Why Do Ahteists Attack Christians the Most?

[chloe]

I noticed that while they say they are against all religions because there is no evidence, they seem to leave buddhists alone. Why is that? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that. Yet I never hear an atheist ranting about that indoctrination. What about Hindu's they worship alot of god/goddess's arent atheists offended that kids are being taught to believe that? It's mostly Christians they attacks and sometimes muslims, and I really wonder if the reason is because christians and muslims beliefs are very conservative, as in against gay marriage, traditional values, so atheists have a political agenda, they never haress pagans who worship god/goddess/idols. Whats up with that?

[crin63]

I noticed that while they say they are against all religions because there is no evidence, they seem to leave buddhists alone. Why is that? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that. Yet I never hear an atheist ranting about that indoctrination. What about Hindu's they worship alot of god/goddess's arent atheists offended that kids are being taught to believe that? It's mostly Christians they attacks and sometimes muslims, and I really wonder if the reason is because christians and muslims beliefs are very conservative, as in against gay marriage, traditional values, so atheists have a political agenda, they never haress pagans who worship god/goddess/idols. Whats up with that?

Double standards aside, those other religions do not cause them to feel guilty about the perverse things they do and believe. Additionally I don't believe there is a price to be paid for their actions either. Its sin without consequences. Remember as well that there first had to be theists in order for there to be a-theists which means that those who came before them believed in God but they chose to reject that.

[Bonnie]

Double standards aside, those other religions do not cause them to feel guilty about the perverse things they do and believe. Additionally I don't believe there is a price to be paid for their actions either. Its sin without consequences. Remember as well that there first had to be theists in order for there to be a-theists which means that those who came before them believed in God but they chose to reject that.

Very true, we should feel flattered... Christians really GET to them. It's so hard to admit being sinful yet we all are. So many other faiths espouse moral relativism. If we all look hard enough we can all find a set of beliefs that fit and celebrate "our own brand of morality or lack there-of and weakness" very enticing.

[crin63]

Very true, we should feel flattered... Christians really GET to them. It's so hard to admit being sinful yet we all are. So many other faiths espouse moral relativism. If we all look hard enough we can all find a set of beliefs that fit and celebrate "our own brand of morality or lack there-of and weakness" very enticing.

Great points! Christians have admitted their guilt and sought forgiveness as opposed the arrogance of moral relativism.

I'm of the opinion that one should read the Bible to find out how to live, not try to fit how one lives into the Bible.

[HogTrash]

Atheist are for the most part liberals who have been influenced by marxist indoctrination, usually in the universities and even public schools.

Marxist with all their variations of socialism and communism have fear and hatred for religion and capitalism as advisaries to their ideology.

The group that has resisted marxism the most is the western white anglo christian capitalist countries so marxist considers them it's #1 advisary.

The greatest threats to marxism is the white anglo race, capitalists and christians...Atheist are simply liberal pawns repeating their programmed marxist responces.

[Gaffer]

The atheists that are always attacking Christians are are simply political activist marxists. They are not true atheists. I have no beliefs, but I don't attack those who do. I don't care if the ten commandments are posted anywhere. I don't get offended by nativity scenes or Merry Christmas. I am against islam because of what is taught in it. It's a threat. Christianity could be if it became a government run religion, like what happened with the church of England.

Any religion can be manipulated by men, even atheists. Religion has historically been a means of controlling populations. It's still that way today. The so called "atheist" are trying to do the same thing.

[chloe]

The atheists that are always attacking Christians are are simply political activist marxists. They are not true atheists. I have no beliefs, but I don't attack those who do. I don't care if the ten commandments are posted anywhere. I don't get offended by nativity scenes or Merry Christmas. I am against islam because of what is taught in it. It's a threat. Christianity could be if it became a government run religion, like what happened with the church of England.

Any religion can be manipulated by men, even atheists. Religion has historically been a means of controlling populations. It's still that way today. The so called "atheist" are trying to do the same thing.

Well you are a rare "gem" atheist, I acknowledge and appreciate that you live and let live.:cool:

[Abbey Marie]

Misery loves company.

[Noir]

I noticed that while they say they are against all religions because there is no evidence, they seem to leave buddhists alone. Why is that? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that. Yet I never hear an atheist ranting about that indoctrination.

Welly, i haven't seen or heard of any buddhist faith schools in the UK, though i guess their must be some, but regardless of if there are or not, i would be against them, as i am chirstain faith schools ect ect.



What about Hindu's they worship alot of god/goddess's arent atheists offended that kids are being taught to believe that? It's mostly Christians they attacks and sometimes muslims, and I really wonder if the reason is because christians and muslims beliefs are very conservative, as in against gay marriage, traditional values, so atheists have a political agenda, they never haress pagans who worship god/goddess/idols. Whats up with that?

I think allot of it comes down to how these religions (Islam & christainity) are much more mainstream, unlike buddhists or pagans ect, and it only seems sensable to debate within context, which is normally Christainity. However if the main religion of the west was that of the Greek gods then it would be they who are attacked. By the same token i'm sure athiests in India don't attack christainity as much as Hinduism, maybe someones posting on an Indian Forum asking why Hinduism is always targeted, and not other religions.

[chloe]

Welly, i haven't seen or heard of any buddhist faith schools in the UK, though i guess their must be some, but regardless of if there are or not, i would be against them, as i am chirstain faith schools ect ect.




I think allot of it comes down to how these religions (Islam & christainity) are much more mainstream, unlike buddhists or pagans ect, and it only seems sensable to debate within context, which is normally Christainity. However if the main religion of the west was that of the Greek gods then it would be they who are attacked. By the same token i'm sure athiests in India don't attack christainity as much as Hinduism, maybe someones posting on an Indian Forum asking why Hinduism is always targeted, and not other religions.

I'm glad to know that the Atheist Militia are equal opportunity religious suppressors, I though it was only the Christians & Muslims, So Im sure they will do a world wide protest on their famous "Blasphomy day" calling for Buddha statues to be removed in front of public, government and school buildings in China.

[Noir]

I'm glad to know that the Atheist Militia are equal opportunity religious suppressors, I though it was only the Christians & Muslims, So Im sure they will do a world wide protest on their famous "Blasphomy day" calling for Buddha statues to be removed in front of public, government and school buildings in China.

I would hope you are not throwing me into this 'Atheist militia' group and thus deeming me a 'suppressor'.
Tarring with the same brush has never a wise call,

[chloe]

I would hope you are not throwing me into this 'Atheist militia' group and thus deeming me a 'suppressor'.
Tarring with the same brush has never a wise call,

I'm just kidden around with you, I'm not even religious, I just believe people have the right to practice religion freely.

[Noir]

I'm just kidden around with you, I'm not even religious, I just believe people have the right to practice religion freely.

Okie pokes,
And likewise, freedom is the key, and freedom does not come from indoctination.

[chloe]

Okie pokes,
And likewise, freedom is the key, and freedom does not come from indoctination.

True, but Atheist Activists are indoctrinating in like fashion as what they seem to accuse religious people of doing. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant to a point, because religious people and atheists have the right to do what they want. I just find it odd that Atheist Activists accuse religions of doing things that they themselves are now incorporating in their own movement.

[Noir]

True, but Atheist Activists are indoctrinating in like fashion as what they seem to accuse religious people of doing. Whether you or I agree with it is irrelevant to a point, because religious people and atheists have the right to do what they want. I just find it odd that Atheist Activists accuse religions of doing things that they themselves are now incorporating in their own movement.

I agree that those atheists who activly try and suppress all religion, say by making it illegal ect, are no worse that those who try and force innocent children into a religion, but that is by no means to say all athiests are on a par, and i tihnk the turn Atheist Activist is far too general,, as in, just how active do you have to be to be an activist?

[chloe]

I agree that those atheists who activly try and suppress all religion, say by making it illegal ect, are no worse that those who try and force innocent children into a religion, but that is by no means to say all athiests are on a par, and i tihnk the turn Atheist Activist is far too general,, as in, just how active do you have to be to be an activist?

Of course not all atheists are not activists, and not all religious people are judgemental, elitist or pushing to convert. How do we decide which atheist is going to far ot which religious person is going to far seems to be a legitmate question. We both can agree that actively teaching religion or atheism is influencing a kid either way. I happen to think a kid will be influenced regardless of who is teaching, whether its society or teachers, media, music, circumstances or staiton in life. However I would rather be the one passing my beliefs on to my children then not allowed to, and you feel i should not be allowed to if it entails religious or spiritual beliefs. That is the only area we differ in opinion.

[Missileman]

Double standards aside, those other religions do not cause them to feel guilty about the perverse things they do and believe. Additionally I don't believe there is a price to be paid for their actions either. Its sin without consequences. Remember as well that there first had to be theists in order for there to be a-theists which means that those who came before them believed in God but they chose to reject that.

Of course...that's the only reason someone would disbelieve your f*ckin fairy tale. I suppose the 2/3rds of the planet that don't believe in Christianity are ALL perverts...you're an idiot.

[crin63]

Of course...that's the only reason someone would disbelieve your f*ckin fairy tale. I suppose the 2/3rds of the planet that don't believe in Christianity are ALL perverts...you're an idiot.

LOL!!! I can always count on you to add something substantive to the conversation.

[bullypulpit]

I noticed that while they say they are against all religions because there is no evidence, they seem to leave buddhists alone. Why is that? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that. Yet I never hear an atheist ranting about that indoctrination. What about Hindu's they worship alot of god/goddess's arent atheists offended that kids are being taught to believe that? It's mostly Christians they attacks and sometimes muslims, and I really wonder if the reason is because christians and muslims beliefs are very conservative, as in against gay marriage, traditional values, so atheists have a political agenda, they never haress pagans who worship god/goddess/idols. Whats up with that?

Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. As a Buddhist myself, I can tell you that Buddhists aren't out proclaiming their moral superiority as so many Christians do. Neither are Hindus or Sikhs.

Just tune to any of the of the televangelists on TV or on the radio, and you'll hear their proclamations of moral superiority over other religions and how any other religion is false and no better than apostasy or heresy. When folks go around so vigorously proclaiming their virtue and piety, it usually means they're trying to hide their sins.

Instead, they need to practice what the Bible preaches...

<blockquote><b>Matthew 6:6 - </b>But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.</blockquote>

If you preach one thing and practice something else, whether in public or private, your hypocrisy will eventually tell, thus leaving you wide open for attack regardless of your religion or lack thereof.

[Agnapostate]

Unlike Buddhism, Christianity exercises a unique influence on the sociopolitical structure and internal domestic conditions of the country. To draw another example, Christianity and astrology probably both have the same amount of empirical evidence and rational theory underlying their respective belief systems, but the reason that Christianity is generally attacked by secularists while astrology is not is because astrology has no influence over the aforementioned domestic sociopolitical conditions. Conversely, socially rightist Christians in particular constitute a major voting bloc in the U.S., and subject themselves to the same criticism as any other political lobby.

http://i357.photobucket.com/albums/oo18/Dolgoff/64a318b7.jpg

:salute:


The greatest threats to marxism is the white anglo race, capitalists and christians...Atheist are simply liberal pawns repeating their programmed marxist responces.

Not that this makes any less sense than any of your other ramblings, but the greatest "threat" to Marxism or socialism probably comes from the European social democracies, since they uphold capitalism most adeptly. And those countries are primarily Scandinavian, not "Anglo." The Anglo-Saxon capitalism of the UK and the U.S. has been the most rightist and the most inefficient.

[bullypulpit]

Atheist are for the most part liberals who have been influenced by marxist indoctrination, usually in the universities and even public schools.

Marxist with all their variations of socialism and communism have fear and hatred for religion and capitalism as advisaries to their ideology.

The group that has resisted marxism the most is the western white anglo christian capitalist countries so marxist considers them it's #1 advisary.

The greatest threats to marxism is the white anglo race, capitalists and christians...Atheist are simply liberal pawns repeating their programmed marxist responces.

Still huffing carb cleaner I see. You are forgetting Buddhists in Tibet, ethnic Muslim Uighurs in China, and the list goes on.

[bullypulpit]

"Atheist Eve"...what a gem...and completely TRUE.

[chloe]

Christianity is the dominant religion in this country. As a Buddhist myself, I can tell you that Buddhists aren't out proclaiming their moral superiority as so many Christians do. Neither are Hindus or Sikhs.

Just tune to any of the of the televangelists on TV or on the radio, and you'll hear their proclamations of moral superiority over other religions and how any other religion is false and no better than apostasy or heresy. When folks go around so vigorously proclaiming their virtue and piety, it usually means they're trying to hide their sins.

Instead, they need to practice what the Bible preaches...

<blockquote><b>Matthew 6:6 - </b>But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.</blockquote>

If you preach one thing and practice something else, whether in public or private, your hypocrisy will eventually tell, thus leaving you wide open for attack regardless of your religion or lack thereof.

I didn't know atheism protesting was limited to this country, just as I suspected its about conservative religious views and not religion, buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that, buddhists have statues in public places no protests by atheists around the world about it, hindus worhsip many gods/goddesses. So what it boils down to is which religion is restricting gay marriage or has very conservative beliefs, not which religion believes a fairytale as previously stated. I get it. Just so you know I support gay marriage, I support ahteists having the right to teach their beliefs to their children and I support Christians rights to teach against gay marriage and abortion. It would seem that Liberals are only liberal when its in their own interest to be, otherwise they are perfectly willing to suppress someone elses rights or beliefs. Oh yeah and I am no religioun bullypulpit, I don't go to church and I am no member of any church or religion.

[darin]

Athiesm is a religion in a lot of senses. First, it takes Faith to believe God doesn't exist - there's no proof he doesnt.

[Agnapostate]

The burden of proof lies on those who would assert the existence of something rather than its nonexistence. This is illustrated through Russell's teapot analogy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_teapot), for example:


If I were to suggest that between the Earth and Mars there is a china teapot revolving about the sun in an elliptical orbit, nobody would be able to disprove my assertion provided I were careful to add that the teapot is too small to be revealed even by our most powerful telescopes. But if I were to go on to say that, since my assertion cannot be disproved, it is an intolerable presumption on the part of human reason to doubt it, I should rightly be thought to be talking nonsense. If, however, the existence of such a teapot were affirmed in ancient books, taught as the sacred truth every Sunday, and instilled into the minds of children at school, hesitation to believe in its existence would become a mark of eccentricity and entitle the doubter to the attentions of the psychiatrist in an enlightened age or of the Inquisitor in an earlier time.

A more contemporary and amusing example would be the Flying Spaghetti Monster (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flying_Spaghetti_Monster). As it is, though, I'd say that there is substantial evidence that the Judeo-Christian-Islamic deity does not exist, and that his alleged traits are incompatible with each other anyway.

[bullypulpit]

Athiesm is a religion in a lot of senses. First, it takes Faith to believe God doesn't exist - there's no proof he doesnt.

Faith is not required to be an atheist. The absence of empirical, independently and repeatably verifiable evidence of the existence of an invisible sky wizard on the part of theists is all that is necessary.

[darin]

You have faith in your beliefs. There is no emprical, independently and repeatably verifiable evidence you are right.

You believe our universe somehow, magically, Banged into being. You beleive, by wizardry? small organisms formed - life formed out of non-life.

I on the other hand, believe this system we're apart of is vastly too complex for random chance, magic, or bangs. Your faith in random chance surpasses faith I have in my daily life frequently. I wish I could learn to Trust God as much as you Trust random chance. You, my friend, are very religious.

[Agnapostate]

The origins of some random matter and energy, as you insinuate they are, seem a bit easier to explain than a highly complex omnipotent deity. :)

[bullypulpit]

I didn't know atheism protesting was limited to this country, just as I suspected its about conservative religious views and not religion, buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that, buddhists have statues in public places no protests by atheists around the world about it, hindus worhsip many gods/goddesses. So what it boils down to is which religion is restricting gay marriage or has very conservative beliefs, not which religion believes a fairytale as previously stated. I get it. Just so you know I support gay marriage, I support ahteists having the right to teach their beliefs to their children and I support Christians rights to teach against gay marriage and abortion. It would seem that Liberals are only liberal when its in their own interest to be, otherwise they are perfectly willing to suppress someone elses rights or beliefs. Oh yeah and I am no religioun bullypulpit, I don't go to church and I am no member of any church or religion.

The Buddha never spoke in terms of the actuality of reicarnation...only the possibility of it based on anecdotal evidence. He did not deal in absolutes or speculate on issues beyond the realm of direct human expereience.

Many of the rest of the world's religions, however, Christianity, Islam and Judaism among them, deal explicity in absolutes and treat matters which are beyond the realm of human experience as matters of fact.

[chloe]

The Buddha never spoke in terms of the actuality of reicarnation...only the possibility of it based on anecdotal evidence. He did not deal in absolutes or speculate on issues beyond the realm of direct human expereience.

Many of the rest of the world's religions, however, Christianity, Islam and Judaism among them, deal explicity in absolutes and treat matters which are beyond the realm of human experience as matters of fact.

Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).

Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

Bullypulpit these are beliefs that are not proven as actuality. You are not an Atheist, you are a buddhist and that is a religion. Of course you believe your religious views are more reasonable then christian views and you have the right to. Still, it is just your brand and style of spirituality that gels with you. You have no right to take away a christians belief. I have no right to take away your belief or an atheists belief. You are upset because christian & muslim beliefs limit your legal rights for gay marriage. That is a valid upset. But still unrelated to whether christians have a right to believe their belief. Gay marriage is a government legal issue. and that is where your issue should be directed at. The problem is you feel muslims or christians have power in special interest groups and they are influencing the laws that limit you, so you fight that with your own special interest groups to influence laws for your rights to marry. But trying to say christians shouldnt get to believe in their chsritian values, and have thier rights stripped away, is only doing to them what you are accusing them of doing to you.

[bullypulpit]

Traditionally, Buddhism teaches the existence of the ten realms of being. At the top is Buddha and the scale descends as follows: Bodhisattva (an enlightened being destined to be a Buddha, but purposely remaining on earth to teach others), Pratyeka Buddha (a Buddha for himself), Sravka (direct disciple of Buddha), heavenly beings (superhuman [angels?]), human beings, Asura (fighting spirits), beasts, Preta (hungry ghosts), and depraved men (hellish beings).

Now, these ten realms may be viewed as unfixed, nonobjective worlds, as mental and spiritual states of mind. These states of mind are created by men's thoughts, actions, and words. In other words, psychological states. These ten realms are "mutually immanent and mutually inclusive, each one having in it the remaining nine realms." For example, the realm of human beings has all the other nine states (from hell to Buddhahood). Man is at the same time capable of real selfishness, creating his own hell, or is truly compassionate, reflecting the compassion of Amida Buddha. Buddhas too have the other nine realms in their minds, for how can a Buddha possibly save those in hell if he himself does not identify with their suffering and guide them to enlightenment.

http://www.buddhanet.net/e-learning/reincarnation.htm

Bullypulpit these are beliefs that are not proven as actuality. You are not an Atheist, you are a buddhist and that is a religion. Of course you believe your religious views are more reasonable then christian views and you have the right to. Still, it is just your brand and style of spirituality that gels with you. You have no right to take away a christians belief. I have no right to take away your belief or an atheists belief. You are upset because christian & muslim beliefs limit your legal rights for gay marriage. That is a valid upset. But still unrelated to whether christians have a right to believe their belief. Gay marriage is a government legal issue. and that is where your issue should be directed at. The problem is you feel muslims or christians have power in special interest groups and they are influencing the laws that limit you, so you fight that with your own special interest groups to influence laws for your rights to marry. But trying to say christians shouldnt get to believe in their chsritian values, and have thier rights stripped away, is only doing to them what you are accusing them of doing to you.

