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.
False. Firstly: Yes we can. Thats that Deists are. People who think there is a creator entity but they do not assume it to be interventionist, have rules moral or otherwise for the universe, or in some cases it may even be unaware we are there... like humans once were unaware of the existence of bacteria.
If I want to specifically believe in fairies, there's no other way to believe in fairies than to specifically believe in fairies. That makes religion irreplaceable. I believe in not worrying about religion unless it has obvious dangers, which some of it does not.
Quote:
You said this already and I replied. Repeating it a second time does not make it magically more accurate than it was not before. I repeat: Actually it quite often stifles diversity. Nor am I aware of how it creates any... rather it responds to diversity in it's adherents. Look at the fact that Christianity has over 33,000 recognised branches, each of which with varied and sometimes irreconcilable differences between them.
And I will keep saying it over and over again. Your statement that Christianity has 33,000 recognised branches supports my statement. If everybody disliked eachother...Great! Pack in as many different groups of people who dislike eachother as possible, to the point where, should they behave violently, all the 29,999 other groups hate them. That sounds like a peace incentive to me. I'll be convinced that atheism doesn't turn out to be just like every other large group after it grows in number and has existed long enough to become a culture, when people can be atheists merely because their parents are atheists. It's composed of very peaceful and tolerant group of people now, but I'm not yet convinced it will always be that way. I think it less likely to go bad than religions, as there is no atheist version of blind faith being a positive thing, but I'm not convinced it is a utopian idea yet. I think a far more likely utopian idea is for everybody to dislike eachother because of countless different beliefs passed through families, and to recognize that they might as well get along, because one violent group would be hated by everyone.
Quote:
ALSO totally false. I am aghast at the number of things you are simply making up now here. Check out the recent PEW polls for example which show the average US citizen changes religion more often than they change cell phone provider. Read:
"Americans change religious affiliation early and often. In total, about half of American adults have changed religious affiliation at least once during their lives. Most people who change their religion leave their childhood faith before age 24, and many of those who change religion do so more than once."
You are entitled to your own opinion here Clint, but you are surely not entitled to your own facts, so pretty please stop making them up. Religion, frankly, stifles diversity by considering anyone not acting correctly in the light of that religion a "sinner" or "apostate" or worse. Religions are very actively trying to stem diversity in all its forms.
People die for religion. That seems like a fairly concrete foundation to me. I think it unfortunate that people die for religion, but I think it would provide a solid foundation for diversity.
Basically, here's my idea: Use humor and cleverness to gain respect for atheism. Do what Mark Twain did, get the reader to laugh at their own foolishness. I would think this would have the most benefits with the least losses. The only real excuse I see for disliking atheists I see at the moment, as they tend to be nonviolent and use talk and protests rather than any militant means to support their views, is that they yell a lot and can be rude. A lot of the ideas which certain atheists are rude against don't make sense, but still, atheists can be rude. Why not make it so that there are zero excuses for disliking atheists? I'm the type of person who isn't content to win by a little. Why not utterly crush any reasonable viewpoint that atheists should be disliked by rational people in any way? Also, as a bonus, the idea of not being rude could pass to our descendants, decreasing the likelyhood of my fear of a beligerant and intolerant atheist majority further.
This is just for the U.S. though, where most wars and conflicts which could have had to do in part with religion have had other issues which likely were major factors. I don't know about other places.
I'm just against where atheists say things like "They kill eachother and quarrel over who has the better myth." It makes us sound stupid. I'm against atheists sounding stupid. Yes atheism is the fastest growing minority, but it can always grow faster.
If I want to specifically believe in fairies, there's no other way to believe in fairies than to specifically believe in fairies. That makes religion irreplaceable. I believe in not worrying about religion unless it has obvious dangers, which some of it does not.
And I will keep saying it over and over again. Your statement that Christianity has 33,000 recognised branches supports my statement. If everybody disliked eachother...Great! Pack in as many different groups of people who dislike eachother as possible, to the point where, should they behave violently, all the 29,999 other groups hate them. That sounds like a peace incentive to me. I'll be convinced that atheism doesn't turn out to be just like every other large group after it grows in number and has existed long enough to become a culture, when people can be atheists merely because their parents are atheists. It's composed of very peaceful and tolerant group of people now, but I'm not yet convinced it will always be that way. I think it less likely to go bad than religions, as there is no atheist version of blind faith being a positive thing, but I'm not convinced it is a utopian idea yet. I think a far more likely utopian idea is for everybody to dislike eachother because of countless different beliefs passed through families, and to recognize that they might as well get along, because one violent group would be hated by everyone.
