Which is more irrational? :)

[darin]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"

[jimnyc]

:popcorn:

[Marcus Aurelius]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"


You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to dmp again.

dumb rep computer.

[fj1200]

Are they offended by a God they don't believe in or pushy people who push their God upon them?

[Abbey Marie]

Are they offended by a God they don't believe in or pushy people who push their God upon them?

At this point in America, they are offended by the mere mention or representation of that God they don't believe in. No pushing required.

[Drummond]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"

Easy peasy. Definitely the latter.

I don't see the air I breathe, but I've every logical reason for believing it's there to breathe.

But you can't be offended by something you don't believe exists. If it doesn't exist, it can't have a power to offend you, since 'nothing' is the cause of that offence.

[fj1200]

At this point in America, they are offended by the mere mention or representation of that God they don't believe in. No pushing required.

Logical fallacy; define "they."

/dmp

:poke:


Easy peasy. Definitely the latter.

I don't see the air I breathe, but I've every logical reason for believing it's there to breathe.

But you can't be offended by something you don't believe exists. If it doesn't exist, it can't have a power to offend you, since 'nothing' is the cause of that offence.

Of course. :rolleyes: And logic doesn't prove oxygen.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Are they offended by a God they don't believe in or pushy people who push their God upon them?

If I wear a t-shirt that says 'I believe in God', am I being pushy?

[fj1200]

If I wear a t-shirt that says 'I believe in God', am I being pushy?

"They" think so.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=619142#post619142)
If I wear a t-shirt that says 'I believe in God', am I being pushy?



"They" think so.

If 'they' think expressing my believe is being pushy, that's really their problem.

[fj1200]

If 'they' think expressing my believe is being pushy, that's really their problem.

Can someone be pushy expressing what they believe?

[Marcus Aurelius]

Which of these is 'pushy'?

http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/03/11/jesusbucks.jpg


or


http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2678/4518918214_604cfe34bb.jpg

[fj1200]

^So you agree; some who believe can be pushy?

The second one to far more people than the first of course.

[gabosaurus]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"

Many of you are offended by a god you don't believe in on a daily basis. Enough to make multiple threads about it and regularly bash those who do believe.

[jimnyc]

Many of you are offended by a god you don't believe in on a daily basis. Enough to make multiple threads about it and regularly bash those who do believe.

That's because we keep telling you, Obama IS NOT a "God". :lol:

[Marcus Aurelius]

^So you agree; some who believe can be pushy?

The second one to far more people than the first of course.

not sure what I ever said that would indicate I didn't think ANY religious people could be pushy. I simply asked some very specific questions.

It's like the old saying about tattoos...

The only difference between those of us who have tattoos, and those who don't, is that we don't care if you don't have a tattoo.

Only in this case, it's more...
The only difference between people who believe in God and people who don't, is that most us us don't care if you don't believe in God.

And in the case of most (yes, I said most) atheists...
The only difference between those of us who don't believe in God, and those who do, is that we're right and they're wrong.

[fj1200]

not sure what I ever said that would indicate I didn't think ANY religious people could be pushy. I simply asked some very specific questions.

It's like the old saying about tattoos...

The only difference between those of us who have tattoos, and those who don't, is that we don't care if you don't have a tattoo.

Only in this case, it's more...
The only difference between people who believe in God and people who don't, is that most us us don't care if you don't believe in God.

And in the case of most (yes, I said most) atheists...
The only difference between those of us who don't believe in God, and those who do, is that we're right and they're wrong.

I asked some very specific questions as well. Besides when you show two pictures asking which is pushy, then your premise is that one is pushy.

And that last part? Pushy depending on your actions. Westboro anyone?

[Marcus Aurelius]

I asked some very specific questions as well. Besides when you show two pictures asking which is pushy, then your premise is that one is pushy.



I gave examples of one pushy, and one not. Still not following how you came up with the idea I thought no religious people could ever be pushy. You said 'So, you agree..." implying that you had the opinion I somehow thought no religious people could be pushy.