What are described in the article you linked to are little more than the metaphysical weeds which grew up around the essentially pragmatic teachings of the Buddha reflected in the earliest extant records of his teachings.

I am not questioning the right of Christians, Muslims, Jews or ny other religionist to hold their views. However, when ANY religious group attempts to give their dogma of choice the full weight and authority of civil law...then it becomes an issue.

In this country the absolutist views espoused by the more radical elements of the Christian right...which are moving into mainstream conservatism...make no room or exception for ANY other viewpoint, never realizing or, more likely, refusing to accept that there are an infinite number of shades of grey between the black and the white that defines and delimits their world view.

[Noir]

Athiesm is a religion in a lot of senses. First, it takes Faith to believe God doesn't exist - there's no proof he doesnt.

xD
Epic answer...yes i guess it does take faith, about as much faith for both you and I to believe that Santa Caluse doesn't exist, or that invisable dinosaurs the size of ants and undectectable to any man made machine are currrently overruning the earth, or that the Giant Spaggetti Monster is cruising through space upon his noodley appendage as we speak. The fact that you can't disprove a negitive is really the most daft arguement for anything.
(NB there may be may spelling mistakes in this lol, sorry if so)

[Missileman]

Athiesm is a religion in a lot of senses. First, it takes Faith to believe God doesn't exist - there's no proof he doesnt.

Then not believing in the Tooth Fairy, Santa Claus, leprechauns, invisible rabbits, etc are all religions too as there's no evidence they don't exist either.

[Noir]

You have faith in your beliefs. There is no emprical, independently and repeatably verifiable evidence you are right.

You believe our universe somehow, magically, Banged into being. You beleive, by wizardry? small organisms formed - life formed out of non-life.

I on the other hand, believe this system we're apart of is vastly too complex for random chance, magic, or bangs. Your faith in random chance surpasses faith I have in my daily life frequently. I wish I could learn to Trust God as much as you Trust random chance. You, my friend, are very religious.

THIS is the killer.
I am forever hearing chirstains say 'The laws of physics are too finily ballenced that if anything where different then we would not exist' or that 'human biology is so complex it must have been made by a creator' ect ect ect.

And thus the complexity issue is born, i.e. 'We are too complex to have happened by chance'

Now what does science do? It looks for answers, how could the Universe have come into being through an event, how could creatures have evolved, ect.

What does religion do? It postulates the idea of a god. Yep. We humans are just too complex, ergo there must be an even more complex creature in existence to create us. This merely compounds the issue of complexity, and by no means solves it.

I'm sure you see the irony in raising coplexity as an issue.

[bullypulpit]

THIS is the killer.
I am forever hearing chirstains say 'The laws of physics are too finily ballenced that if anything where different then we would not exist' or that 'human biology is so complex it must have been made by a creator' ect ect ect.

And thus the complexity issue is born, i.e. 'We are too complex to have happened by chance'

Now what does science do? It looks for answers, how could the Universe have come into being through an event, how could creatures have evolved, ect.

What does religion do? It postulates the idea of a god. Yep. We humans are just too complex, ergo there must be an even more complex creature in existence to create us. This merely compounds the issue of complexity, and by no means solves it.

I'm sure you see the irony in raising coplexity as an issue.

The scientific method allows us to test hypotheses against reality and permits changing the hypotheses if they should fail that test...experimentation. Religion makes no allowance for any such testing.

[darin]

Evolution can't pass scientific tests...

[Noir]

The scientific method allows us to test hypotheses against reality and permits changing the hypotheses if they should fail that test...experimentation. Religion makes no allowance for any such testing.

Amen to that, :coffee:

[chloe]

What are described in the article you linked to are little more than the metaphysical weeds which grew up around the essentially pragmatic teachings of the Buddha reflected in the earliest extant records of his teachings.

I am not questioning the right of Christians, Muslims, Jews or ny other religionist to hold their views. However, when ANY religious group attempts to give their dogma of choice the full weight and authority of civil law...then it becomes an issue.

In this country the absolutist views espoused by the more radical elements of the Christian right...which are moving into mainstream conservatism...make no room or exception for ANY other viewpoint, never realizing or, more likely, refusing to accept that there are an infinite number of shades of grey between the black and the white that defines and delimits their world view.


sorry bully but that is not the issue of this topic, I'd be happy to create another thread about that. This topic is specifically about Atheists attacking christians/muslims but not other religions. We cna have a thread debating whether buddhism is considered religion, and also a thread about gay marriage and christians policital power. But I want this thread to be about Atheists being solely or mostly against only 2 religions, I want to discuss other religions and the atheists discontent and activism towards them, because atheists say religions believe in fairytales. I'm trying to learn something about it and your issues kinda sidetrack it, no disrespect.

[Missileman]

Evolution can't pass scientific tests...

Not if it's a test where the Bible is the science book...of course, rational adults know you can't derive a real science test from the Bible.

[Missileman]

sorry bully but that is not the issue of this topic, I'd be happy to create another thread about that. This topic is specifically about Atheists attacking christians/muslims but not other religions. We cna have a thread debating whether buddhism is considered religion, and also a thread about gay marriage and christians policital power. But I want this thread to be about Atheists being solely or mostly against only 2 religions, I want to discuss other religions and the atheists discontent and activism towards them, because atheists say religions believe in fairytales. I'm trying to learn something about it and your issues kinda sidetrack it, no disrespect.

When was the last time a Hindi or a Bhuddist suggested the U.S. Constitution be realigned with their sacred scriptures? Maybe you could post a few examples.

[chloe]

When was the last time a Hindi or a Bhuddist suggested the U.S. Constitution be realigned with their sacred scriptures? Maybe you could post a few examples.

But my Question is do Atheists feel ALL religion is False? I was told by an atheist that religions believe in fairytales, does that mean ALL of them do? I noticed that Atheists only mock and make fun of Christian beliefs mostly sometimes muslim beliefs. I am trying to find out from an Atheist, if they find ALL religions silly absurd and why their is no mockery of ALL the different religious beliefs. I am interested in talking about whether atheists feel because they have a belief in No God/Goddesses if they feel NO religion whatsoever should be taught to anyone. I am also interested to find out why Atheists target mostly Christians in their mockery attacks. You can open a thread to debate ALL the legal and civil rights issues you want to dispute that are imposed on you because of Religious political power. But if you will allow me to ask Atheists my questions in regards to Religious mockery and attacks I would appreciate it.

[Noir]

But my Question is do Atheists feel ALL religion is False? I was told by an atheist that religions believe in fairytales, does that mean ALL of them do? I noticed that Atheists only mock and make fun of Christian beliefs mostly sometimes muslim beliefs. I am trying to find out from an Atheist, if they find ALL religions silly absurd and why their is no mockery of ALL the different religious beliefs. I am interested in talking about whether atheists feel because they have a belief in No God/Goddesses if they feel NO religion whatsoever should be taught to anyone. I am also interested to find out why Atheists target mostly Christians in their mockery attacks. You can open a thread to debate ALL the legal and civil rights issues you want to dispute that are imposed on you because of Religious political power. But if you will allow me to ask Atheists my questions in regards to Religious mockery and attacks I would appreciate it.


I can only suggest you join an Indian political website, or something, alteast somewhere that the main religion isn't either Chirstain or Muslim, and there you will see athiests 'attacking' other religions, but like its obvious that on a board like this there idn't gonna be much talk like that. In the same way i'm sure pre 9/11 (i dunno if this board was here or not) but if so i'm sire there was vvery little discussion of the Islamic faith, and only by an extreme event has it been brought into discussions on western boards.

[Noir]

Evolution can't pass scientific tests...

=/
Care to address the posts above which quoted what you said previously in the topic or are ya just gonna ignore them and post one line baits?

[chloe]

I can only suggest you join an Indian political website, or something, alteast somewhere that the main religion isn't either Chirstain or Muslim, and there you will see athiests 'attacking' other religions, but like its obvious that on a board like this there idn't gonna be much talk like that. In the same way i'm sure pre 9/11 (i dunno if this board was here or not) but if so i'm sire there was vvery little discussion of the Islamic faith, and only by an extreme event has it been brought into discussions on western boards.

Atheism is Universal and the Belief in Religion being a fairytale should apply in any country and any religious belief if that is the creed of an atheist. In America we celebrate Halloween that is a Pagan Holiday, yet schools have pagan halloween parties and decorate public building with the sam hain halloween displays, shouldn't atheists protest that? What about Ground Hogs day, that is based in superstition and originally pagan, should that also not be celebrated publicly, no mayor on tv with news reporters deciding about the weather ?

[Missileman]

But my Question is do Atheists feel ALL religion is False? I was told by an atheist that religions believe in fairytales, does that mean ALL of them do? I noticed that Atheists only mock and make fun of Christian beliefs mostly sometimes muslim beliefs. I am trying to find out from an Atheist, if they find ALL religions silly absurd and why their is no mockery of ALL the different religious beliefs. I am interested in talking about whether atheists feel because they have a belief in No God/Goddesses if they feel NO religion whatsoever should be taught to anyone. I am also interested to find out why Atheists target mostly Christians in their mockery attacks. You can open a thread to debate ALL the legal and civil rights issues you want to dispute that are imposed on you because of Religious political power. But if you will allow me to ask Atheists my questions in regards to Religious mockery and attacks I would appreciate it.

I really don't care about what religious people believe until they try to assert some moral authority over others based on their fairy tales. If I see that from a Hindi or a Bhuddist or a Muslim, I will tell them they're full of shit just as quickly as I tell a Christian.