People die for religion. That seems like a fairly concrete foundation to me. I think it unfortunate that people die for religion, but I think it would provide a solid foundation for diversity.
Basically, here's my idea: Use humor and cleverness to gain respect for atheism. Do what Mark Twain did, get the reader to laugh at their own foolishness. I would think this would have the most benefits with the least losses. The only real excuse I see for disliking atheists I see at the moment, as they tend to be nonviolent and use talk and protests rather than any militant means to support their views, is that they yell a lot and can be rude. A lot of the ideas which certain atheists are rude against don't make sense, but still, atheists can be rude. Why not make it so that there are zero excuses for disliking atheists? I'm the type of person who isn't content to win by a little. Why not utterly crush any reasonable viewpoint that atheists should be disliked by rational people in any way? Also, as a bonus, the idea of not being rude could pass to our descendants, decreasing the likelyhood of my fear of a beligerant and intolerant atheist majority further.
This is just for the U.S. though, where most wars and conflicts which could have had to do in part with religion have had other issues which likely were major factors. I don't know about other places.
I'm just against where atheists say things like "They kill eachother and quarrel over who has the better myth." It makes us sound stupid. I'm against atheists sounding stupid. Yes atheism is the fastest growing minority, but it can always grow faster.
Then do so. It has nothing to do with me, nor has it anything to do with the point I am making. The point I am making is that fairy belief is neither useful nor necessary nor helpful. Just like the belief in god. Therefore that belief is superfluous to any requirements and does no good... so if it therefore even causes ONE piece of harm it has entered negative equity of usefullness and is harmful and you should divest yourself of it.
The analogy therefore is to highlight the fact that Religion and thinking there is a god entity not only appear to be false, but provide no good use whatsoever that we could not just as easily get without religion or god. Therefore if religion causes even ONE bad thing, it has entered the negative equity of which I speak.
And I think we both know that religion causes a hell of a lot more than just one bad thing.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
And I will keep saying it over and over again.
Then you will continue to be very wrong, very often, because it simply is not true and you have given no argument to establish it as true other than to repeat it over and over. Saying something over and over does not magically make it more true.
Religion not only does not cause or create diversity, most instances of religion in fact try and stiffle diversity by making everyone the same, following the same rules, acting the same way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
People die for religion.
Irrelevant. Your claim (lie/error/fantasy whatever you want to call it) was that people do not often change religion. This claim is entirely false. People change religion very often, often more often than they change things like Cell Phone Provider.
As I said before religion does not cause or create diversity, it attempts to stifle it. The diversity you are seeing and falsely attributing to religion is actually just the diversity that exists in humans already. THAT is why there are, as I said, over 33000 versions of Christianity. People come to it, they are all diverse, so just one version of Christianity would not fit all.
Your error is the same error as saying something absurd like "Clothes cause diversity in the size of people.... because look at all the different sizes clothes come in". The reason clothes are different sizes is that people are diverse. People cause the diversity in religion/clothes. Religion/clothes does not cause it in people... nor have you adumbrated a single way in which it does or would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clintone
Basically, here's my idea: Use humor and cleverness to gain respect for atheism.
As I said we already have that. The diversity in voices in the types of atheism in the world today are the strength of the current atheist movement. Such voices of humour and cleverness already exist. They exist ALSO alongside other kinds of voices such as skeptical ones, angry ones, cynical ones and more.
Diversity is the key and again I really do not think you are the go to guy for advice on this matter. Whatever the voice used in atheism the one common important thing for ALL of them is honesty. People who make up facts out of nowhere to suit themselves, such as "People do not often change religion" are not being honest and they are NOT what the atheist movement needs. Liars can keep their lies to themselves and out of our way.
Look around you. Do you see your neighbors killing eachother or arguing most of the time? Much of the time they disagree, but keep it to themselves.
Not in my specific neighborhood, no. In Israel and Palestine? Yes. In Pakistan and India? Yes. In Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Ireland/Iran/Baltics/Turkey? Yes.
Not in my specific neighborhood, no. In Israel and Palestine? Yes. In Pakistan and India? Yes. In Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Ireland/Iran/Baltics/Turkey? Yes.