[fj1200]

I gave examples of one pushy, and one not. Still not following how you came up with the idea I thought no religious people could ever be pushy. You said 'So, you agree..." implying that you had the opinion I somehow thought no religious people could be pushy.

OK, whatever dude, just stating a point of agreement then. The OP just seems to be a statement that can be made to make Christians feel good just as atheists can derive a statement to make themselves feel good.

[aboutime]

Easy peasy. Definitely the latter.

I don't see the air I breathe, but I've every logical reason for believing it's there to breathe.

But you can't be offended by something you don't believe exists. If it doesn't exist, it can't have a power to offend you, since 'nothing' is the cause of that offence.


Agreed. What I find even more important about the question of irrationality is. I have no need, nor do I feel I must explain anything about my FAITH...(belief in the Unseen) to anyone, for any reason. As for the rationality. That's an individual responsibility. Either someone believes, worships, or has faith...OR THEY DON'T.

I always remember my many years in the military, and the countless times people have approached me...telling me
"You need to be born again!"
And my response, as a God fearing, church going, Christian since birth has always been. "I already have One birth certificate!"

Anyone who doesn't believe, or have faith in something they feel a need to make fun of...to torment others. Is merely lost, and needs to find gratification in hatred for anyone who claims to believe, or has faith in an Unseen God.

[cadet]

Many of you are offended by a god you don't believe in on a daily basis. Enough to make multiple threads about it and regularly bash those who do believe.

same god, different take on him.

[Marcus Aurelius]

Many of you are offended by a god you don't believe in on a daily basis. Enough to make multiple threads about it and regularly bash those who do believe.

You are apparently not smart enough to know that 'Allah', is the same God we Christians believe in.

[Abbey Marie]

Logical fallacy; define "they."

/dmp

:poke:


Guess you'll have to ask fj that one. :poke:

[Kathianne]

If I wear a t-shirt that says 'I believe in God', am I being pushy?

Only if there is a subscript, 'you only think you do.'

[aboutime]

Can someone be pushy expressing what they believe?


SURE THING! We have been seeing it take place, almost daily since the easily led voted for their Messiah complex from Chicago. You know? The man who wears the ACORN THORNS on his head, and the man who has yet to feed millions with one loaf of bread, make wine from water, or walk across the Potomac River without getting his BIG DUCKY FEET WET.

[Kathianne]

SURE THING! We have been seeing it take place, almost daily since the easily led voted for their Messiah complex from Chicago. You know? The man who wears the ACORN THORNS on his head, and the man who has yet to feed millions with one loaf of bread, make wine from water, or walk across the Potomac River without getting his BIG DUCKY FEET WET.

I'd buy into that before the 'we know what God wants...'

[Missileman]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"

Obviously, the latter. The problem with the premise is it's a strawman. Even the most rabid anti-religious activist atheists aren't offended by God.

[revelarts]

Obviously, the latter. The problem with the premise is it's a strawman. Even the most rabid anti-religious activist atheists aren't offended by God.

Sure there are, and many of the new atheist have said as much. Not framed in the way of the question though.
they'd probably say they are offend by the IDEA of God, the God of the Bible specifically and of gods in general.


As far as people who beieve in God begin "pushy"
I'd like some everyday examples of atheist that have felt pushed by Christians. I'm talking personally.

Is being Pushed someone inviting you to Church. (horror of horrors how can u stand it)
Is being Pushed someone yelling on a street corner about heaven and hell?
Is being Pushed someone knocking on your door and offering to sit down and talk about their faith?
Is being Pushed a lot of christian TV or radio programs?

Or do you mean politically
Is being Pushed Christians defend traditional marriage?
Is being Pushed Christian defending the unborn?
Is being Pushed kids giving a prayer at his school graduation?
Is being Pushed a group of people questioning origin stories publicly?
Is being Pushed a Christian group protesting ANYTHING they believe? Or should they do it in a way that pleases everyone?


Should they just STHU and stay in Church? maybe there should be a law?

None of the above IMO is pushy to the point of being a problem AT ALL. At worse it's an inconvenience or annoyance to some, to some it's offensive because they don't want to believe what the Bilbe says on various points.


