


----------



## science

Polednice said:


> Who on earth has the authority to define a "good" and "bad" or "fake" Christian?


It's a legitimate theological question.

The Bible and specifically the New Testament is full of things like "Ye shall know them by their fruits."

Also, to me, Matthew 25:31-46 is the bottom line.



> "When the Son of Man shall come in His glory and all the holy angels with Him, then shall He sit upon the throne of His glory. And before Him shall be gathered all nations, and He shall separate them one from another as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats. And He shall set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. Then shall the King say unto them on His right hand, `Come, ye blessed of My Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world. For I hungered, and ye gave Me meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me in; naked, and ye clothed Me; I was sick, and ye visited Me; I was in prison, and ye came unto Me.' Then shall the righteous answer Him, saying, `Lord, when saw we Thee hungering and fed Thee, or thirsty and gave Thee drink? When saw we Thee a stranger and took Thee in, or naked and clothed Thee? Or when saw we Thee sick, or in prison, and came unto Thee?' And the King shall answer and say unto them, `Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these My brethren, ye have done it unto Me.' "Then shall He say also unto them on the left hand, `Depart from Me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I hungered, and ye gave Me no meat; I was thirsty, and ye gave Me no drink; I was a stranger, and ye took Me not in; naked, and ye clothed Me not; sick and in prison, and ye visited Me not.' Then shall they also answer Him, saying, `Lord, when saw we Thee hungering or athirst or a stranger, or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister unto Thee?' Then shall He answer them, saying, `Verily I say unto you, inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to Me.' And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the righteous into life eternal."


If you believe that the Son of Man will come again in glory, that there will be a judgment, that there will be a casting into heaven and hell, then this must be one of the most important passages in world literature.

A lot of theology is an attempt to cancel it, but I don't see any reason that Jesus believed to be saying anything like "the real point of this passage is that everyone deserves to go to hell so you have to become a Christian to get into heaven and then you're forgiven for acting like the goats in this passage."

Of course you can find plenty of Christians - the majority of Evangelical Protestants to be sure - who disagree with me. Just "believe" and you're truly a Christian. There are Bible verses that support that too, or at least seem to.

If I were a Christian, I'd hold an opinion. For now, I just state a few perspectives.


----------



## Huilunsoittaja

Just a curious inquiry for a possible poll extension. For those who "apostatized" from Christianity, what denominations were you from? Catholic, Evangelical, Arminian, etc.?


----------



## science

As I Christian, I'd been 

- various forms of Evangelical Protestant until I was about 20, which breaks down as: 
--- Church of Christ (the Campbellite tradition, not the liberal one) until I was 8
--- Jehovah's Witness for a few months when I was 8
--- Southern Baptist, fundamentalist (creationist, dispensational premillenialist) from 8 to about 18 
--- nondenominational Evangelical from about 18 to about 20 

- Eastern Orthodox from about 20 to about 25 (though I didn't formally convert, I went to Orthodox Churches and believed the doctrine, and planned to become a priest).


----------



## peeyaj

I fondly remember my thread..


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

the first one ....................


----------