[chloe]

I really don't care about what religious people believe until they try to assert some moral authority over others based on their fairy tales. If I see that from a Hindi or a Bhuddist or a Muslim, I will tell them they're full of shit just as quickly as I tell a Christian.

Thanks for your answer, so at least for your personal opinion the fact that you have no belief in a supernatural entity or God/Goddess really is just left there with your own knowledge of what you believe. You don't feel a desire to go out an disprove ALL religions that are based in some kind of higher being or presence. Unless they become political, if they have a hand in politics or government then they deserve to have mockery or even possible turnabout is fair play in restricting them legally from having a symbol that is religious in nature near a government building. Otherwise, if they were out of government a public legal influence completely, a religious symbol wouldnt bother you, am I understanding it right?

[Missileman]

Thanks for your answer, so at least for your personal opinion the fact that you have no belief in a supernatural entity or God/Goddess really is just left there with your own knowledge of what you believe. You don't feel a desire to go out an disprove ALL religions that are based in some kind of higher being or presence. Unless they become political, if they have a hand in politics or government then they deserve to have mockery or even possible turnabout is fair play in restricting them legally from having a symbol that is religious in nature near a government building. Otherwise, if they were out of government a public legal influence completely, a religious symbol wouldnt bother you, am I understanding it right?

I have no problem with religious symbols in public, though I think religious displays at courthouses should be avoided as our judicial system should be entirely neutral.

[chloe]

I have no problem with religious symbols in public, though I think religious displays at courthouses should be avoided as our judicial system should be entirely neutral.

Agreed:cool:

[darin]

Not if it's a test where the Bible is the science book...of course, rational adults know you can't derive a real science test from the Bible.

Not if there is ANY scientific tests applied. Evolution is a pipe-dream thought up and clung-to by folks afraid of the truth. :)


=/
Care to address the posts above which quoted what you said previously in the topic or are ya just gonna ignore them and post one line baits?

When you make a valid point I'll give a valid answer :)

[Noir]

When you make a valid point I'll give a valid answer :)

So you do not see the complexity issue as a valid point?

Lemme restate it so we can be certain over this,

You said that we are too complex to have happened by chance, so there must have been a god

To which I repiled, you are trying to argue that we are too complex, and to slove this problem you are ironicly suggesting that in Order for complex creatures such as us to come into existence, there must have been a far more complex creature to create us.

Surly you can see how daft an arguement that is, unless you women out and use the 'that's not a real question' card,, which would be laughable beond all belief.

[darin]

Not quite. What I wrote is "The complexity and perfection of creation defies random chance, magic, or other non-designed causes"

The example is - If you're flying through space and happen upon a 2000 Ford Mustang floating through the nothingness, it'd be very logical for you to assume that car was created vice just appeared out of nothingness.

Same goes with the rest of the universe. The most likely cause of such amazing systems is a system-designer.

[Noir]

Not quite. What I wrote is "The complexity and perfection of creation defies random chance, magic, or other non-designed causes"

The example is - If you're flying through space and happen upon a 2000 Ford Mustang floating through the nothingness, it'd be very logical for you to assume that car was created vice just appeared out of nothingness.

Same goes with the rest of the universe. The most likely cause of such amazing systems is a system-designer.

...so do you believe we are too complex to have happened by chance yes or no.

Following on from the yes that you will give for the above question, please explain how you deal with the issue of complexity by refering to a god who is more complex still,

As for the car in space, the universe is very weird, and there is every chance that there is a car floating up there in space which did not have a creator, i suggest you look up some stuff on Quantum Mechanics, and as an example of that the 'Double slit' experiment, just because something seems unlikly, infact impossible by logic, does not make it impossible in the worlf of QM. This however is a side issue, the main meat of the arguement lies with the complexity issue

[Missileman]

Not if there is ANY scientific tests applied. Evolution is a pipe-dream thought up and clung-to by folks afraid of the truth. :)



You'll have to provide more than just your say-so. Provide links from REAL scientists that prove evolution doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This oughta be priceless!

[PostmodernProphet]

Just tune to any of the of the televangelists on TV or on the radio

do you realize how foolish it is to judge Christianity by tele-evangelists?.......it's like assuming the Democratic Underground represents 100% of Democrats.......oh, wait......I guess I withdraw my objection........

[PostmodernProphet]

To which I repiled, you are trying to argue that we are too complex, and to slove this problem you are ironicly suggesting that in Order for complex creatures such as us to come into existence, there must have been a far more complex creature to create us.

Surly you can see how daft an arguement that is, unless you women out and use the 'that's not a real question' card,, which would be laughable beond all belief.

I have always been puzzled why atheists thing this is an argument winner.....I see no merit to it at all....please explain to me why you believe that a deity needs to have "come into existence".......

scientific observation tells us that the universe HAD an origin....we have tracked it to the Big Bang.....without that scientific evidence there is no reason to ASSUME the universe had an origin.....why do we have to ASSUME a deity had an origin?........

[Noir]

I have always been puzzled why atheists thing this is an argument winner.....I see no merit to it at all....please explain to me why you believe that a deity needs to have "come into existence".......

scientific observation tells us that the universe HAD an origin....we have tracked it to the Big Bang.....without that scientific evidence there is no reason to ASSUME the universe had an origin.....why do we have to ASSUME a deity had an origin?........

I'm not arguing about the beginings of the universe, natural or deity, however, anyone who says there must have been a creator due to the complexity of the universe, as DMP has, needs to answer some questions on their own beliefs,

[PostmodernProphet]

I'm not arguing about the beginings of the universe, natural or deity, however, anyone who says there must have been a creator due to the complexity of the universe, as DMP has, needs to answer some questions on their own beliefs,

/shrugs.....and I believe the question is simply answered by saying a creating deity doesn't need to have a "beginning".....unless you can show me a need for such a beginning I see no reason for you to assume the question is a "show stopper".......

Look at it this way.....
we can examine that which we call the "natural laws".....the proven theories of physics, the controlling forces of matter, energy, etc........we can explain everything which occurred from a moment after the Big Bang as resulting from the effect of those laws.....let's call those LawsA......now, we have to assume that LawsA did not exist prior to the Big Bang.....otherwise the event which naturally occurred because of LawsA would have occurred earlier......thus, we must consider a different set of natural laws.....which may include a number of possibilities ranging from only one thing changing, to everything changing....Lets call this range of possibilities LawsB......now, it would seem to me that it is logical that we had to have a transition from LawsB to LawsA with the moment of transition being the Big Bang.....do we agree so far?.....

if I walk into a room with a table and a deck of cards dealt into a royal flush lying on the table, I believe it is far less complex to believe the cards were dealt than to believe the cards created themselves, the table and the room and dealt themselves into that configuration.......

there had to be some sort of triggering event to cause the change from LawsB to LawsA.....is it any more complex to argue that there is a creating deity who CAUSED that transition than to argue any other triggering event?......

[darin]

You'll have to provide more than just your say-so. Provide links from REAL scientists that prove evolution doesn't stand up to scrutiny. This oughta be priceless!

You don't consider any scientist with a different opinion that yours, a 'real' scientist...so what's the point? You like believing in magic. Nice for you. :)

[HogTrash]

Still huffing carb cleaner I see. You are forgetting Buddhists in Tibet, ethnic Muslim Uighurs in China, and the list goes on.I'm not quite sure what your point is but these religions you mentioned are hated, persecuted and under constant attack by the communist atheist, as are the Christians who are a minority in those nations.

The Christians are the #1 target for hatred by marxist infuenced atheist, here in America because they are the religious majority and most outspoken political opponent to the marxist goals.

Other minority religions in America try to keep a low profile for the most part and don't want to make waves and show little or no political opposition to the marxist except black muslims, who are 'marx friendly'.

You don't hear of attacks on the Catholic Church quite as much as the evangelicals...The latinos are mostly Catholics and marxist perceive them to be another 'marx friendly' allie and voting block.

This is also true of most black churches other than a few who have openly spoken out against gay issues...This will bring the rath of the left although they are careful to be politically correct with their attacks.

Marxist always strive to turn the minorities against the white race along with all their white institutions including their religion which for the most part is of course Christianity.

White capitalist Christians are the most steadfast and vigorous opponents to their marxist ambitions...There is of course certain elements of the white race that will become the pawns of the marxist.

They are the easily influenced and naturally rebellious young and of course the "liberals"...For the most part we excuse and over-look the young because of their age but there is no excuse for liberal adults.

[Missileman]

You don't consider any scientist with a different opinion that yours, a 'real' scientist...so what's the point? You like believing in magic. Nice for you. :)

Science isn't about opinion...however, I'll take your lack of a link as proof positive that you can't provide one. I don't know why you just can't admit it.

[chloe]

Science isn't about opinion...however, I'll take your lack of a link as proof positive that you can't provide one. I don't know why you just can't admit it.

Well it depends, on whether its a scientific law, scientific theory or a hypothesis, bececause some science is an opinion.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm

[Missileman]

Well it depends, on whether its a scientific law, scientific theory or a hypothesis, bececause some science is an opinion.

Lay people often misinterpret the language used by scientists. And for that reason, they sometimes draw the wrong conclusions as to what the scientific terms mean.

Three such terms that are often used interchangeably are "scientific law," "hypothesis," and "theory."

In layman’s terms, if something is said to be “just a theory,” it usually means that it is a mere guess, or is unproved. It might even lack credibility. But in scientific terms, a theory implies that something has been proven and is generally accepted as being true.

Here is what each of these terms means to a scientist:

Scientific Law: This is a statement of fact meant to describe, in concise terms, an action or set of actions. It is generally accepted to be true and universal, and can sometimes be expressed in terms of a single mathematical equation. Scientific laws are similar to mathematical postulates. They don’t really need any complex external proofs; they are accepted at face value based upon the fact that they have always been observed to be true.