But you want to see pushy Go to a Muslim Country and try to become an atheist or Christian or Buddist and see what pushy really is. Same in Indian if you try to convert from a being a Hindu or even in some cases try to TALK to Hindus about conversion of becoming an Atheist. you might jail time or beaten in the street by a crowd. Ladies, try living in Saudi Arabia the way you live here, you'll see a pushy religion change your ways fast.


Christians the past have been EXTREMELY pushy doing thing like water boarding,... but wait it's not torture or anything, it's just uncomfortable, so that's not REALLY pushy I guess right?
But the Burning at the stake thing, yeah that was kinda pushy. But the Church thankful got over that madness.

Yes Christians TALK and yes we VOTE. frankly we are commanded by our faith to Talk to people always about what Jesus has done. if we REALLY did what the Bible says you'd hear a lot more.

if that's considered too Pushy, to bad. we care to much to shut up.

[Marcus Aurelius]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Marcus Aurelius http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=619142#post619142)
If I wear a t-shirt that says 'I believe in God', am I being pushy?



Only if there is a subscript, 'you only think you do.'

perfectly valid example. Thanks.

[mundame]

Sure there are, and many of the new atheist have said as much. Not framed in the way of the question though.
they'd probably say they are offend by the IDEA of God, the God of the Bible specifically and of gods in general.

I don't think anybody cares about the IDEA of God. If people believe in something and don't bother others about it, what's to resent? People can go sit on stylites in the desert and believe all they like, for all of me. As long as the taxpayer doesn't have to support them.

What people resent is intrusion and efforts to control them. Or replace their beliefs entirely, like the Muslims want to do.



As far as people who beieve in God begin "pushy"
I'd like some everyday examples of atheist that have felt pushed by Christians. I'm talking personally.

Is being Pushed someone inviting you to Church. (horror of horrors how can u stand it)

Invitations are okay....assuming they aren't knocking on the door to do it. That would be wrong and pushy. The question is, who is it for? For you, to build up your church and your adherents, or for the person because you think they might like to join? If you are knocking on the door of a stranger's home, you are being intrusive and rude.


Is being Pushed someone yelling on a street corner about heaven and hell?

Omigod, yes!! I remember forever ago in Old Town, Chicago, they had a Bible College near this very popular area in the '60s, and this sweating, fat, disgusting guy on the street corner would yell about heaven and hell and call all the women walking by harlots!! Me, he presumably included!!! What a bad man. That was one of the worse things I've ever seen about religion. I suppose he was crazy. He was certainly evil.



Is being Pushed someone knocking on your door and offering to sit down and talk about their faith?

That's wrong, that's intrusive, that's incredibly immoral!!! I never allow that sort of bad behavior anymore. I can't believe all these terrible Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and god-knows-what-all do this sort of thing. It's just unbelievably wrong to actually come to someone's house and ring their doorbell and try to convert their souls! I mean, what business is my soul to anyone else?? They should mind their own business. I think there is getting less of that kind of rotten intrusion, fortunately. It's less tolerated now than it used to be.


Is being Pushed a lot of christian TV or radio programs?

No.....you can change channels. That's not a problem. It may be yucky if they are hysterical gasping-type preachers, or if they are crooked televangelists; most of these guys are dishonest, of course, just collecting money from people who aren't too bright. I think most people know that by now.


Or do you mean politically
Is being Pushed Christians defend traditional marriage?
Is being Pushed Christian defending the unborn?
Is being Pushed kids giving a prayer at his school graduation?
Is being Pushed a group of people questioning origin stories publicly?
Is being Pushed a Christian group protesting ANYTHING they believe? Or should they do it in a way that pleases everyone?


Well.........I agree with a lot of those items, but it is an effort of control. Nobody likes to be controlled by anyone with a drum to beat. Basically, people should probably mind their own business. Don't push religion on people who don't want it. I mean, that's the polite thing to do, right? People wanting to control others' religious beliefs leads very quickly to burning people at the stake because they don't believe we are eating Christ's meat when we take communion. And I would question allowing religion to take that kind of control. Religious control is a terrible, BAD thing: look at those creepy women in the black allover robes and veils with just their eyes showing. Horror show.