Indeed, as a better man than me once said... without even leaving the letter B for Bible you get... Sectarian hatred in places like.... Belfast, Beruit, Bagdad, Bombay, bethlehem, Bahrain.... One hardly needs to move to the C's.
The issue really is that religion certainly does NOT create diversity. It stiffles it. Many people of faith are not only not happy, they can not BE happy until everyone else believes what they do.
Not in my specific neighborhood, no. In Israel and Palestine? Yes. In Pakistan and India? Yes. In Saudi Arabia/Afghanistan/Ireland/Iran/Baltics/Turkey? Yes.
If I want to specifically believe in fairies, there's no other way to believe in fairies than to specifically believe in fairies. That makes religion irreplaceable. I believe in not worrying about religion unless it has obvious dangers, which some of it does not.
And I will keep saying it over and over again. Your statement that Christianity has 33,000 recognised branches supports my statement. If everybody disliked eachother...Great! Pack in as many different groups of people who dislike eachother as possible, to the point where, should they behave violently, all the 29,999 other groups hate them. That sounds like a peace incentive to me. I'll be convinced that atheism doesn't turn out to be just like every other large group after it grows in number and has existed long enough to become a culture, when people can be atheists merely because their parents are atheists. It's composed of very peaceful and tolerant group of people now, but I'm not yet convinced it will always be that way. I think it less likely to go bad than religions, as there is no atheist version of blind faith being a positive thing, but I'm not convinced it is a utopian idea yet. I think a far more likely utopian idea is for everybody to dislike eachother because of countless different beliefs passed through families, and to recognize that they might as well get along, because one violent group would be hated by everyone.
People die for religion. That seems like a fairly concrete foundation to me. I think it unfortunate that people die for religion, but I think it would provide a solid foundation for diversity.
Basically, here's my idea: Use humor and cleverness to gain respect for atheism. Do what Mark Twain did, get the reader to laugh at their own foolishness. I would think this would have the most benefits with the least losses. The only real excuse I see for disliking atheists I see at the moment, as they tend to be nonviolent and use talk and protests rather than any militant means to support their views, is that they yell a lot and can be rude. A lot of the ideas which certain atheists are rude against don't make sense, but still, atheists can be rude. Why not make it so that there are zero excuses for disliking atheists? I'm the type of person who isn't content to win by a little. Why not utterly crush any reasonable viewpoint that atheists should be disliked by rational people in any way? Also, as a bonus, the idea of not being rude could pass to our descendants, decreasing the likelyhood of my fear of a beligerant and intolerant atheist majority further.
This is just for the U.S. though, where most wars and conflicts which could have had to do in part with religion have had other issues which likely were major factors. I don't know about other places.
I'm just against where atheists say things like "They kill eachother and quarrel over who has the better myth." It makes us sound stupid. I'm against atheists sounding stupid. Yes atheism is the fastest growing minority, but it can always grow faster.
These are my opinions. They are not facts.
I think the former Soviet Union backs you up about how the Atheist might behave when they are the majority.
I think the former Soviet Union backs you up about how the Atheist might behave when they are the majority.
I do know many, many atheists who hate communism, far more than anything else, and many who hate socialism, and several who dislike democrats, but the former Soviet Union was an example of a large scale government which encouraged atheism. One potential advantage of religion, replaceable with evidence of socialism not working, but still a potential advantage of religion, is I would think it would create groups who feel a collective urge for less government pressure, so long as there are enough different religions so the nation doesn't become a religious government.
Please, nobody start up the old rumor that atheists are communists, or I will hate you.
I do know many, many atheists who hate communism, far more than anything else, and many who hate socialism, and several who dislike democrats, but the former Soviet Union was an example of a large scale government which encouraged atheism. One potential advantage of religion, replaceable with evidence of socialism not working, but still a potential advantage of religion, is I would think it would create groups who feel a collective urge for less government pressure, so long as there are enough different religions so the nation doesn't become a religious government.
Please, nobody start up the old rumor that atheists are communists, or I will hate you.
I also know many atheists who are republicans.
I think Atheist need to be separated into two distinct groups- 1. Collectivist Atheist 2. Individualist Atheist. Collectivist Atheist would have more in common with the "Religious" than they would with Individualist Atheist. If recent history is any clue then nothing is more dangerous than a "Collectivist Atheist" and nobody does more wholesale slaughter.
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.
