TEN ATHEISTIC COMMANDMENTS.

[bgbarber]

TEN ATHEISTIC COMMANDMENTS. 1. Thou shalt realise that 85% of humanity are not atheists. We are a small minority.
2. Thou shalt rejoice that New Atheism has made us strong and robust but made us look a little up ourselves.
3. Thou shalt draw faith from the fact that even though most people are religious, religions have much less political and pulling power in the developed world than before.
4. Thou shalt not overuse Straw Men (excuse gender specificity)
5. Thou shalt not wallow in Yes Fests but embrace diversity of godlessness.
6. Thou shalt recognise that some of the best culture in humanity was religiously inspired.
7. Thou shalt concede that our consolation in the face of death and solace for suffering are pretty sterile and that death and suffering are works in progress.
8. Thou shalt acknowledge that those of faith are over represented in philanthropy and charity.
9. Thou shalt grant that some of our godless rituals could be better.
10. And most importantly of all, thou shalt realise that the future of atheism is to engage with the more progressive wings of faith and that collaboration rather than confrontation is sometimes useful.


Reference:http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/blogs/godless-gross/atheism--a-fizzer-or-fantastic/20100311-pzwu.html

[wolty]

TEN CHRISTIAN COMMANDMENTS. 1. Thou shalt realise that 75% of humanity are not christian. We are a small minority.
2. Thou shalt rejoice that christianity has made us bigoted and self-centered and made us look a little up ourselves.
3. Thou shalt draw faith from the fact that even though most people are religious, christianity has an over representative voice in a secular country and very much likes to tell people how to live their lives.
4. Thou shalt overuse Straw Men (excuse gender specificity)
5. Thou shalt wallow in Yes Fests and not embrace diversity of godlessness.
6. Thou shalt recognise that some of the most abhorrent crimes in humanity was inspired by christianity.
7. Thou shalt concede that our consolation in the face of death will be everlasting life, as opposed to everyone else. (sucked in satan worshippers)
8. Thou shalt acknowledge that churches don't pay tax unlike everyone else.
9. Thou shalt grant that some of our god rituals could be better eg. drinking blood, eating flesh, answering prayers.
10. And most importantly of all, thou shalt realise that the future of christianity is to be insular, uneducated and bigoted towards other faiths and non-faith, and that confrontation is sometimes useful eg. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Death to abortion doctors etc.

[bgbarber]

TEN CHRISTIAN COMMANDMENTS. 1. Thou shalt realise that 75% of humanity are not christian. We are a small minority.
2. Thou shalt rejoice that christianity has made us bigoted and self-centered and made us look a little up ourselves.
3. Thou shalt draw faith from the fact that even though most people are religious, christianity has an over representative voice in a secular country and very much likes to tell people how to live their lives.
4. Thou shalt overuse Straw Men (excuse gender specificity)
5. Thou shalt wallow in Yes Fests and not embrace diversity of godlessness.
6. Thou shalt recognise that some of the most abhorrent crimes in humanity was inspired by christianity.
7. Thou shalt concede that our consolation in the face of death will be everlasting life, as opposed to everyone else. (sucked in satan worshippers)
8. Thou shalt acknowledge that those of faith are over represented in philanthropy and charity because we don't pay tax.
9. Thou shalt grant that some of our god rituals could be better eg. drinking blood, eating flesh.
10. And most importantly of all, thou shalt realise that the future of christianity is to be insular, uneducated and bigoted towards other faiths and non-faith, and that confrontation is sometimes useful eg. Crusades, Spanish Inquisition, Death to abortion doctors etc.

Did you even read the article that was referenced prior to the response?

[wolty]

Nope, didn't need to. You posted something on here that you must have agree with, or you wouldn't have posted it. I was just responding to what was posted. :)

OK read it now. Don't have to agree with it.
Thats the great thing about being an atheist. Others don't tell me what to think.

[bgbarber]

Nope, didn't need to. You posted something on here that you must have agree with, or you wouldn't have posted it. I was just responding to what was posted. :)

I also posted the reference. That is what references are for - they put in context quoted material - post grad 101 :)

[bgbarber]

Nope, didn't need to. You posted something on here that you must have agree with, or you wouldn't have posted it. I was just responding to what was posted. :)

OK read it now. Don't have to agree with it.
Thats the great thing about being an atheist. Others don't tell me what to think.