Should they just STHU and stay in Church? maybe there should be a law?

They should certainly just STFU and stay in Church; why not? It's really not up to them to convert other people!! Or to control other people.



None of the above IMO is pushy to the point of being a problem AT ALL. At worse it's an inconvenience or annoyance to some, to some it's offensive because they don't want to believe what the Bilbe says on various points.

No, that's wrong. You don't get to say what isn't a problem for me. If you come here to my home, you get kicked out, be sure: nothing requires me to listen to your intrusive, bullying preaching at the door to my home. Being pushy is wrong and immoral and Christians shouldn't do it. Look at the Muslims: they do it and they want to take over the world and force everyone to do what they say. So do Christians: but you should resist this temptation.



But you want to see pushy Go to a Muslim Country and try to become an atheist or Christian or Buddist and see what pushy really is. Same in Indian if you try to convert from a being a Hindu or even in some cases try to TALK to Hindus about conversion of becoming an Atheist. you might jail time or beaten in the street by a crowd. Ladies, try living in Saudi Arabia the way you live here, you'll see a pushy religion change your ways fast.

That's the thing: this is all bad, all terrible --- and it has for many centuries been just as bad when Christians do it.




if that's considered too Pushy, to bad. we care to much to shut up.

You are just too eager to control people to shut up. If all you wanted was to believe and lead Christian lives, that would be great. Intruding and controlling is not great.

[jimnyc]

I don't think anybody cares about the IDEA of God. If people believe in something and don't bother others about it, what's to resent? People can go sit on stylites in the desert and believe all they like, for all of me. As long as the taxpayer doesn't have to support them.

What people resent is intrusion and efforts to control them. Or replace their beliefs entirely, like the Muslims want to do.

Many, many, many get offended or get their panties in a bunch at the mere sight of anything religious, and 2x as much if it's Christianity.

[mundame]

Many, many, many get offended or get their panties in a bunch at the mere sight of anything religious, and 2x as much if it's Christianity.


Can you give a for-instance?

I don't mean creches in front of City Hall or prayers at graduation: those are religion/state issues that have lately stopped being winked at, fair enough, I suppose. As long as Muslims aren't allowed to prefer their religion either.

I mean non-constitutional religious stuff, and people getting offended?

[jimnyc]

Can you give a for-instance?

I don't mean creches in front of City Hall or prayers at graduation: those are religion/state issues that have lately stopped being winked at, fair enough, I suppose. As long as Muslims aren't allowed to prefer their religion either.

I mean non-constitutional religious stuff, and people getting offended?

Myself, I don't consider a kid mentioning God at a graduation to be the end of the world, or the state being involved. Same as for nativity scenes. I suppose some have a point if the government is paying for it, but what if it's 100% paid for by private donors? There was a place recently where a scene was on display every year for like a hundred years - no more. The park was a city park, and the funding didn't matter to those "offended". And then you have stores being condemned or boycotted of they dare use "Christmas" too often, as it may offend those that don't celebrate the holiday. Of course they need to watch the dollars, so they cave. Was it a military owned area? Honestly can't remember, but was fairly recently, where they were being told to remove a cross that remembered fallen soldiers. Can't have that!

Over the last 30 years or so it went from being something that was seen or heard everywhere, and now it's being told to occupy the proverbial closet that the gays came out of. It's ok still to be religious, just do so privately as not to offend anyone else.

[mundame]

Myself, I don't consider a kid mentioning God at a graduation to be the end of the world, or the state being involved. Same as for nativity scenes. I suppose some have a point if the government is paying for it, but what if it's 100% paid for by private donors? There was a place recently where a scene was on display every year for like a hundred years - no more. The park was a city park, and the funding didn't matter to those "offended". And then you have stores being condemned or boycotted of they dare use "Christmas" too often, as it may offend those that don't celebrate the holiday. Of course they need to watch the dollars, so they cave. Was it a military owned area? Honestly can't remember, but was fairly recently, where they were being told to remove a cross that remembered fallen soldiers. Can't have that!