Specifically, scientific laws must be simple, true, universal, and absolute. They represent the cornerstone of scientific discovery, because if a law ever did not apply, then all science based upon that law would collapse.

Some scientific laws, or laws of nature, include the law of gravity, Newton's laws of motion, the laws of thermodynamics, Boyle's law of gases, the law of conservation of mass and energy, and Hook’s law of elasticity.

http://wilstar.com/theories.htm


Scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses are not opinion. A hypothesis is a proposed explanantion for an observation. Scientific method is then applied to determine whether the hypothesis can stand up to scrutiny.

[chloe]

Scientific laws, theories, and hypotheses are not opinion. A hypothesis is a proposed explanantion for an observation. Scientific method is then applied to determine whether the hypothesis can stand up to scrutiny.

theory is an opinion

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

[Missileman]

theory is an opinion

1. Theory, hypothesis are used in non-technical contexts to mean an untested idea or opinion. A theory in technical use is a more or less verified or established explanation accounting for known facts or phenomena: the theory of relativity. A hypothesis is a conjecture put forth as a possible explanation of phenomena or relations, which serves as a basis of argument or experimentation to reach the truth: This idea is only a hypothesis.

Dictionary.com Unabridged

The bolded words in the first line indicate general usage of the words theory and hypothesis. The next 2 lines describe their use in science. Again, science isn't about opinion, it's about what you can affirm or dispute with scientific method.

[chloe]

The bolded words in the first line indicate general usage of the words theory and hypothesis. The next 2 lines describe their use in science. Again, science isn't about opinion, it's about what you can affirm or dispute with scientific method.

ahh ok there is no such thing as a "scientific opinion" scientists don't have an opinion, they only have facts , and their facts are always right even if they don't agree with each other. Got it ! LOL....Missileman it wouldn't matter what anyone says to you about science or even if they provide links, because you have your mind made up to think what you want. So it is pointless to even talk to you about it. All I know is over the years I hear how scientists once thought this and now discovered that and so this is incorrect, but when they thought this they were absolutley sure it was correct. No I won't waste time researching it anymore and providing links because you will say it is not true. Someone who is just stubborn or inflexible does not want to have a real conversation. It is not important enough to me to debate an issue with someone who is not going to be honest about something when they get what Im talking about. You know damn well there is scientific opinion. But your unwillingness to be honest when you know what I mean, makes me realize that your only interested in being right and winning a conversation, you are not interested in seeing someone else's point of view or even acknowledge parts of it as true. Geez even Agnapostate is willing to do that, I guess he is more secure in his beliefs to allow others to have theirs and to even acknowledge parts of theirs he knows to be true. Have a great day !:cool::salute:

[glockmail]

Because they hate children.

[Missileman]

ahh ok there is no such thing as a "scientific opinion" scientists don't have an opinion, they only have facts , and their facts are always right even if they don't agree with each other. Got it ! LOL....Missileman it wouldn't matter what anyone says to you about science or even if they provide links, because you have your mind made up to think what you want. So it is pointless to even talk to you about it. All I know is over the years I hear how scientists once thought this and now discovered that and so this is incorrect, but when they thought this they were absolutley sure it was correct. No I won't waste time researching it anymore and providing links because you will say it is not true. Someone who is just stubborn or inflexible does not want to have a real conversation. It is not important enough to me to debate an issue with someone who is not going to be honest about something when they get what Im talking about. You know damn well there is scientific opinion. But your unwillingness to be honest when you know what I mean, makes me realize that your only interested in being right and winning a conversation, you are not interested in seeing someone else's point of view or even acknowledge parts of it as true. Geez even Agnapostate is willing to do that, I guess he is more secure in his beliefs to allow others to have theirs and to even acknowledge parts of theirs he knows to be true. Have a great day !:cool::salute:

Your own link explained how the terms law, theory, and hypothesis are used in science. "Scientific opinion" wasn't even mentioned. Sure, scientists have opinions, but science isn't about opinion, which is what I posted in the first place. Mathematicians have opinions...math is not about opinion.

Opinion and science don't mix. The perfect example are the IDers. They look at something complex and state that in their opinion that thing HAD to be designed by an intelligence. There isn't anything scientific about that process.

If your point was that scientists have had to change their opinions from time to time because of science and scientific method applied to new evidence, you are correct, but that doesn't make science about opinion.

I asked dmp for a link to a scientist who has disproven the theory of evolution as he claims. He declined because all he can offer is an IDer with an opinion rather than a scientist.

[crin63]

Both sides have the same evidence. Its the interpretation of the evidence where there is disagreement.

Heres a couple Scientists that believe in the Genesis account of creation.


Some modern scientists who have accepted the biblical account of creation

* Dr. William Arion, Biochemistry, Chemistry
* Dr. Paul Ackerman, Psychologist
* Dr. E. Theo Agard, Medical Physics
* Dr. Steve Austin, Geologist
* Dr. S.E. Aw, Biochemist
* Dr. Thomas Barnes, Physicist
* Dr. Geoff Barnard, Immunologist
* Dr. Don Batten, Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Baumgardner, Electrical Engineering, Space Physicist, Geophysicist, expert in supercomputer modeling of plate tectonics
* Dr. Jerry Bergman, Psychologist
* Dr. Kimberly Berrine, Microbiology & Immunology
* Prof. Vladimir Betina, Microbiology, Biochemistry & Biology
* Dr. Andrew Bosanquet, Biology, Microbiology
* Edward A. Boudreaux, Theoretical Chemistry
* Dr. David R. Boylan, Chemical Engineer
* Prof. Linn E. Carothers, Associate Professor of Statistics
* Dr. Rob Carter, Marine Biology
* Dr. David Catchpoole, Plant Physiology
* Prof. Sung-Do Cha, Physics
* Dr. Eugene F. Chaffin, Professor of Physics
* Dr. Choong-Kuk Chang, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Jeun-Sik Chang, Aeronautical Engineering
* Dr. Donald Chittick, Physical Chemist
* Prof. Chung-Il Cho, Biology Education
* Dr. John M. Cimbala, Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Harold Coffin, Palaeontologist
* Dr. Bob Compton, DVM
* Dr. Ken Cumming, Biologist
* Dr. Jack W. Cuozzo, Dentist
* Dr. William M. Curtis III, Th.D., Th.M., M.S., Aeronautics & Nuclear Physics
* Dr. Malcolm Cutchins, Aerospace Engineering
* Dr. Lionel Dahmer, Analytical Chemist
* Dr. Raymond V. Damadian, M.D., Pioneer of magnetic resonance imaging
* Dr. Chris Darnbrough, Biochemist
* Dr. Nancy M. Darrall, Botany
* Dr. Bryan Dawson, Mathematics
* Dr. Douglas Dean, Biological Chemistry
* Prof. Stephen W. Deckard, Assistant Professor of Education
* Dr. David A. DeWitt, Biology, Biochemistry, Neuroscience
* Dr. Don DeYoung, Astronomy, atmospheric physics, M.Div
* Dr. Geoff Downes, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. Ted Driggers, Operations research
* Robert H. Eckel, Medical Research
* Dr. André Eggen, Geneticist
* Dr. Dudley Eirich, Molecular Biologist
* Prof. Dennis L. Englin, Professor of Geophysics
* Prof. Danny Faulkner, Astronomy
* Prof. Carl B. Fliermans, Professor of Biology
* Prof. Dwain L. Ford, Organic Chemistry
* Prof. Robert H. Franks, Associate Professor of Biology
* Dr. Alan Galbraith, Watershed Science
* Dr. Paul Giem, Medical Research
* Dr. Maciej Giertych, Geneticist
* Dr. Duane Gish, Biochemist
* Dr. Werner Gitt, Information Scientist
* Dr. Warwick Glover, General Surgeon
* Dr. D.B. Gower, Biochemistry
* Dr. Robin Greer, Chemist, History
* Dr. Stephen Grocott, Chemist
* Dr. Donald Hamann, Food Scientist
* Dr. Barry Harker, Philosopher
* Dr. Charles W. Harrison, Applied Physicist, Electromagnetics
* Dr. John Hartnett, Physics
* Dr. Mark Harwood, Engineering (satellite specialist)
* Dr. George Hawke, Environmental Scientist
* Dr. Margaret Helder, Science Editor, Botanist
* Dr. Harold R. Henry, Engineer
* Dr. Jonathan Henry, Astronomy
* Dr. Joseph Henson, Entomologist
* Dr. Robert A. Herrmann, Professor of Mathematics, US Naval Academy
* Dr. Andrew Hodge, Head of the Cardiothoracic Surgical Service
* Dr. Kelly Hollowell, Molecular and Cellular Pharmacologist
* Dr. Ed Holroyd, III, Atmospheric Science
* Dr. Bob Hosken, Biochemistry
* Dr. George F. Howe, Botany
* Dr. Neil Huber, Physical Anthropologist
* Dr. James A. Huggins, Professor and Chair, Department of Biology
* Dr. Russ Humphreys, Physics
* Evan Jamieson, Hydrometallurgy
* George T. Javor, Biochemistry
* Dr. Pierre Jerlström, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Arthur Jones, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan W. Jones, Plastic Surgeon
* Dr. Raymond Jones, Agricultural Scientist
* Prof. Leonid Korochkin, Molecular Biology
* Dr. Valery Karpounin, Mathematical Sciences, Logics, Formal Logics
* Dr. Dean Kenyon, Biologist
* Prof. Gi-Tai Kim, Biology
* Prof. Harriet Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jong-Bai Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Han Kim, Biochemistry
* Prof. Jung-Wook Kim, Environmental Science
* Prof. Kyoung-Rai Kim, Analytical Chemistry
* Prof. Kyoung-Tai Kim, Genetic Engineering
* Prof. Young-Gil Kim, Materials Science
* Prof. Young In Kim, Engineering
* Dr. John W. Klotz, Biologist
* Dr. Vladimir F. Kondalenko, Cytology/Cell Pathology
* Dr. Leonid Korochkin, M.D., Genetics, Molecular Biology, Neurobiology
* Dr. John K.G. Kramer, Biochemistry
* Dr. Johan Kruger, Zoology
* Prof. Jin-Hyouk Kwon, Physics
* Prof. Myung-Sang Kwon, Immunology
* Dr. John Leslie, Biochemist
* Dr. Jason Lisle, Astrophysicist
* Dr. Alan Love, Chemist
* Dr. Ian Macreadie, molecular biologist and microbiologist:
* Dr. John Marcus, Molecular Biologist
* Dr. Ronald C. Marks, Associate Professor of Chemistry
* Dr. George Marshall, Eye Disease Researcher
* Dr. Ralph Matthews, Radiation Chemist
* Dr. John McEwan, Chemist
* Prof. Andy McIntosh, Combustion theory, aerodynamics
* Dr. David Menton, Anatomist
* Dr. Angela Meyer, Creationist Plant Physiologist
* Dr. John Meyer, Physiologist
* Dr. Albert Mills, Animal Embryologist/Reproductive Physiologist
* Colin W. Mitchell, Geography
* Dr. Tommy Mitchell, Physician
* Dr. John N. Moore, Science Educator
* Dr. John W. Moreland, Mechanical engineer and Dentist
* Dr. Henry M. Morris (1918–2006), founder of the Institute for Creation Research.
* Dr. Arlton C. Murray, Paleontologist
* Dr. John D. Morris, Geologist
* Dr. Len Morris, Physiologist
* Dr. Graeme Mortimer, Geologist
* Dr. Terry Mortenson, History of Geology
* Stanley A. Mumma, Architectural Engineering
* Prof. Hee-Choon No, Nuclear Engineering
* Dr. Eric Norman, Biomedical researcher
* Dr. David Oderberg, Philosopher
* Prof. John Oller, Linguistics
* Prof. Chris D. Osborne, Assistant Professor of Biology
* Dr. John Osgood, Medical Practitioner
* Dr. Charles Pallaghy, Botanist
* Dr. Gary E. Parker, Biologist, Cognate in Geology (Paleontology)
* Dr. David Pennington, Plastic Surgeon
* Prof. Richard Porter
* Dr. Georgia Purdom, Molecular Genetics
* Dr. John Rankin, Cosmologist
* Dr. A.S. Reece, M.D.
* Prof. J. Rendle-Short, Pediatrics
* Dr. Jung-Goo Roe, Biology
* Dr. David Rosevear, Chemist
* Dr. Ariel A. Roth, Biology
* Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, Physical Chemistry
* Dr. Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist:
* Dr. Ian Scott, Educator
* Dr. Saami Shaibani, Forensic physicist
* Dr. Young-Gi Shim, Chemistry
* Prof. Hyun-Kil Shin, Food Science
* Dr. Mikhail Shulgin, Physics
* Dr. Emil Silvestru, Geology
* Dr. Roger Simpson, Engineer
* Dr. Harold Slusher, Geophysicist
* Dr. E. Norbert Smith, Zoologist
* Arthur E. Wilder-Smith (1915–1995) Three science doctorates; a creation science pioneer
* Dr. Andrew Snelling, Geologist
* Prof. Man-Suk Song, Computer Science
* Dr. Timothy G. Standish, Biology
* Prof. James Stark, Assistant Professor of Science Education
* Prof. Brian Stone, Engineer
* Dr. Esther Su, Biochemistry
* Dr. Charles Taylor, Linguistics
* Dr. Stephen Taylor, Electrical Engineering
* Dr. Ker C. Thomson, Geophysics
* Dr. Michael Todhunter, Forest Genetics
* Dr. Lyudmila Tonkonog, Chemistry/Biochemistry
* Dr. Royal Truman, Organic Chemist:
* Dr. Larry Vardiman, Atmospheric Science
* Prof. Walter Veith, Zoologist
* Dr. Joachim Vetter, Biologist
* Sir Cecil P. G. Wakeley (1892–1979) Surgeon
* Dr. Tas Walker, Geology/Engineering
* Dr. Jeremy Walter, Mechanical Engineer
* Dr. Keith Wanser, Physicist
* Dr. Noel Weeks, Ancient Historian (also has B.Sc. in Zoology)
* Dr. A.J. Monty White, Chemistry/Gas Kinetics
* Dr. John Whitmore, Geologist/Paleontologist
* Dr. Carl Wieland, Medicine/Surgery
* Dr. Clifford Wilson, Psycholinguist and archaeologist
* Dr. Kurt Wise, Palaeontologist
* Prof. Verna Wright, Rheumatologist (deceased 1997)
* Prof. Seoung-Hoon Yang, Physics
* Dr. Thomas (Tong Y.) Yi, Ph.D., Creationist Aerospace & Mechanical Engineering
* Dr. Ick-Dong Yoo, Genetics
* Dr. Sung-Hee Yoon, Biology
* Dr. Patrick Young, Chemist and Materials Scientist
* Prof. Keun Bae Yu, Geography
* Dr. Henry Zuill, Biology