Is this a set up? Who are the "others".

[wolty]

Wellll, I do not agree with what he is saying. I could make better commandments as an atheist.

[wolty]

We have failed to provide consoling alternatives to faith in dealing with issues such as death, suffering and the meaning of life. Our ritual, such as it is, involves too many speeches and not enough of the bells, smells, vestments and song.

I just don't get this. Why do atheists have to provide an alternative to faith? It is silly. Atheism is a non-belief in gods. After that, everything else is something else.


and this response.
"We have failed to provide consoling alternatives to faith in dealing with issues such as death, suffering and the meaning of life."
Comments such as the above are seemingly a problem, but they arise not out of a problem with atheism itself, but they are rather a reflection of the philosophically open nature of atheism.
Atheists have no central tenets, and as such one non-believers view of death suffering and the meaning of life will be different from another's.
We shouldn't bemoan this fact as something weak within the atheist 'movement', but should rather embrace this as one of the beauties of atheism; the ability to form ones own philosophy free from the dogmatic demands of religion.

sums it up for me.

[Fearless]

Opinions... everyone has them.

[bgbarber]

Wellll, I do not agree with what he is saying. I could make better commandments as an atheist.

I believe the commandments were used metaphorically to articulate an opinion and highlight areas as to where the author believes atheism can improve itself.

I do not think they were to be taken literally.

[wolty]

Is this a set up? Who are the "others".


Others was in the context of me reading and making my own mind up.
But it was also tongue in cheek regarding the absolute tennants of the bible. :)

[bgbarber]

I just don't get this. Why do atheists have to provide an alternative to faith? It is silly. Atheism is a non-belief in gods. After that, everything else is something else.


and this response.

sums it up for me.

Is this summation "other" thought or yours?

[nettybetty]

I did read the article..and I can see where the writer is coming from.

I acknowledge there are 'meanies' on both sides who bash, but I'm tired of being told I'm going to hell, that science is wrong, that because I'm female I should learn in submission etc. all without a shred of evidence other than an old book counting as doctrine. I'm sick of religious people in parliament deciding that my rights should be altered not because it's reasonable, safer etc. but purely because their doctrine tells them that gays should not marry, that woman are not entitled to abortion etc. I'm tired of hearing stories of cult behaviour all based on a doctrine with no proof. I'm sick of stories of people being beaten, murdered etc because they don't believe in a God, I'm tired of hearing that it's ok to kill our environment because jesus will save us, and the earth is ours for the taking. I'm sick of the hurt, the cruelty, the sheer ignorance based on religion - what's the response to that from the religious? What's the justification?

I'm sick of being told I'm wrong and judged because I don't believe in unicorns etc.

Yet bgbarber, you come on here, an Atheist forum, post waffle, and then a link to an opinion piece written by an atheist as proof we are rude? Post something rational, with evidence and maybe people will listen. Many have come before you, and from my perspective I'm sick of the unfairness in society, based on nothing, and upon questioning that I get told I'm the meanie. So no wonder people are sick of waffle from theists, and you get the response you did.

Consider these points, and you may see why atheists come across as frustrated, and why the name calling starts - instead of a straight answer you get waffle. Instead of evidence you get bible quotes, instead of rational thinking and reason you get emotion...

I think much of what is being perceived as 'bashing' is simply people asking for evidence and getting waffle in return leading to frustration. I'm sick of hearing when people ask questions or for evidence of a God or proof of religion they are automatically labelled as ridiculing, arrogant and rude. I'm tired of explaining basic scientific concepts - what a scientific theory is, that evolution is not the same as cosmology when I'm told science is wrong. The very people saying what is false don't know what they are calling false. I'm sick of all atheists being labelled as believing in evolution etc. when atheism may have no link to science what so ever.

So with you posting this ....
Why is it ok for the religious to ignore basic philosophy, science and rational thinking? Why is it ok for the religious to call atheists Nazi's, immoral and the source of all evil? isn't that bashing?

To me this article is a call to try to get past the frustrations and aim for higher ground - but how can you get past the frustrations when anything you do/say is judged and ignorance is favoured over reason and learning?

[wolty]

Is this summation "other" thought or yours?