Over the last 30 years or so it went from being something that was seen or heard everywhere, and now it's being told to occupy the proverbial closet that the gays came out of. It's ok still to be religious, just do so privately as not to offend anyone else.


I'd like everyone to do it privately and not offend anyone! And that includes Muslims. A black woman -- American, must have been a black Muslim -- came into the supermarket a few weeks ago, all clothed in black head to toe and one of those creepy veils with only her eyes showing! And two rude little boys telling me to get out of the way -- I suppose they'd been trained to disrespect women!! People ran from all over the store to get a look at her. Now, really, that's terrible. That goes too far. That's pushing religion way too far onto other people, IMO.

Basically, you are saying you don't agree with the church/state issues that have been backed off recently, because you are used to them and like them. However, they ARE church/state constitutional stuff, so we are all going to have to do without them.


Do you have stuff that people do that is NOT constitutional that you think offends people, but shouldn't?



Over the last 30 years or so it went from being something that was seen or heard everywhere, and now it's being told to occupy the proverbial closet that the gays came out of. It's ok still to be religious, just do so privately as not to offend anyone else.


To be fair, the Bible itself tells people to pray in their "closet," not right out showing off like those guys shouting mean stuff on the corner!

I think knocking on peoples' doors and haranguing them is pretty awful --- but of course the people doing that are mostly not Christians at all, Christians have gotten away from that sort of intrusion, very properly.

[jimnyc]

I'd like everyone to do it privately and not offend anyone! And that includes Muslims. A black woman -- American, must have been a black Muslim -- came into the supermarket a few weeks ago, all clothed in black head to toe and one of those creepy veils with only her eyes showing! And two rude little boys telling me to get out of the way -- I suppose they'd been trained to disrespect women!! People ran from all over the store to get a look at her. Now, really, that's terrible. That goes too far. That's pushing religion way too far onto other people, IMO.

Basically, you are saying you don't agree with the church/state issues that have been backed off recently, because you are used to them and like them. However, they ARE church/state constitutional stuff, so we are all going to have to do without them.


Do you have stuff that people do that is NOT constitutional that you think offends people, but shouldn't?

I don't have an issue as much if it's things in a state building, state sponsored and such. I don't see why others need to get "offended", but their being offended is backed by law.

Other than that, go to any restaurant or store during the holidays and find out how often you are greeted by "Merry Christmas" now as opposed to "Happy Holidays". This is done so as not to offend those not celebrating the holiday. Same for Christmas trees and such in stores and elsewhere, now gone or renamed to "Holiday Trees". The entire reasoning behind such changes is "so as not to offend others".

[jimnyc]

To be fair, the Bible itself tells people to pray in their "closet," not right out showing off like those guys shouting mean stuff on the corner!

I think knocking on peoples' doors and haranguing them is pretty awful --- but of course the people doing that are mostly not Christians at all, Christians have gotten away from that sort of intrusion, very properly.

Don't get me wrong, I'm FAR from one who thinks door to door preaching is OK. I don't condone that, from ANY religion.

[revelarts]

They should certainly just STFU and stay in Church; why not? It's really not up to them to convert other people!! Or to control other people.


You are just too eager to control people to shut up. If all you wanted was to believe and lead Christian lives, that would be great. Intruding and controlling is not great.

So who wants to control who here?


and you just wrong mundame
Just to be clear, It is up to us Present the gospel to everyone, but God coverts them.

Mark 16:14-16

Jesus said


14 Last of all, Jesus appeared to the eleven disciples as they were eating. He scolded them, because they did not have faith and because they were too stubborn to believe those who had seen him alive. 15 He said to them, “Go throughout the whole world and preach the gospel to all people. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved; whoever does not believe will be condemned.



the corrupt Jewish leaders wanted the disciple to STHU too

Acts 5:28-30

28 “We gave you strict orders not to teach in this name,” he said. “Yet you have filled Jerusalem with your teaching and are determined to make us guilty of this man’s blood.”
29 Peter and the other apostles replied: “We must obey God rather than human beings! 30 The God of our ancestors raised Jesus from the dead—whom you killed by hanging him on a cross....
They called the apostles in and had them whipped. Then they ordered them not to speak in the name of Jesus, and let them go.