http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/bios/

[Missileman]

Both sides have the same evidence. Its the interpretation of the evidence where there is disagreement.

Heres a couple Scientists that believe in the Genesis account of creation.

Would that be the "new earth" account or the 4 billion year old account?

[crin63]

Would that be the "new earth" account or the 4 billion year old account?

New earth account. 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth.

[Gaffer]

New earth account. 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth.

Do they also believe the earth is the center of the universe and everything revolves around it? That's all the science of the middle ages, and those are not scientists. Just a lot of PhD's with no clue about science.

[Missileman]

New earth account. 6,000 to 10,000 year old earth.

Then they aren't real scientists as real scientists don't ignore evidence that contradicts their conclusions.

[chloe]

Then they aren't real scientists as real scientists don't ignore evidence that contradicts their conclusions.

:laugh2:, Your so cute ! God is a scientific Fact, and religion is his Theory, there are many denominations of religion practicing their hypothesis. While the earth was always round it took time for humans to know it, and it will take take for some to know God too.....wink

[Psychoblues]

Do atheists attack Christians? I thought it was the other way around!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

[chloe]

Do atheists attack Christians? I thought it was the other way around!!!!!!!!!

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

you thought? or is it a scientific fact:laugh2::salute:

[Psychoblues]

Experience? Observation? Collection of information? You figure?!?!?!?!??!?!



you thought? or is it a scientific fact:laugh2::salute:

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

[chloe]

Experience? Observation? Collection of information? You figure?!?!?!?!??!?!




:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

Indeed I am figuring all those things as I ask questions....wink

[Psychoblues]

You are indeed a lovely one!!!!!!!!!!!




Indeed I am figuring all those things as I ask questions....wink

:beer::cheers2::beer:

:laugh2:

[Pericles]

I noticed that while they say they are against all religions because there is no evidence, they seem to leave buddhists alone. Why is that? Buddhists believe in reincarnation and there is no proof of that. Yet I never hear an atheist ranting about that indoctrination. What about Hindu's they worship alot of god/goddess's arent atheists offended that kids are being taught to believe that?

Chloe, like I mentioned in another thread, all organized religion is inherently political. All organized religion includes standards for defining who and who doesn't belong to the group; hence they have the means of defining heresy, in-fidelity, as well as means of enforcing measures to exclude those who are not part of the in-group. Part and parcel of having a religious identity, is policing orthodoxy, and controlling behavior. It's an inevitable part of the territory.

Now; that said, the Eastern faith-traditions tend to be much looser on the dogma-side that the Semitic faiths. There is an intense degree of religious syncretism is Eastern religion; religions in China are a prime example of this. The same family can practice cults of their own family ancestors, can make daily devotions to the shrine of Confucious, can be motivated in their moral behavior and believe in a happy afterlife as part of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, as well as have certain magical beliefs derived from Taoism all mixed in.

The Semitic faiths have their own syncretism, though it's less acknowledged. Both Christianity and Islam draw heavily on ancient Judaism. All three Semitic faiths get their idea of heaven and hell from older Mesopotamian religious traditions, like Egyptian and Persian religions.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the atheist attacks on religion are, at their root, ethical and political attacks. Monotheism comes with an explicit political agenda - one of tyrannical control; atheism is specifically concerned to refute and repudiate that agenda. Atheism turns its fire on the Semitic faith-traditions, mainly because we're more familiar with, and threatened by, the political agendas of the monotheists, than we are of any other faith.

[chloe]

Chloe, like I mentioned in another thread, all organized religion is inherently political. All organized religion includes standards for defining who and who doesn't belong to the group; hence they have the means of defining heresy, in-fidelity, as well as means of enforcing measures to exclude those who are not part of the in-group. Part and parcel of having a religious identity, is policing orthodoxy, and controlling behavior. It's an inevitable part of the territory.

Now; that said, the Eastern faith-traditions tend to be much looser on the dogma-side that the Semitic faiths. There is an intense degree of religious syncretism is Eastern religion; religions in China are a prime example of this. The same family can practice cults of their own family ancestors, can make daily devotions to the shrine of Confucious, can be motivated in their moral behavior and believe in a happy afterlife as part of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, as well as have certain magical beliefs derived from Taoism all mixed in.

The Semitic faiths have their own syncretism, though it's less acknowledged. Both Christianity and Islam draw heavily on ancient Judaism. All three Semitic faiths get their idea of heaven and hell from older Mesopotamian religious traditions, like Egyptian and Persian religions.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the atheist attacks on religion are, at their root, ethical and political attacks. Monotheism comes with an explicit political agenda - one of tyrannical control; atheism is specifically concerned to refute and repudiate that agenda. Atheism turns its fire on the Semitic faith-traditions, mainly because we're more familiar with, and threatened by, the political agendas of the monotheists, than we are of any other faith.