Mine, I read the article and thought the exact same thing before reading the responses.

and the response from gross Dear ******, You make a profound observation about atheism. Atheism is just an idea nothing more. But people holding that idea want, and I would argue are obliged, to build the movement around that idea

I do not agree with either.

[wolty]

I believe the commandments were used metaphorically to articulate an opinion and highlight areas as to where the author believes atheism can improve itself.

I do not think they were to be taken literally.


OK then, why did you post it here?

Thanks netty. :)

[bgbarber]

I did read the article..and I can see where the writer is coming from.

I acknowledge there are 'meanies' on both sides who bash, but I'm tired of being told I'm going to hell, that science is wrong, that because I'm female I should learn in submission etc. all without a shred of evidence other than an old book counting as doctrine. I'm sick of religious people in parliament deciding that my rights should be altered not because it's reasonable, safer etc. but purely because their doctrine tells them that gays should not marry, that woman are not entitled to abortion etc. I'm tired of hearing stories of cult behaviour all based on a doctrine with no proof. I'm sick of stories of people being beaten, murdered etc because they don't believe in a God, I'm tired of hearing that it's ok to kill our environment because jesus will save us, and the earth is ours for the taking. I'm sick of the hurt, the cruelty, the sheer ignorance based on religion - what's the response to that from the religious? What's the justification?

I'm sick of being told I'm wrong and judged because I don't believe in unicorns etc.

Yet bgbarber, you come on here, an Atheist forum, post waffle, and then a link to an opinion piece written by an atheist as proof we are rude? Post something rational, with evidence and maybe people will listen. Many have come before you, and from my perspective I'm sick of the unfairness in society, based on nothing, and upon questioning that I get told I'm the meanie. So no wonder people are sick of waffle from theists, and you get the response you did.

Consider these points, and you may see why atheists come across as frustrated, and why the name calling starts - instead of a straight answer you get waffle. Instead of evidence you get bible quotes, instead of rational thinking and reason you get emotion...

I think much of what is being perceived as 'bashing' is simply people asking for evidence and getting waffle in return leading to frustration. I'm sick of hearing when people ask questions or for evidence of a God or proof of religion they are automatically labelled as ridiculing, arrogant and rude. I'm tired of explaining basic scientific concepts - what a scientific theory is, that evolution is not the same as cosmology when I'm told science is wrong. The very people saying what is false don't know what they are calling false. I'm sick of all atheists being labelled as believing in evolution etc. when atheism may have no link to science what so ever.

So with you posting this ....
Why is it ok for the religious to ignore basic philosophy, science and rational thinking? Why is it ok for the religious to call atheists Nazi's, immoral and the source of all evil? isn't that bashing?

To me this article is a call to try to get past the frustrations and aim for higher ground - but how can you get past the frustrations when anything you do/say is judged and ignorance is favoured over reason and learning?

I am sick of all the above as well. The editorial of tone of the article was engagement - not confrontation.

"Why is it ok for the religious to ignore basic philosophy, science and rational thinking? " - it is not - the same must be said for atheists.
"but how can you get past the frustrations when anything you do/say is judged and ignorance is favoured over reason and learning?" - not all are like that - there are fundamentalists through to progressives in any school of thought or belief.
I would imagine that being a member of this forum you would see all sorts of outlandish statments and ill-informed opinions - my only suggestion is to engage in additional areas of communication .

[nettybetty]

I'm like Wolty, I can make my own mind up.
As above, I interpreted that article my own way.

That's the funny thing about a theist looking at atheism - they can't understand how we don't have doctrine to follow. Atheists can think for themselves, and the great thing is when people think, amazing diversity in thought follows.

Saying that Atheists don't recognise the good in religion is in my view, nonsense. Even Dawkins admitted that if a person addicted to drugs becomes clean through religion than that's better than that person staying addicted. He just wishes you didn't need to use religion. However, at the end of the day you can't ignore the problems which arise from religion, and in some regards mass genocide seems to slightly outway a nice Requiem or the Sicily Chapel. Afterall, we had art long before current religions, and well, surprise surprise, maybe atheists paint as well....

I don't believe atheism is an idea either and that it needs to have something built up around it. If you are atheist, you can choose to act your atheism out as as you see fit. If it becomes a doctrine it's no longer atheism. I know many atheists, and we all disagree and agree on many things - I'm not confined to a rulebook. Atheism isn't an alternative to religion, it's no religion/belief.