41 The apostles left the Sanhedrin, rejoicing because they had been counted worthy of suffering disgrace for the Name. 42 Day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house, they never stopped teaching and proclaiming the good news that Jesus is the Messiah.



All of the prophets where told to STHU, all they did was go around and tell people that God was going to judge them if they didn't turn to him.


Our country for founded with free speech as a understood right. If you find some religious speech offends you , i'm sorry, it's not the intent.
But it's not going to stay inside the Churches because it upsets you.

[Missileman]

Sure there are, and many of the new atheist have said as much. Not framed in the way of the question though.
they'd probably say they are offend by the IDEA of God, the God of the Bible specifically and of gods in general.

Not worth much without a link.

[revelarts]

Don't get me wrong, I'm FAR from one who thinks door to door preaching is OK. I don't condone that, from ANY religion.

Should the window sales men or girl scouts stop to?
sorry if you don't like the content but it's not, illegal .. yet.

Why not just say no thanks you and let them go to the next house I really don't understand the issue you guys have.
If you don't believe it anyway at most it should be a minor inconvenience not a moral offense.

please help me here.

[jimnyc]

Should the window sales men or girl scouts stop to?
sorry if you don't like the content but it's not, illegal .. yet.

Why not just say no thanks you and let them go to the next house I really don't understand the issue you guys have.
If you don't believe it anyway at most it should be a minor inconvenience not a moral offense.

please help me here.

I guess selling something is selling something. Personally, I am less offended when a 10yr old girl shows up looking to sell some cookies, so they can get new uniforms - than I am when a grown man and woman show up, and try selling me religious beliefs. Maybe it's because the religion being brought to my door is a different religion? I don't know. And Fwiw - I am generally polite, and usually tell them I'm in the midst of dinner or something like that.

I am a Christian. I have no issue with any message being delivered. Sometimes I don't care for how it's delivered is all.

[WiccanLiberal]

Have to laugh a little here. Some years back, I was still living by myself and noticed a man and woman canvassing the area, knocking on doors and leaving small pamphlets at doors where they got no answer. Got to be witnesses I think. So I go to my altar and get my besom (small ceremonial broom) and check to see where my cat was. I hung my biggest pentacle on my neck and as they knocked I picked up cat and broom and opened the door. They paused in the act of holding out a pamphlet and stumbled over a question about talking to me about Jesus. I smiled and said I would be delighted if they would share Circle with me first. Yes I know I was being a little bad but they DID KNOCK FIRST. They couldn't leave fast enough and I am convinced to this day that they put some kind of invisible mark on my door because nobody from that sect ever came back there. Believe what you like, live your life as a human with principles based on your faith. That is the best advertising you can do for the religion you follow - show it as a living concept.

[Abbey Marie]

...
Invitations are okay....assuming they aren't knocking on the door to do it. That would be wrong and pushy. The question is, who is it for? For you, to build up your church and your adherents, or for the person because you think they might like to join? If you are knocking on the door of a stranger's home, you are being intrusive and rude.
...


Doesn't seem any different to me than someone knocking on your door to sell a vacuum.
Annoying, perhaps. Intrusive and rude? Not really.

It is always odd to me how much people resent someone who is trying to tell them about salvation. Who is it hurting and how? Unless they are feeling a little nervous and/or guilty about their non-belief. :eek: Just like with my salesman example, you say "No thanks, I'm not interested" and carry on with your day.

ETA: Oops, just saw your post about the window salesman, Rev.:beer:

[Abbey Marie]

...
They should certainly just STFU and stay in Church; why not? It's really not up to them to convert other people!! Or to control other people.
...



Actually, it is.

[aboutime]

Actually, it is.


Abbey. Isn't it great when you can say so little, and, at the same time...Say so much????