Atheism is political too. (buddha and socrates were deadbeat dads)

[Pericles]

Atheism is political too. (buddha and socrates were deadbeat dads)

Of course atheism has an implicit political view. Though I do not know why you mentioned Buddha or Socrates in this connection - neither of them were atheists.

Atheism holds the reasoned belief that there are no gods. It is a reasoned belief; and hence it can only be a provisional one. If someone can produce a logically (and morally) compelling argument for the existence and nature of the gods, atheists could no longer in good conscience maintain their views.

What atheism specifically rejects, is any vested political authority, authority of the sort that is, of its nature, beyond criticism. This rejection applies in particular to supernatural sources of authority.

That is why it is a contradiction in terms, utlimately, to speak of 'atheist political regimes' - because for the atheist, power must be justified in order to be legitimate. Once a regime starts using atheism as an ideology to quash the use of reason (that is, the use of reason as an instrument in grounding legitimate authority), atheism has then become perverted into yet another dogma - quite like a religion itself.

[bullypulpit]

Not if there is ANY scientific tests applied. Evolution is a pipe-dream thought up and clung-to by folks afraid of the truth. :)

Ummm, not so much. Fossil and paleontological evidence clearly show that evolution, as a scientific theory, withstands any scrutiny. Finch bones found in caves in the Galapagos Islands show clearly how current species there originated from common ancestors over the centuries.

You, like so many of your fellow travelers, fail to understand theories as they operate in the sciences. Theories are no unchanging and immutable. As new experimental and physical evidence are gathered, a given theory is re-examined in light of this new data. If the theory is supported by the evidence, it stands unchanged. If the evidence does not support the theory, it is revised and reviewed to comport with reality, or discarded all together if the evidence warrants it. It is an open ended process that allows for revision to bring a theory into closer and closer corespondence with reality. Just because a thoery is not 100% correct does not mean that it is 100% wrong.

Religion permits no such examination. Dogma is not to be questioned. everything is neatly packed away in its own little cubby, right or wrong...black or white, there is nothing in between. The lack of absolutes presented by theories as they pertain to science is the most difficult thing for you, and your fellow travelers, to accept. Open ended systems disturb you in ways you can't really give voice to, never mind that life itself is one great, big open-ended system. They lack the absolutes you take such comfort in.

SO, who's afraid of the truth?

[bullypulpit]

Chloe, like I mentioned in another thread, all organized religion is inherently political. All organized religion includes standards for defining who and who doesn't belong to the group; hence they have the means of defining heresy, in-fidelity, as well as means of enforcing measures to exclude those who are not part of the in-group. Part and parcel of having a religious identity, is policing orthodoxy, and controlling behavior. It's an inevitable part of the territory.

Now; that said, the Eastern faith-traditions tend to be much looser on the dogma-side that the Semitic faiths. There is an intense degree of religious syncretism is Eastern religion; religions in China are a prime example of this. The same family can practice cults of their own family ancestors, can make daily devotions to the shrine of Confucious, can be motivated in their moral behavior and believe in a happy afterlife as part of the Mahayana Buddhist tradition, as well as have certain magical beliefs derived from Taoism all mixed in.

The Semitic faiths have their own syncretism, though it's less acknowledged. Both Christianity and Islam draw heavily on ancient Judaism. All three Semitic faiths get their idea of heaven and hell from older Mesopotamian religious traditions, like Egyptian and Persian religions.

Anyway, the bottom line here is that the atheist attacks on religion are, at their root, ethical and political attacks. Monotheism comes with an explicit political agenda - one of tyrannical control; atheism is specifically concerned to refute and repudiate that agenda. Atheism turns its fire on the Semitic faith-traditions, mainly because we're more familiar with, and threatened by, the political agendas of the monotheists, than we are of any other faith.

Amongst those adhering to the more radical elements of the Semitic faiths, syncretism is not only "less acknowledged", it is outright and flatly denied.

[chloe]

Of course atheism has an implicit political view. Though I do not know why you mentioned Buddha or Socrates in this connection - neither of them were atheists.

Atheism holds the reasoned belief that there are no gods. It is a reasoned belief; and hence it can only be a provisional one. If someone can produce a logically (and morally) compelling argument for the existence and nature of the gods, atheists could no longer in good conscience maintain their views.

What atheism specifically rejects, is any vested political authority, authority of the sort that is, of its nature, beyond criticism. This rejection applies in particular to supernatural sources of authority.

That is why it is a contradiction in terms, utlimately, to speak of 'atheist political regimes' - because for the atheist, power must be justified in order to be legitimate. Once a regime starts using atheism as an ideology to quash the use of reason (that is, the use of reason as an instrument in grounding legitimate authority), atheism has then become perverted into yet another dogma - quite like a religion itself.

right buddhism IS a religion. So if someone is Buddhist they are not Atheist. If true Atheists were against religion because they view religion as believing in fairytales, that would be the case with ALL religion. Not just the ones they despise the most. This isnt what is happening, they don't protest pagan holidays, they don't protest buddha statues in front of buildings. They attack the right conservative religions because of politics, and then have the nerve to claim its because religious groups are exercising there free rights to vote and shape soceieties laws. Well atheists are doing the same. So throw that arguement out the window. Atheists & Religions are into politics. Now most of them tell me if religion was not in politics suppressing some political or legal right they want, then they wouldnt care if the religion had a public christmas tree or some other relgious symbol. So while the atheist goes around spweing hate at religion or mocking it because of the belief, the truth is they don't Crae if someone is religious they only care about their politics, well how can they ask one group to stop politicing if they arent going to stop themselves?

[Pericles]

right buddhism IS a religion. So if someone is Buddhist they are not Atheist. If true Atheists were against religion because they view religion as believing in fairytales, that would be the case with ALL religion. Not just the ones they despise the most. This isnt what is happening, they don't protest pagan holidays, they don't protest buddha statues in front of buildings.

Chloe, what you're talking about is more complicated than you suppose. It's true, that atheists are opposed to all superstition. But not all superstition is equally pernicious. Atheists are most aggressive when it comes to the monotheist faith-traditions, because it is those belief systems which explicitly advertise the worthiness of God's dominion and our servitude. As an atheist, I'm telling you that a belief system that says you are a slave, and that you should like it, is nothing less than a menace to humanity. Most pagan beliefs that are current today, don't teach this.

Buddhism, in its original form, has only one belief which I would regard as superstition: the belief in reincarnation. And the whole teaching of the Buddha concerns how we can overcome the fate of reincarnation entirely (reincarnation is seen by Buddhists as not a good thing in itself), through the dissolution of our selfish ego into the Transcendent Emptiness. It is the belief in an afterlife, by religions like Christianity, which in fact validates and (massively) reinforces the whole attachment to self, the whole aggrandizement of self (in an eternal life of blissfull pleasure), that the Buddha, very perceptively, saw as leading to suffering. The ego is not to be gratified, but finally overcome. In all this doctrine, there is no message about your inherent inferiority to your "master;" indeed, there is very little that is overtly political about Buddhism (again, in its original form).

It is this lack of a political dimension, in other words of rules laid down for devotees to obey, and punishments arranged for those who fail to obey, that prompts many Christians to refer to Buddhism as "atheistic." The Buddha posited no gods, nor any afterlife after the achievement of nirvana. The Buddha refused even to talk about spirits or divine beings.

But Buddhism is most certainly a religion. It is a religion because it zeroes directly in on spiritual matters - on matters of personal edification/revelation, as this is revealed by the devotees orientation towards what is Ultimate.

All classic religions have this spiritual dimension, including Christianity. But what is heartbreaking, is that inextricably bound up with the promise of spiritual fulfillment held out by religion, are the political aspects of faith, which tempt us to think, "the answer that I have is the answer that you must adopt." This confessional chauvanism has led to violence unending in world history, continuing indeed right up to today.


They attack the right conservative religions because of politics, and then have the nerve to claim its because religious groups are exercising there free rights to vote and shape soceieties laws. Well atheists are doing the same. So throw that arguement out the window.

No major religious tradition facilitates political violence more than do the monotheist faith-traditions. In their very structure - with the godhead as a king - they are explicitly political, and always potentially on crusade/jihad.

This is what is at the root of the problem between atheists and monotheists. The Muslims have recognized this, but conservative Christians seem curiously blind to it. The Muslims understand that, on a fundamental level, their religion (which ramifies politically as a Divine Monarchy) and democracy are incompatible. Either God rules, or men do. For them, "separation of church and state" does not mean freedom of religion; it means the overthrow of God's sovereignty.

Atheists, for their part, see the issue just as clearly as the Muslims do; and again, they see it more clearly than conservative Christians. Atheists grasp very well that "freedom of conscience" means freedom from being obliged to any beliefs in things supernatural. The state must be officially neutral, lacking fidelity in general, if the freedom of conscience of all is to be respected.

Conservative Christians complain that we are stomping on their traditions, when we say that we want "under God" out of the pledge, "in God we trust" off of our money (both of those are additions, by the way, were made recently, during the Cold War), and religious symbology out of our taxpayer-funded public buildings. But somehow I think you'd come around to our point of view, if you replaced "God" with "Allah" in those texts, and representations of the Ten Commandments, with representations of the Koran.


Atheists & Religions are into politics. Now most of them tell me if religion was not in politics suppressing some political or legal right they want, then they wouldnt care if the religion had a public christmas tree or some other relgious symbol.

In general that's right. Atheists like myself, after all, respect the way that religion gives spiritual sustenance to individuals. But an individual's religious beliefs become a problem real fast, once they form part of an organized faith that asserts that the rules that block the state establishment of other religions in the society, don't apply to them.

It'd be worthwhile for conservative Christians to reflect and recognize, that the recent ascendancy of an explicitly atheist voice in American public life, coincided with the (successful) efforts by the Republican party to co-opt Chrisitanity for their own political gain - most obviously during the Bush years, but really reaching back into the Reagan era. Christianity has made a Faustian bargain with the Republican party; and in allying with that party, Christianity has made itself anathema to all those who are opposed to the Republicans.