[bgbarber]

OK then, why did you post it here?

Thanks netty. :)

To paritally observe the results of a theory/opnion the author was discussing, and to also highlight general agreement in the article itself.

[Fearless]

I am sick of all the above as well. The editorial of tone of the article was engagement - not confrontation.
Please refrain from projecting that we (as Atheists) are automatically angry, defensive and/or confrontational.

An argumentative reply doesn't automatically mean we are offended or angry as much as you may believe/feel otherwise.

Your threads/posts parallel with that of a troll, just trying to spark a reaction. Fishing if you like.

What I can suggest in future if you are just going to copy paste these sorts of things, try adding your own view or critique... i.e. what do you think of the article?... then we can respond taking into consideration what your thoughts are on the piece.

[bgbarber]

I'm like Wolty, I can make my own mind up.
As above, I interpreted that article my own way.

That's the funny thing about a theist looking at atheism - they can't understand how we don't have doctrine to follow. Atheists can think for themselves, and the great thing is when people think, amazing diversity in thought follows.

Saying that Atheists don't recognise the good in religion is in my view, nonsense. Even Dawkins admitted that if a person addicted to drugs becomes clean through religion than that's better than that person staying addicted. He just wishes you didn't need to use religion. However, at the end of the day you can't ignore the problems which arise from religion, and in some regards mass genocide seems to slightly outway a nice Requiem or the Sicily Chapel. Afterall, we had art long before current religions, and well, surprise surprise, maybe atheists paint as well....

I don't believe atheism is an idea either and that it needs to have something built up around it. If you are atheist, you can choose to act your atheism out as as you see fit. If it becomes a doctrine it's no longer atheism. I know many atheists, and we all disagree and agree on many things - I'm not confined to a rulebook. Atheism isn't an alternative to religion, it's no religion/belief.

As above all Off topic - I have stated why I posted it. - On your topic, your version of atheism (no belief) sounds frightfully similar to Nihilism

[wolty]

To paritally observe the results of a theory/opnion the author was discussing, and to also highlight general agreement in the article itself.

No.1 You could have said that when you posted, but you didn't which leads me to think you were being deliberatly antogonistic. So therefore my response.
No.2 General agreement? It is only one opinion which I and netty don't agree with.

[bgbarber]

Please refrain from projecting that we (as Atheists) are automatically angry, defensive and/or confrontational.

An argumentative reply doesn't automatically mean we are offended or angry as much as you may believe/feel otherwise.

Your threads/posts parallel with that of a troll, just trying to spark a reaction. Fishing if you like.

What I can suggest in future if you are just going to copy paste these sorts of things, try adding your own view or critique... i.e. what do you think of the article?... then we can respond taking into consideration what your thoughts are on the piece.

I think the article is very mature in that it acknowledges some failings of atheism - something many on this forum are unwilling to do. It recommends engagement not confrontation.
“An argumentative reply doesn't automatically mean we are offended or angry as much as you may believe/feel otherwise” – Nowhere have I said this – this may be your own mental model (Kim 1993) meaning that the initial way you interpret new information is subjected to prior experiences and opinions.

[bgbarber]

No.1 You could have said that when you posted, but you didn't which leads me to think you were being deliberatly antogonistic. So therefore my response.
No.2 General agreement? It is only one opinion which I and netty don't agree with.


...or one could have responded. "Read the referenced article raises some interesting points however I disagree with....."

or

"Interesting use of the ten commandments to both highlight the current strengths and weaknesses" of atheism...

[nettybetty]

I am sick of all the above as well. The editorial of tone of the article was engagement - not confrontation.

"Why is it ok for the religious to ignore basic philosophy, science and rational thinking? " - it is not - the same must be said for atheists.
"but how can you get past the frustrations when anything you do/say is judged and ignorance is favoured over reason and learning?" - not all are like that - there are fundamentalists through to progressives in any school of thought or belief.
I would imagine that being a member of this forum you would see all sorts of outlandish statments and ill-informed opinions - my only suggestion is to engage in additional areas of communication .

So asking questions is confrontational? My impression of that article was as some sort of soother, that atheists aren't big bad meanies, and we're sorry we've asked questions. I had a bit of a rant I know, however how can religion say atheists are the bashers as per examples above?

