Please tell me there are more Atheists out there...

Remove all ads!

@ Aikanaro

The first half of the definition was what I was most impressed by.

 

[Flame removed, warning pending] - dmc


Saber:
If you could explain the motivation of Disciple of the Watch, I would greatly appreciate it.

[ October 25, 2005, 02:25: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

What do you mean bu motivation... the motivation for getting pissed off at you, or the motivation for denouncing religion?

I believe that he got pissed off and was yelling because whenever he said something, people started bashing his veiws. Not exactly sure why, though.

But, if you clarify what you meant by 'explain the motivation', I would gladly elaborate.

[ October 25, 2005, 02:27: Message edited by: dmc ]

 

Terthe: If you acknowledge that your views may change in time, it suggests you might be more mature than you think.

NOG: based on a thread in Sorcerous Sundries, DotW may not be around anymore.

I can explain some general reasons why people post such things... First off, a lot of people are pretty PO'd with religion - the way it gets shoved in our faces all the time, and there's usually nothing we can do about it. Such a thread as this - where atheists and agnostics are actually allowed to state their opinions without getting arrested or sued - is a rare treat. Long bottled-up anger might result in pretty harsh things getting said.

Obviously I can't speak for others, but not everybody is like me - willing to dig up new arguments 'til the cows come home. Some maybe wish to just say their piece and keep moving.

 

That is exactly why I started this thread - so us atheists, agnostics, or non-believers can have a place to share their thoughts without being bashed. Unfortunately, a whole bunch of relgious people decided that bashing and picking apart our arguments was pretty fun. So my lovely thread of atheism has digressed into a not-so-lovely relgious battle. Pity.


And what happened with DotW in Sorc. Sund.? I didn't hear about this... And if it is none of my concern, then nevermind.

 

Ah, sorry, i guess I did not state what I meant clearly. I did want people to state how the felt about religion, but I didn't want a huge relgious battle being fought, which it ended up being. I love hearing people's reasons for believing or not, but I do not like it when religious people start telling me that I am wrong in my beliefs.

But I apologize, dmc, for contradicting myself and for not being clear enough.

In anycase, I urge everyone to keep this specifically on religion, because there are other threads on the other topics we have covered. And while I realize that many of the topics are religious involved, please keep it strictly to religion, or the Moderators will probably shut it down.

 

Does not obedience justify membership in a religion? And those in authority receive some form of divine or spiritual call? That's the justification of the first part. The second, It's more about the personal level. But when someone starts spewing hatred of things we hold personal, there will be an outward showing...

I think that the problem is that she believed that god was a puppet on a string. Ultimately, It boils down to His will, not ours that will be done.

The door swings both ways. By changing the definition of Marriage, the Government is trying to force the view that Homosexuality is acceptable onto us. I understood that the Separation of Church and State meant that the State stayed out of religious matters.

Then the Government ought to handle their issues and leave the church's part of that out. Make divorce required when couples that live together over a certain time decide to end the relationship. Let the Church police Marriage, the state police the legal part of the relationship.

Wasn't he the one that claimed that Religion was a plague? When you start a fight, expect people to get pissed off. And when people get pissed off, they don't handle things as well as they should. Which perpetuates people pissing each other off...

And we, the Religious don't get upset when people think that we're fools and don't hesitate to shove that contempt in our faces? Freedom of speech causes too many fights for it's own good sometimes. This is why Religion seems so restrictive. There's less controversy when there are fewer schisms. Don't get me wrong, when dissenting voices are stifles, people don't understand why they believe, which leads them to fall away when presented with opposition to their faith. I don't presume to speak for Aetheists, but religion is very personal to us. This is why I find your lack of belief so foreign...

At first I said my piece, go no response when I pointed out that your lack of belief was foreign to me, and then started seeing Religion actively bashed. I took to the keyboard to defend something core to who I am.

It's one thing to say why you don't believe. Were it not for my own personal experiences, I may not be as staunch a defender of Religion (my own in particular). It's another thing to call religion a plague that ought not exist or needs to be outlawed. That's picking a fight. From the looks of the thread, you got one...

It's hard to stay just to Religion. Religion includes a set of rules, some of which have been discussed at greater length than desired. Religion is a spiritual matter, and any proof you receive is personal, and spiritual. I can speak of that proof for myself, but that won't prove God's existence, let alone love, to you. It is something you need to discover for yourself. I don't regret learning this for myself. To you the rules in place may seem stupid or silly, but if you do feel that love for the Lord, Obedience doesn't seem like that much of a stretch...