The bottom line is this. Atheists regard all superstition as a threat to freedom. But some forms of superstition are worse than others. Wishing on the first star you see at night, or avoiding black cats, just does not compare with believing that Jesus wanted George Bush to be president. Inasmuch as monotheism ultimately believes in monarchy, not democracy, it is the enemy of freedom and will be implacably opposed by the atheists. We're not afraid anymore; we're out; and we're not going away.

[bullypulpit]

Looked at another way, Pericles, Buddhism regards belief in an eternal afterlife as nothing more than another form of grasping and clinging to this life. It has its genesis in that fear of the unknown...fear of loosing those things in this life we cherish, transient and impermanent though they are.

At its heart, Buddhism is essentially non-theistic, especially once you've stripped away the rank weeds of metaphysics which have grown up around it over the centuries. Along this line, the Buddha never spoke of the actuality or fact of reincarnation. Only its possibility.

[PostmodernProphet]

I do see at least one similarity between Buddhism and atheism......Buddhists believe that we can achieve deity....and most of the atheists I have met think they are gods........

[chloe]

Chloe, what you're talking about is more complicated than you suppose. It's true, that atheists are opposed to all superstition. But not all superstition is equally pernicious. Atheists are most aggressive when it comes to the monotheist faith-traditions, because it is those belief systems which explicitly advertise the worthiness of God's dominion and our servitude. As an atheist, I'm telling you that a belief system that says you are a slave, and that you should like it, is nothing less than a menace to humanity. Most pagan beliefs that are current today, don't teach this.

Buddhism, in its original form, has only one belief which I would regard as superstition: the belief in reincarnation. And the whole teaching of the Buddha concerns how we can overcome the fate of reincarnation entirely (reincarnation is seen by Buddhists as not a good thing in itself), through the dissolution of our selfish ego into the Transcendent Emptiness. It is the belief in an afterlife, by religions like Christianity, which in fact validates and (massively) reinforces the whole attachment to self, the whole aggrandizement of self (in an eternal life of blissfull pleasure), that the Buddha, very perceptively, saw as leading to suffering. The ego is not to be gratified, but finally overcome. In all this doctrine, there is no message about your inherent inferiority to your "master;" indeed, there is very little that is overtly political about Buddhism (again, in its original form).

It is this lack of a political dimension, in other words of rules laid down for devotees to obey, and punishments arranged for those who fail to obey, that prompts many Christians to refer to Buddhism as "atheistic." The Buddha posited no gods, nor any afterlife after the achievement of nirvana. The Buddha refused even to talk about spirits or divine beings.

But Buddhism is most certainly a religion. It is a religion because it zeroes directly in on spiritual matters - on matters of personal edification/revelation, as this is revealed by the devotees orientation towards what is Ultimate.

All classic religions have this spiritual dimension, including Christianity. But what is heartbreaking, is that inextricably bound up with the promise of spiritual fulfillment held out by religion, are the political aspects of faith, which tempt us to think, "the answer that I have is the answer that you must adopt." This confessional chauvanism has led to violence unending in world history, continuing indeed right up to today.


No major religious tradition facilitates political violence more than do the monotheist faith-traditions. In their very structure - with the godhead as a king - they are explicitly political, and always potentially on crusade/jihad.



Buddhists believe in karma, which is a way to make you obey or behave. I undertsand now what the atheists agenda is, primarily to make christians obey whatever their political agendas is. I appreciate you taking the time to clarifiy your points of view, thanks.

[bullypulpit]

Buddhists believe in karma, which is a way to make you obey or behave. I undertsand now what the atheists agenda is, primarily to make christians obey whatever their political agendas is. I appreciate you taking the time to clarifiy your points of view, thanks.

That particular view of karma resembles more the determinism of Hinduism than of Buddhism. The Buddha saw karma as something to be transcended and overcome rather than an absolute determinant of ones future actions.

And I think you've jumped to an overly broad and hasty conclusion. Your so called "atheist agenda" has more to do with maintaining a the separation of church and state. Unlike the religious right in this country which seems hell-bent on establisihng a "Christian" nation and riding rough-shod over the Constituion.

[chloe]

That particular view of karma resembles more the determinism of Hinduism than of Buddhism. The Buddha saw karma as something to be transcended and overcome rather than an absolute determinant of ones future actions.

And I think you've jumped to an overly broad and hasty conclusion. Your so called "atheist agenda" has more to do with maintaining a the separation of church and state. Unlike the religious right in this country which seems hell-bent on establisihng a "Christian" nation and riding rough-shod over the Constituion.

:laugh2: your not an atheist, your a religious follower, buddhism is a religion, you hate christians because they vote conservative against gay marriage. You really can't speak for a real atheist when you believe in a religion yourself.

[bullypulpit]

:laugh2: your not an atheist, your a religious follower, buddhism is a religion, you hate christians because they vote conservative against gay marriage. You really can't speak for a real atheist when you believe in a religion yourself.

I have long since moved past Buddhism as a religion to the point of accepting Buddhism for the pragmatic and practical philosophy it is...once you get past the metaphysical BS that has been heaped upon it over the centuries.

In a sense, I am an atheist in that I do not believe in some invisible sky wizard that would be offended by my, justified IMHO, disbelief in its existence. Any deity that would be so offended is far too human to be worthy of worship.

[chloe]

I have long since moved past Buddhism as a religion to the point of accepting Buddhism for the pragmatic and practical philosophy it is...once you get past the metaphysical BS that has been heaped upon it over the centuries.

In a sense, I am an atheist in that I do not believe in some invisible sky wizard that would be offended by my, justified IMHO, disbelief in its existence. Any deity that would be so offended is far too human to be worthy of worship.

whatever you say buddha boy:salute:

[Pericles]

Buddhists believe in karma, which is a way to make you obey or behave.

I don't think you understand, Chloe. Karma is an impersonal law of cause and effect. It simply states that the ultimate fruits of your actions come back upon you. In a way, "karma" is just an elegant metaphor for common sense. It operates, again, as an impersonal law - the law of karma itself does not care if your choices are guided by it, or not. It is monotheism, in contrast, which features a personality jealous of its power and determined to make others pay homage and fealty to it... The law of karma, however, does not care if you respect it, any more than the law of gravity cares if you respect it. But from the first to the last, the gods of monotheism are obsessed with obedience. It is really an ugly thing, and, as Bullypulpit has pointed out, unworthy of us.


I undertsand now what the atheists agenda is, primarily to make christians obey whatever their political agendas is.

This is a strawman argument. You're going to have to do better than that, Chloe. Our agenda is simply this: to secure our freedom of conscience, from those who would want to quash it. What is the secular state for? It is there to protect people like me, from people like them. As John Adams said, speaking of the evangelicals of his day, their intent is "to whip and crop, and pillory and roast. If they could, they would."

If they could, they would. And they must be resisted, with all the resources that civilization can possibly muster.

[chloe]

I don't think you understand, Chloe. Karma is an impersonal law of cause and effect. It simply states that the ultimate fruits of your actions come back upon you. In a way, "karma" is just an elegant metaphor for common sense. It operates, again, as an impersonal law - the law of karma itself does not care if your choices are guided by it, or not. It is monotheism, in contrast, which features a personality jealous of its power and determined to make others pay homage and fealty to it... The law of karma, however, does not care if you respect it, any more than the law of gravity cares if you respect it. But from the first to the last, the gods of monotheism are obsessed with obedience. It is really an ugly thing, and, as Bullypulpit has pointed out, unworthy of us.



This is a strawman argument. You're going to have to do better than that, Chloe. Our agenda is simply this: to secure our freedom of conscience, from those who would want to quash it. What is the secular state for? It is there to protect people like me, from people like them. As John Adams said, speaking of the evangelicals of his day, their intent is "to whip and crop, and pillory and roast. If they could, they would."

If they could, they would. And they must be resisted, with all the resources that civilization can possibly muster.

I don't have to "do" anything the thread was a question I asked, everyone gave an opinion, I asked more questions and came to my own conclusions based on your opinion and the opinions of other posters. I have found no evidence to show me that atheists actively pursue all religions, only the conservative ones. I have a right to my own conclusion. Western Buddhists may interpret the Religion differently then Eastern Buddhists. I know what Karma is....wink:cool:

[Pericles]

I don't have to "do" anything the thread was a question I asked, everyone gave an opinion, I asked more questions and came to my own conclusions based on your opinion and the opinions of other posters. I have found no evidence to show me that atheists actively pursue all religions, only the conservative ones.:

Sadly, no. I'm afraid you didn't closely read post 85, or you'd see what is flawed about that conclusion. But I'm afraid your opinion was pre-determined, well before you opened this thread...

[chloe]

Sadly, no. I'm afraid you didn't closely read post 85, or you'd see what is flawed about that conclusion. But I'm afraid your opinion was pre-determined, well before you opened this thread...

Not true, I was hoping someone would show me evidence where there are protests against other religions at least other holidays besides christian ones . But all I got was the other religions were passive politically so they don't get protested. Well if an atheist is against religion over politics why doesnt it say so in the dictionary. The atheists are supposed to not believe in religion because they dont believe in God/Goddess or supernatural. But then when I point out other religions supernaturel beliefs then atheists either say its not supernatural or not a religion. Frankly, atheists are as disappointing in answering my questions as religious people are. That concludes my broadcast day !

[bullypulpit]

I do see at least one similarity between Buddhism and atheism......Buddhists believe that we can achieve deity....and most of the atheists I have met think they are gods........

Sorry, but no. Buddhism has no godhead. Release from samsara is not achieving "deity"...it is release from the life's suffering, which spins on the twin axes of greed and fear.