Religion is the source of many ills in the world (not the only) and many feel it should be applied where it doesn't belong ie.science. So why should it be exempt from questioning? After thousands of years of this repression etc. shouldn't people be confrontational?

I engage in all sorts of communication, so my opinion of the religious comes from varied sources (ignorance/hate/judgement isn't confined to the religious but I never said it was). Contrary to what you may think/have decided about me, I live a very active life and meet many people, read lots and even get out of the house now and again.

Bring me a religious person who can argue rationally, and I'm happy to chat - the vast majority aren't capable of thinking, simply because they've been indoctrinated not to. Bring me a religious person who can give a straight answer and again, I'm happy to chat/debate.

The very problem is that religious doctrine discourages reason and learning - it says to follow, obey and spread the word. So really, if you follow doctrine as it should be followed (to the letter) you are incapable of reason and learning. Most religious people, well really are somewhere in the middle, a number I know tend to believe in something, but not so seriously that it shapes their lives (ie. they probably will go to hell for not following god's word to the letter)

In my humble and short existence I'm yet to come across an irrational atheist. Usually they are more open to discussing life, and well are usually more read and learned. On the other hand, you question someone who is religious, and they just keep waffling, and dodging even basic questions and finally usually resort to some sort of emotional stance.

[wolty]

I think the article is very mature in that it acknowledges some failings of atheism - something many on this forum are unwilling to do. It recommends engagement not confrontation.
Why oh why do we need doctrine to not believe in gods?
Failings of atheism is one persons opinion. I do not agree with it.
And engagement? It gets hard when surrounded by idiocy, and all the unchristian like behaviour we get from christians. Must be because I am human.

Gotta go peoples. Have fun. laters.
(you too bg) :)

[Fearless]

I can read, and did read the article prior to my previous message thanks.

The article was an opinion from one person, just as you and I have differing opinions and those of who have replied already. I am sure we all agree and disagree on differing points, after all, we are individuals.

I know you didn't say what I wrote... I wrote it, by observation and reflection on what I have been reading from you since you have been here. You can object all you like, I know what I see and i'll call it if I need to. BTW, your psychobabble is wasted on me, I have studied psychology too.

I was bringing something to your attention in the hope that you will take it on board mainly to ensure, as much as possible, your interactions here are viewed less like trolling and more of what you insist your actual motives for being/posting here are.

Take or leave it. If you feel the need to keep objecting then don't be surprised if you are issued with a warning.

Edit: or worse (see below)

[loubert]

I'm not even going to read the entire thread...


BANHAMMER PLEASE!

[bgbarber]

So asking questions is confrontational? My impression of that article was as some sort of soother, that atheists aren't big bad meanies, and we're sorry we've asked questions. I had a bit of a rant I know, however how can religion say atheists are the bashers as per examples above?

Religion is the source of many ills in the world (not the only) and many feel it should be applied where it doesn't belong ie.science. So why should it be exempt from questioning? After thousands of years of this repression etc. shouldn't people be confrontational?

I engage in all sorts of communication, so my opinion of the religious comes from varied sources (ignorance/hate/judgement isn't confined to the religious but I never said it was). Contrary to what you may think/have decided about me, I live a very active life and meet many people, read lots and even get out of the house now and again.

Bring me a religious person who can argue rationally, and I'm happy to chat - the vast majority aren't capable of thinking, simply because they've been indoctrinated not to. Bring me a religious person who can give a straight answer and again, I'm happy to chat/debate.

The very problem is that religious doctrine discourages reason and learning - it says to follow, obey and spread the word. So really, if you follow doctrine as it should be followed (to the letter) you are incapable of reason and learning. Most religious people, well really are somewhere in the middle, a number I know tend to believe in something, but not so seriously that it shapes their lives (ie. they probably will go to hell for not following god's word to the letter)

In my humble and short existence I'm yet to come across an irrational atheist. Usually they are more open to discussing life, and well are usually more read and learned. On the other hand, you question someone who is religious, and they just keep waffling, and dodging even basic questions and finally usually resort to some sort of emotional stance.

