Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Well I'll just append to that something you'd know and that's when mommy and daddy did tell you what to do..i.e. hey stop running with the scissors you'll poke the eye out of yer head! Or 'eat your vegetables!' or 'don't talk back to me!' etc etc. Of course you listen to all the spoon-fed stuff. You take it in like a sponge.
I guess that's a hypothetical, isn't it? All I know is that my past to a certain extent has been instrumental in making me the individual I am today.
It's just what I wonder. It's not something that is possible to know. (Heh, how appropriate is that?)
In other words, to make it a broader question than just you personally, how many people would still participate in organized religions if they were NOT indoctrinated in them as children? I find that an interesting thing to consider. My inclination is to think it would be fewer people, though not zero. A certain amount of the participation is quite probably by habit. But it is not really possible to test this in any kind of reasonable way.
And just a comment. I never did get appreciate the extent to which atheistic belief is sort of married to developing a defensive moat so to speak to guard as Arequipa noted the right NOT to believe.
Because people who are in the majority (i.e. you ) generally do not see how much they encroach upon the right not to believe. To a certain extent this seems to be easing, but the things that are ingrained are hard to remove.
I mean, yes, let's use the so-called frivolous example of the money. People say this is harmless. But look, what is your perspective if you're saying it's harmless? It says "In God We Trust". Sorry, no, WE DO NOT. Some do. It's a religious statement that has no business being on the money of a country whose constitution says that the government can not establish a religion.
I think Atheists (we) bring on the bad press when we do things like erect huge billboards dissing Christmas for example. When we sue cities over a nativity scene on public property, etc.
I just don't pay attention to the nativity scene. The majority likes it and it really doesn't bother me.
I hate it when people act as if there's a law that says you should never be offended.
Never be offended? No, you don't get to not be offended because we have the right to free speech. Good.
Nativity scene on public property? The question is, is the government favoring one set of beliefs (or lack thereof) over others? That's not about offense. I'm not offended to see a manger scene. I believe it's not appropriate to put it on publicly-owned property because it is favoring the beliefs of Christians over others.
The majority likes any number of things that may be relatively harmless or may not be. Where do you draw the line? Who gets to determine what is harmless when it is not all-inclusive? I mean, the majority in many places liked "separate but equal" too. You can argue that it is different, and in how much it actually affects MY day to day life, you'd be right. But when you pick and choose like this you can create issues that nobody is expecting.
In other words, to make it a broader question than just you personally, how many people would still participate in organized religions if they were NOT indoctrinated in them as children? I find that an interesting thing to consider. My inclination is to think it would be fewer people, though not zero. A certain amount of the participation is quite probably by habit. But it is not really possible to test this in any kind of reasonable way.
This is perhaps best understood I'd think with individual lives. You know it's evident some still believe what they were 'taught'
or as you noted , 'indoctrinated', as children. Others have not. They've followed a different drumbeat. Life has different effects on all of us. We come to these decisions I think with alot of 'baggage'. To go with the metaphor, I've got the suitcase. As I've traveled through life I've dumped what I don't need and packed what I feel comfortable with. And interestingly from the looks of it everybody is 'under attack', you know?. There are no safe havens in these kinds of 'wars'....;-).....You say we're in the majority? Sometimes it's news to me especially if one uses the G-word. The moats then go up too.
I think Atheists (we) bring on the bad press when we do things like erect huge billboards dissing Christmas for example. When we sue cities over a nativity scene on public property, etc.
I just don't pay attention to the nativity scene. The majority likes it and it really doesn't bother me.
I hate it when people act as if there's a law that says you should never be offended.
I watched as another Atheist got the entire community to hate Atheists because he stopped the annual Christmas concert from taking place at our local highschool. No one was forcing them to participate or attend it.
Those are all superfluous things....they aren't forcing it upon me. For the important things, I know I do have the law behind me to prevent it.
Posted with TapaTalk
We had the bad press before we did anything like that. I may not myself see particular methods of militancy as being the right way to do it, but who am I to say that it is wrong or counter-productive? I respect your right to not be militant or at least not in particular ways, but I can't agree with or regard as at all fair Poster Dooley's idea that these people are some kind of extremist or atheist Westbros.
I am firmly convinced that to just shrug it off and keep quiet in just what the church militant would like and would be playing into the hands of those who are alarmed at the progress we appear to be making and would love to roll us back to square 1.
They aren't forcing it on you..because of the progress that has been made. The Dover trials are perhaps the strongest reason to argue that, if we had done nothing, forcing on us is what we would have got.
Laws can be changed. The constitution can be amended. A powerful and influential - enough Christian church in America could achieve what it always thought should be the case: a Christian America, all the way to the top, all the way to the bottom.