 

Well said, Gnarf. And technically the woman was cured; though it certainly has problems of its own, death cures everything.

And the Church should stay out of the State's business, blah blah blah. You could even liken the Separation of Church and State to a long, drawn-out divorce. The definitive line of property is not yet clearly drawn, and both sides claim rights to everything in dispute in order to gain a bargaining advantage.

Marriage has both secular and religious parts to it, and until we divide it cleanly along a line, there will be dispute for either side meddling in the other's business.

 

Well, Sort of. Marriage is marriage, but there are those that choose to live together and not make it official. There should be laws around that similar to Marriage. And those laws would extend to homosexuals. This allows Marriage to be a specific covenent restricted to Religion.

 

That was well said, Gnarff.

I believe it's important to exchange thoughts on subjects like this even if it causes offense. (I say "exchange" because out there in the real world, in my experience there isn't much of an exchange, rather a one-sided flood from the religious to the non-religious.) Without discussion there's stagnation. And weren't religions created in the first place when an individual stepped up and started spreading their views?

Plain unnecessary rudeness aside, if we get too concerned with not offending anyone, soon the whole world might be like American overly PC television.

Sure, I take offense if someone starts announcing with some kind of certainty where I'll go when I die, but that kind of thing hasn't been done here. And well, if it had, I'd probably only get new vigor from it...

 

I had asked DoTW, admitidly in a rather unpolite manner, to explain the motivation behind his posting here in the first place. He had said that religion is nothing but delussion, etc. I understand why religious people want to be heard, they believe others are doing it wrong and are going to suffer horribly for it. But people who don't believe in a soul or any eternal, or even long lasting, implications of personal belief don't have any obvious motives for being outspoken.

Also, from a quick review of this thread, he became agressive on his second post, before anyone had disagreed with him. I was also confused about what drove his avid hatred of religion, especially if he thinks there's nothing to it. If you could clarify any of these points, I would be grateful. I'm sorry I won't be able to hear his own explanations now.

As for the whole religion being shoved down your throats thing, it's funny how perspective differ so drastically. I'm not saying it isn't happening, but most religious people are sick and tired of having atheistic, ammoral opinions, views, and materials shoed in our faces left, right, and center, with nothing we can do about it, no way to interact with most of the world without it, and no legal way to get rid of it. 90% of the TV shows and 50% of the commercials out there today center on naked or near naked bodies, adultery, divorce, and the like, and make them seem like good, natural things. Our schools teach evolution as fact, even though there is no more proof for it than for some of the ID theories. Justices who support the 10 commandments, the foundations of our national morality, are being constantly attacked and kicked out, and the senate is loathe to appoint any justice that isn't an aetheist. This is why religious people seem so fanatical on boards like this where we can actually post our ideas and not be arrested, silenced, or drowned out.

As for the marriage and divorce analogy, I think that is spot on. Unfortunately, the issue is never going to be resolved to 100% satisfaction.

Personally, I think they should make 'marriage' a purely religious institution and make 'cvil union' or the like the legal totality of the issue. If you want to get married, go to a pastor, priest, or whatever official your religion has. If you want to live together under one name, as one family, file the state licensing papers or whatever. Make the two entirely seperate. I know this will never satisfy everyone, but I think it's the best bet.

 

Although from my personal perspective it seems you're exaggerating with the percentages, I can understand you getting PO'd at such things. However since there is freedom of religion, I think there's a difference between doing things a religion doesn't condone, and actively attacking the religion itself.

I dislike the use of scantily clad bodies in commercials even though I'm not religious. The reason for me is that it's manipulation, taking advantage of people's sexual drive to sell products. I dislike all kinds of deception, misleading and manipulation, and coincidentally that's why I dislike religion as well.

From what I've read in the news, at least in the US the trend seems to be to nominate judges who are conservative. That might not be the whole truth, of course. But since there is the separation of church and state, and laws are based on the constitution and not religion, I don't see why it would be a bad thing to have atheists as judges. One does not need a religion to be able to have morals of their own.

And if the law was based on the Bible, it wouldn't be fair towards muslims, buddhists etc.

I agree with what you said about marriage. It would be better keep the church ceremony completely separate from the legal issues. Others here have stated such too.

I would imagine though, that even then there'd be people shouting about how "wrong" being gay is, and attempt to tear down their rights just the same.