* “however how can religion say atheists are the bashers as per examples above?” - religion never inferred this – an atheist did.
“Religion is the source of many ills in the world (not the only) and many feel it should be applied where it doesn't belong ie.science. So why should it be exempt from questioning? After thousands of years of this repression etc. shouldn't people be confrontational?” – This is not a strong argument – replace the word “religion” with the word “humans” and it makes a little more sense.
“Contrary to what you may think/have decided about me” – nothing.
“The very problem is that religious doctrine discourages reason and learning” – there have been and will continue to be many learned people of science / philosophy/ psychology etc who are deeply “religious” – the reconciliation of this must be very problematic.
“I'm yet to come across an irrational atheist.” – I cannot make claim to counter this no matter how much I would like to.

[bgbarber]

I'm not even going to read the entire thread...


BANHAMMER PLEASE!

I see you are a fan of Voltaire. He is also quoted as “I disapprove of what you say, but I will fight to death your right to say it.” - read a little more please.

[nettybetty]

As above all Off topic - I have stated why I posted it. - On your topic, your version of atheism (no belief) sounds frightfully similar to Nihilism


Umm...last time I checked atheism was no belief in a God or supernatural beings. To quote Wiki: Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0) It can also mean the rejection of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) in the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-1) A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) exist.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2)

Or even the free online dictionary: atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods.

So yes, atheism is no belief in a supernatural deity/God/unicorn in the sky.

To confuse you more, I can be considered a skeptic (yes atheists and skeptics can be different).

Nihilism is the philosophy that life has no meaning or the meaning is contrived, in it's easiest sense. I get plenty of meaning from my life, I just don't rely on pleasing God/aiming to get to heaven as the meaning. I prefer to feel my purpose is part of the universe (essentially I'm converted energy), which I get to make the most of right now in this lifetime. as a human. I like learning, I like living, and when I die, I will go back to the ground and be converted into something else. I played my part, and I hope that I can say when I die, that I played my part to the best I could. Why is being nihilist unfortunate? I could see life as pointless, and be happy about it. Do you think being happy is unfortunate? Maybe there is no point to life, except living. What is wrong with that? Many animals seem to do it, why should humans be different? I don't for a minute buy into humans being some kind of wonder, some kind of special entity for which this universe was created for - we are part of it sure, but a mere speck.

I think wasting this life worrying about how good you are being according to a doctrine, or trying to plan for the next one/heaven, is pretty unfortunate too, when you could be using that time to do something, learn something and take in this pretty amazing place.

So, based on your question, do you equate no religious belief to nihilism?

[bgbarber]

Voltaire moved among people who often had to back up their words with duelling weapons.

A sniper like you should not have the benefit of coverage offered by his quote.


As a moderator if you follow the posts I have been defending posts and questions completely unrelated to the original post. If I dare not to respond - allegations of not addressing direct questions soon follow. A sniper is hidden – I am in full view as is my name – unlike others.
The original post was of engagement – it is exactly the chain of events that “Godless Cross” mentioned in his critical analysis of the current state of atheism – why should I bother highlighting such - maybe I am devoid of argument.

[nettybetty]

* “however how can religion say atheists are the bashers as per examples above?” - religion never inferred this – an atheist did.
“Religion is the source of many ills in the world (not the only) and many feel it should be applied where it doesn't belong ie.science. So why should it be exempt from questioning? After thousands of years of this repression etc. shouldn't people be confrontational?” – This is not a strong argument – replace the word “religion” with the word “humans” and it makes a little more sense.
“Contrary to what you may think/have decided about me” – nothing.
“The very problem is that religious doctrine discourages reason and learning” – there have been and will continue to be many learned people of science / philosophy/ psychology etc who are deeply “religious” – the reconciliation of this must be very problematic.
“I'm yet to come across an irrational atheist.” – I cannot make claim to counter this no matter how much I would like to.

Point 1 - So atheists call themselves ammoral, Nazi's, murderers etc. and killed themselves for heresy?
Point 2 - humans vs. religion...how many of those humans were acting due to religious doctrine? So now people are free not to follow doctrine, and are asking questions of it, shouldn't the religious answer those questions? Namely, why atrocities in the name of religion still occur, despite a lack of proof etc (as per earlier posts)...It's a strong question, why should religion be exempt from answering to it's actions? Communism, Nazism and other schools of thought aren't.
Point 3 - You stated I should look at more avenues of communication. You decided I haven't communicated enough, and should look elsewhere = decision about my behaviour.
Point 4 - in history you don't know whether it was because if they declared they were atheist they would be killed. Many aren't/haven't. And I do agree, especially with learned scientists they tend to keep religious belief and science separate, they can see that spirituality has no place in science, so why don't the rest of the religious? For the individual, yes depending on what you study it may be problematic, but that's the individual's challenge, not mine. What irks me is that ill-informed religious folk try to state religion trumps science/thinking/philosophy etc. Again the history thing comes up - historically due to church control, if you stated you didn't believe you could be locked up.