[gabosaurus]

Don't get me wrong, I'm FAR from one who thinks door to door preaching is OK. I don't condone that, from ANY religion.


My favorite door sign: "Unless you are selling Girl Scout cookies, we don't want anything."

Runner-up: "Dog strongly objects to preachers and peddlers. Knock at your own risk."

[Voted4Reagan]

Atheism is a Religion....

Atheists cant admit that their beliefs are just that....

Therefore... they are pure contradictions to their own teachings...

[Missileman]

Atheism is a Religion....

Atheists cant admit that their beliefs are just that....

Therefore... they are pure contradictions to their own teachings...

If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

[Voted4Reagan]

If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

Atheism is a system of beliefs, the same as any of the major monotheistic religions.

[Missileman]

Atheism is a system of beliefs, the same as any of the major monotheistic religions.

No, it isn't. It doesn't take a system to not believe in the existence of gods any more than it takes a system to not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, or unicorns, or fairies, etc. Atheism is a single disbelief, period.

[cadet]

No, it isn't. It doesn't take a system to not believe in the existence of gods any more than it takes a system to not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, or unicorns, or fairies, etc. Atheism is a single disbelief, period.

And yet the disbelieve it so much they feel the need to preach to all the believers.

Switch the dis and the believe. Sound like a religion that preaches?

[Robert A Whit]

Are they offended by a God they don't believe in or pushy people who push their God upon them?

I don't get your remark at all.

I have lived a long life and only a few times in my life has somebody acted like they were pushing their church on me.

They don't own GOD so clearly they can't push GOD on me.

I recall in history how the Catholics pushed the religion all over the world. It is so widespread that they are the largest denomination of Christians.

Are they shoving somebody around today?

GOD is but a powerful source. I can't quite call GOD human but it may be that is the case. We may be as microbes in a grand experiment for all I know.

If so, GOD must be a giant.

The universe had to arise at some point. I call that power that created it GOD. I don't need to prove GOD using any book.

I am a believer in the planet and universe being all the proof I ever need.

[aboutime]

No, it isn't. It doesn't take a system to not believe in the existence of gods any more than it takes a system to not believe in the existence of Santa Claus, or unicorns, or fairies, etc. Atheism is a single disbelief, period.


Missileman. I have always wondered about Atheists, and their claims about there being NO GOD.

Doesn't the fact that they need to say they DO NOT BELIEVE....mean there must be SOMETHING they do not believe in?

And, if that is the case. In order for them to NOT BELIEVE. That SOMETHING sounds like a real threat to them, and IF IT DOESN'T EXIST. Why do they need to say they Don't believe...if it doesn't exist????

Kinda dumb when you pick it apart????

[Robert A Whit]

Robert says: I wondered what happened to her and suddenly she pops up on this thread.

Glad she is back to set that straight.

"Is being Pushed someone knocking on your door and offering to sit down and talk about their faith?"



Mundame replies: That's wrong, that's intrusive, that's incredibly immoral!!! I never allow that sort of bad behavior anymore. I can't believe all these terrible Jehovah's Witnesses and Mormons and god-knows-what-all do this sort of thing. It's just unbelievably wrong to actually come to someone's house and ring their doorbell and try to convert their souls! I mean, what business is my soul to anyone else?? They should mind their own business. I think there is getting less of that kind of rotten intrusion, fortunately. It's less tolerated now than it used to be.

I am one of those "TERRIBLE MORMONS", thus far have not preached to any of you. While you speak of somebody knocking on your door, how many Mormons do you know that you can call friend? How can you pass judgment on any person over the act of knocking? If you refuse to be discussed with, it won't matter who knocks on that door to give you any message. I know of nobody that upon you opening the door, and them announcing a purpose of visit, won't leave if you say to them, sorry, not interested.

We Mormons do think we are on the right track. But if you won't join, well, a lot of people won't join.

Bear in mind though I have not performed a mission nor had the training. Somebody who has that training by the Mormons may wish to correct me in some fashion.

I am defending me and any Mormon from that claim you made that we are terrible.

How dare you call us Terrible?!!!!!!