 

It's quite simple, for both sides. Though the "suffering" thing is a nice blind, you don't really care that much about other people's souls to go to such lengths to convert them. The real reason for both sides is validation: if you can get someone to say that they're wrong and you're right, it helps to enforce your own flagging belief. If I had to guess, I'd say DotW was doubting ... something at the time, and could not handle having his beliefs questioned. And neither could you, NOG.

Just the fact that another faith (or whatever) exists is a threat; thoughts range from "What if they're right?" to "In order for me to be right, they have to be wrong!" And so the antagonism begins. The only way to avoid it is to say "I don't care who's right," which is a damn hard thing even for (relatively) laid-back types like myself.

Oh, and I guess I didn't make it completely clear in my previous posts, but I too think that if such a seperation could be achieved, it would be the best thing. I only wonder what pieces will get claimed by whom.

I'm going to assume that you didn't put atheistic and ammoral together on purpose; that statement could really use an "and/or".

Both sides struggle for dominance for the reason mentioned above, and the only arena available is the public view. Unfortunate and certainly annoying, but it's nothing to get overly upset about. If you want to make an outcry against the smut that permeates certain industries, I'm there with you. But atheism is a completely separate matter, and has nothing to do with ammorality; just as Christianity has nothing to do with things like the Crusades or certain unwholesome acts by individual priests a while ago. You cannot judge a faith by its cover.

 

Fel: I didn't intend for them to go together inherrantly, but I do frequently see them side-by-side. That may just be coincidence.
As for the whole questioning thing, that only applies if you aren't sure of your faith. Sure, everyone has those thoughts at some point, I certainly have, but I have seen too much of God to really question His word at this point. I honestly don't feel threatened by people of other faiths or beliefs, unless they actively threaten me, and I honestly do care that much about their souls. You really don't have a very high opinion about the nature of man, do you?
Susipaisti: I may have exagerated a little with the percentages, but I have a hard time watching a solid hour of TV on almost any channel without seeing something like what I listed.
And, yes, modern legal morality is heavily based on the 10 commandments, but much of it has been changed. Think of a multi-story building with every influence on our laws a different floor. The 10 commandments are our foundation, our modern laws are the top floor. To deny the foundation is to deny the building, but the foundatio isn't the totality of the building.

On the issue of perspective, what I was trying to suggest was that the atheists notice just about everything the religious do, but very little of what they do. In the same light, the religious notice just about everything the atheists do, but very little of what the religious do. In reality, there is probably a good balance between them.

[ October 25, 2005, 21:14: Message edited by: NOG (No Other Gods) ]

 

Just as it is a coincidence that we only hear about Catholics (or any other religion, for that matter) when they've done something bad. When you hear about a politician cheating on their wife, you often hear disbelief at how an "honest Christian man" could do something like that. On the other side, you might hear how they're not surprised that an "ammoral atheist" did it. Religious or not, he is simply a man who cheated on his wife, and is no reflection on the millions who are inextricably linked to him only by a word. But when you hear an anniversary announcement, there's no mention of religion, just that they're married. Actually, this could be a good point for you on how our secular society discriminates against religion.

Which is why you've written off DotW; that makes a lot of sense. And I prefer to say that I have realistic opinion about the nature of animal.

Somewhere a nail just winced and rubbed its head.

[ October 25, 2005, 21:58: Message edited by: Felinoid ]

 

Actually, I meant that I usually see amoral activity with atheistic views, not the words side-by-side.
And how did I write DoTW off? I politely asked him, three times, what his motives were, out of a purely psychological curiosity, and he responded with aggression, attacks, and complaints about people flaming him. I only attacked him when I had finally lost patience with him, which I regret.

 

I'm not trying to deny the foundation, which is a pretty good way of putting it, by the way. I think commandments such as do not kill, steal, lie etc. make a lot of sense. What I've been trying to say is that to me some ideas are good regardless of where they came from. Some other things the Bible tells people to do or not to do, *don't* make such sense to me - and still wouldn't even if they came from the mouth of an atheist.

I personally don't care about people's souls. You can probably guess why that is.

The quip about the nature of animals I could agree on. Humans are animals like others; relatively smart animals, but not as smart as we think.

 

Aye, I knew what you meant, but that's another place where the perspective comes in.

That's exactly how you wrote him off. Though it sounds like you may have changed your attitude now, before you made it clear that you were finished with 'helping' him and simply wanted to know 'the cause of his disease'. Now I'm not saying that you don't care a great deal about saving souls, but clearly there is room for improvement, as with any other human. Holier-than-thou doesn't work very well when you're not.