[nettybetty]

The original post was of engagement – it is exactly the chain of events that “Godless Cross” mentioned in his critical analysis of the current state of atheism – why should I bother highlighting such - maybe I am devoid of argument.


You posted an article without any opinion/statement on why you posted it - how can you state now what it was?

People have been responding to said posted article, and ensuing questions.

[loubert]

well this is not a open forum really.... plus, your O.P looks like you are trying to start a flame war.......................
again...

BANHAMMER
PLEASE!

[bgbarber]

Bgb - "on the Internet, nobody knows you're a dog".

I forget the source, but that's how it goes. You've walked into the atheist saloon, and you're in the sawdust room. We serve anybody here.

Thank you kindly - whiskey straight up - and one for the house.

[loubert]

@Loubert: There may be an underlying justification: BGB could be trying, in vain, to increase Dicky Gross's readership into double figures.

true true............lol

[bgbarber]

Umm...last time I checked atheism was no belief in a God or supernatural beings. To quote Wiki: Atheism is commonly defined as the position that there are no deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God).[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-0) It can also mean the rejection of belief (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theism) in the existence of deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existence_of_God).[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-1) A broader definition is simply the absence of belief that any deities (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deity) exist.[3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheism#cite_note-2)

Or even the free online dictionary: atheistic - rejecting any belief in gods.

So yes, atheism is no belief in a supernatural deity/God/unicorn in the sky.

To confuse you more, I can be considered a skeptic (yes atheists and skeptics can be different).

Nihilism is the philosophy that life has no meaning or the meaning is contrived, in it's easiest sense. I get plenty of meaning from my life, I just don't rely on pleasing God/aiming to get to heaven as the meaning. I prefer to feel my purpose is part of the universe (essentially I'm converted energy), which I get to make the most of right now in this lifetime. as a human. I like learning, I like living, and when I die, I will go back to the ground and be converted into something else. I played my part, and I hope that I can say when I die, that I played my part to the best I could. Why is being nihilist unfortunate? I could see life as pointless, and be happy about it. Do you think being happy is unfortunate? Maybe there is no point to life, except living. What is wrong with that? Many animals seem to do it, why should humans be different? I don't for a minute buy into humans being some kind of wonder, some kind of special entity for which this universe was created for - we are part of it sure, but a mere speck.

I think wasting this life worrying about how good you are being according to a doctrine, or trying to plan for the next one/heaven, is pretty unfortunate too, when you could be using that time to do something, learn something and take in this pretty amazing place.

So, based on your question, do you equate no religious belief to nihilism?

I read your prior defintion of atheism as no belief in any forms of belief as such (I know a paradox) - hence the parallels with Nihilism.

"I could see life as pointless, and be happy about it. Do you think being happy is unfortunate?" - sometimes I do yes.

"Many animals seem to do it, why should humans be different?" - very good question - the mere act of being aware of asking this question has been used as a reason to argue for difference - this is the debated concept of "consciousness".

[bgbarber]

It's beer or nothing. We don't do spirits here, stranger.

Another dry county - fundamentalists are taken over this country.

[bgbarber]

@BGB: the "standard" definition here is the AFA (http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/) one:


We coexist with this, despite possible differences, as it belongs to the owners of the site.

Attempts to redefine atheism for use in an argument will be viewed seriously.


NettyBetty - should be the receiver of this - not me. My post was in response to NettyBetty's definition - protest from the backbench - retraction?

[bgbarber]

1. Beer isn't dry.

2. If you have read anything of my autobiographical writing here and dare call me a fundamentalist, I will become Not Nice.

3. Your English did not parse at all.

Ever been to the United States by any chance?

[bgbarber]

They speak a form of English there, I am told.

However, let us examine your particular variant...

"Another dry county" - now that part wasn't hard. Even I, who wouldn't touch that alleged form of whiskey, know that Jack Daniel's is produced in a county (Lynchburg is in Moore County) where alcohol cannot be sold. (What's more , I know where the apostrophe goes in the brand name.)