P.s I didn't comment on your example of preventing a Christmas concert as I don't know the details. I am reminded of the response to a stone tablet of Biblical commandments being put up - to place a rather - more functional monument to atheism next to it. Equal rights, but that got as much 'Hate' as if an atheist had got the commandments removed. I can't anticipate what the response would have been if a school concert of Hinduism or atheism had been put on, but the mentality that we are fighting in various ways is: 'This is a Christian country'. We are entitled to do this religious stuff (in public places and institution - not just in private), nobody else is'.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 08-13-2013 at 07:49 PM..
I'm guessing a lot of the people that say "in god we trust" on money is harmless and why would anyone care about it would probably care if it was removed.
What exactly do you mean by "choose a side"? I was born without a belief in god (atheist) and to this day have never been convinced to leave that state of no-belief. I didn't have to "choose" to be what I have always been. If I admit that I don't have knowledge of god, why is it not logical to remain without a belief in one?
Again, how is it illogical to NOT have a belief in something if you have no knowledge of it? That is precisely why I am still an atheist: because I have no knowledge of any god....no convincing evidence, no personal experience which has convinced me TO believe.
I meant what I said, which is that there is no rational means by which to decide between the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. Given epistemic agnosticism (which you all profess to acknowledge), then there is nothing that remains. I outlined this rationale in the post--did you understand it? I explained why there is no reason to either have a belief or not have a belief. Hence exploding the myth of the dichotomous oh-so-convenient choice (for those who would like to be known as rational)
I am a disenchanted, disillusioned humanist-turned-misanthrope, and I'd rather see man fail than their invented concept of god fail
let both fail, please
anyway, I'll merely reiterate what I said before: if you claim that you can't know about god, then you can't profess either a belief or disbelief in god. Given your dual axis definitions. I'm only dealing with the prevailing terms herein.
This is more a commentary on the nature of paradox and the limitations of human knowledge than anything else. If you're incapable of acknowledging your limitations (and the implications of such an acknowledgement), then so be it, but...at least understand what you're dealing with here. And I'm still not religious, if it must be known...yet ultimately there's no reasoning for my irreligion. If .0001% are philosophical materialists...well, congratulations, you're correct about how this universe works. Doesn't mean you're correct about how what lies beyond works. Obviously this has no impact on this universe...but it could have an impact on "theological" (meaningless term) matters.
Until all hypothetical quantum states can be explained, you'll have to deal with my posts. Because I'm not content to deal with uncertainties...except to maniacally rephrase the nature of their uncertainties. Just to make me feel better.
Till then, we're all in the same boat--ignorant. Think of all the people who die in that state. You might die like that tomorrow...I might die like that tomorrow. Or in a false sense of knowledge. Extrapolate from that...or don't, because you might draw the wrong conclusion.
Nothing can be known, ultimately. Correlation never equals causation. NEVER.
Rolling Stone is all about ratings. Back in the 70s, they had an issue with Charles Manson on the cover. This stuff is no big deal for them.
If the guy looks like some deranged rock star, then all the better for them. lol.
Also, buddy, I saw you post in the Buffalo forum months back, after you visited someone in Orchard Park or the vicinity. I live in the area. Buffalo produces people like the above (Manson, Tsarnaev) like you wouldn't see outside of Portland, Oregon. Which is partially why I stay here (other reasons being family and other long-standing connections), because I can blend in with the hipsters.
But these people I so flippantly refer to as "hipsters" are not easily generalized, either. They are individuals, themselves. Just as you are, you with your 7k posts and your "atheism" (meaningless term, as I've said) and your professed big city dreams (or not, heh). Be a little more aware of the differences (in spite of the groupthink often evidenced here) that exist and make a salient point that you can be proud to ascribe your pseudonym to. Lol...maybe.
I meant what I said, which is that there is no rational means by which to decide between the false dichotomy of theism and atheism. Given epistemic agnosticism (which you all profess to acknowledge), then there is nothing that remains. I outlined this rationale in the post--did you understand it? I explained why there is no reason to either have a belief or not have a belief. Hence exploding the myth of the dichotomous oh-so-convenient choice (for those who would like to be known as rational)
I am a disenchanted, disillusioned humanist-turned-misanthrope, and I'd rather see man fail than their invented concept of god fail
let both fail, please
anyway, I'll merely reiterate what I said before: if you claim that you can't know about god, then you can't profess either a belief or disbelief in god. Given your dual axis definitions. I'm only dealing with the prevailing terms herein.
We read your post and understood it fine, we just disagree with it and your rationale. But, if it makes you feel better by avoiding the "atheist" label, then run with it. Just don't expect us to accept it just to make you feel better.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
(Heh, how appropriate is that?)
) generally do not see how much they encroach upon the right not to believe. To a certain extent this seems to be easing, but the things that are ingrained are hard to remove.