"fundamentalists are taken over this country." - in which type of conveyance are the fundamentalists taken, and by whom?

I certainly hope it's not a euphemism for death as in "taken by a shark": despite their efforts to be otherwise, fundamentalists are fundamentally human.

I suppose a very rank outside chance exists that one ingests some quality of the fundamentalists for alleged therapeutic purposes, like a form of dope.

Maybe you meant to write "Fundamentalists are takin' over this country." Who can say? I would not wish to ascribe any intention of writing with clarity to you, in case I should prove sadly mistaken.

Who'a there cowboy - you started the skit on bars and sawdust and I joined in - or is it only moderators allowed the pleasure of drama and metaphor?

In relation to dry county - Brought back memories of when I back packed around the US. We hit a "dry" county - I think it was Jackson. Could only buy beer - no spirits allowed. US - funny country.

[bgbarber]

I was talking about your bad English, BGB.

The cowboys were a few posts back.

Reminds me, I still owe somebody for a piece of doggerel which scurrilously suggested I might be them: was that you?

The day I get personal in such areas of debate and argument - is the day I cease to see the other side of it.

My spellinh unassisted - I will confess is crap. My ability to use words as devices of play and argument I hope is a little better.

[bgbarber]

The doggerel in question was yours, but I see my initial interpretation was but one of many possible ones.

By "owe" I of course meant a reply in verse, but Protium (RCBUHD!) is magnanimous, and I'll spare you.

Understand . I have issues of (and am guilty of) interpretation of text and at literal face value - humans are better communicators.

[nettybetty]

I'm not confined to a rulebook. Atheism isn't an alternative to religion, it's no religion/belief.

To bgbarber - is this the definition you were talking about?
I should've been clearer, it's no religion/belief means no belief in a deity, as per the "standard" atheist defintion - which I posted later on actually.

Everyone good now?

[atheist_angel]

What was the point of this thread? I'm afraid I missed the OP's point entirely.

[bgbarber]

What was the point of this thread? I'm afraid I missed the OP's point entirely.

That is why you are no messenger.

[bgbarber]

This is a text forum, BGB: are we reading you wrong?

Maybe it would facilitate actual communication if you used a few words of your own to lead off a topic instead of quoting Dicky Gross or making a Dawkins scarecrow.

You've spent so much time dodging brickbats from those two endugulous ventures, that perhaps your actual persona hasn't really had time to show.

Criticism of Dicky Gross - let me put critcisim in perspective - brace yourself .
Such criticism has the literary half life of a grocery list and is usually a result of a inability to publish anything more than such. Clap clap - thanks - I can hear the rumblings of atheist dissent. Any published articles? Please list as I am sure Dicky Gross would be interested to read your learned opinion(s).

[bgbarber]

I can read, and did read the article prior to my previous message thanks.

The article was an opinion from one person, just as you and I have differing opinions and those of who have replied already. I am sure we all agree and disagree on differing points, after all, we are individuals.

I know you didn't say what I wrote... I wrote it, by observation and reflection on what I have been reading from you since you have been here. You can object all you like, I know what I see and i'll call it if I need to. BTW, your psychobabble is wasted on me, I have studied psychology too.

I was bringing something to your attention in the hope that you will take it on board mainly to ensure, as much as possible, your interactions here are viewed less like trolling and more of what you insist your actual motives for being/posting here are.

Take or leave it. If you feel the need to keep objecting then don't be surprised if you are issued with a warning.

Edit: or worse (see below)

Warning for what? Should I be aware of some sort of overidding control issue here?

[atheist_angel]

That is why you are no messenger.
:confused: I am not a "messenger" -because I don't understand your "message"???

Care to expand on that, please?

[bgbarber]

:confused: I am not a "messenger" -because I don't understand your "message"???

Care to expand on that, please?

Then you are a lost Angel.

[Fearless]

bgbarber, Your account is now under review.

[Psychologic]

I have only skimmed this thread but I see troll as well. Any more arguments with Admin or Mods will result in permanent banning.

Protium, before you ban, I'd like to point out something. Of the two primary posters, one is an athiest (Wolty), and other is self-proclaimed wingman of a progressive faith (bgbarber). However both of them posted using King James dialect, something they should be spanked for, with a leather whip, in the hands of an angry dominatrix.

No further comments your honor.