[logroller]

I don't really see the point. If you need God as acrutch for explaining the rationale for natural laws and civil behavior, then you're obviously weak of conscious conviction. More often its used as justifiaction for going being uncivil. There are some things which we can't explain the origin of, ethics for example, but I don't need God to explain why killing someone is wrong or any other action that is detrimental towards a thriving society is the way that it is. I thi k eastern religions have a much better grasp of this than do western. Reason is surely enough to fulfill any meaningful ends that religion has. But reason doesn't bode well when exposed to the truth of human beings as inherently selfish, and it is a powerful tool in whitewashing misdeeds under the color of some higher calling. Clearly I'm not religious, but I don't believe its all bad; I've little doubt that many a person has been assisted by God and religion and, if they believe themselves incapable of doing such things without God (meaning they lacked the scruples to behave as such otherwise), then God is benevolent and religion is a good thing.

[Missileman]

And yet the disbelieve it so much they feel the need to preach to all the believers.

Switch the dis and the believe. Sound like a religion that preaches?

I know, it's terrible. You can't turn on a TV or radio without some anti-preacher filling the airways. :rolleyes:


If that's the best you can manage, hang it up.

[mundame]

Doesn't seem any different to me than someone knocking on your door to sell a vacuum.
Annoying, perhaps. Intrusive and rude? Not really.

It is always odd to me how much people resent someone who is trying to tell them about salvation. Who is it hurting and how? Unless they are feeling a little nervous and/or guilty about their non-belief. :eek: Just like with my salesman example, you say "No thanks, I'm not interested" and carry on with your day.

ETA: Oops, just saw your post about the window salesman, Rev.:beer:



Some people are okay with door-to-door stuff --- I'm seriously not. Certainly not with people who have the gall to want to interfere with my beliefs!!!

And I don't think there ARE any door-to-door salesmen much anymore, are there? I think that went out in the 1970s, IIRC.

Now they have people waylaying shoppers at BJs warehouse foods, trying to sign them up for home repairs with quite hard-sale tactics. I positively eat them up: they creep up on me in dark aisles with no one else around, sometimes they are even black men, and boy, I've written letters, complained on site, on line, more than once yelled furiously and very loudly at them --- when someone scares me I get angry. I think I've made a change --- the last time I was there the guy with the clipboard was buttonholing only couples and carefully staying only in the middle areas that are well lighted. I think there is a lot less tolerance than there used to be for intrusive people coming at strangers to sell or persuade them of something. There is so much more stranger danger than there used to be. I really hate intrusiveness. Somebody else's religion does not excuse that sort of behavior. Again, with the exception of revelarts, I don't think Christians do that sort of thing nearly as much as some of these cults that are trying to build up.


How dare you call us Terrible?!!!!!!


The solution is simple. You don't knock on my door and try to convert me to a heretical cult with truly weird beliefs, and I won't have to call you terrible.

That's "you" plural. I recognize that you said you didn't do that sort of thing, and good for you.

[Missileman]

Missileman. I have always wondered about Atheists, and their claims about there being NO GOD.

Doesn't the fact that they need to say they DO NOT BELIEVE....mean there must be SOMETHING they do not believe in?

And, if that is the case. In order for them to NOT BELIEVE. That SOMETHING sounds like a real threat to them, and IF IT DOESN'T EXIST. Why do they need to say they Don't believe...if it doesn't exist????

Kinda dumb when you pick it apart????

First of all, I don't claim there's no god, I say that I don't believe that one exists.

I have no need to tell you that I don't believe until/unless you tell me that I need to live my life in a manner that your deity finds appealing.

IOW, if you don't want to hear me say I don't believe, don't tell me that you do or that I should.

[jimnyc]

Some people are okay with door-to-door stuff --- I'm seriously not. Certainly not with people who have the gall to want to interfere with my beliefs!!!

And I don't think there ARE any door-to-door salesmen much anymore, are there? I think that went out in the 1970s, IIRC.

Now they have people waylaying shoppers at BJs warehouse foods, trying to sign them up for home repairs with quite hard-sale tactics. I positively eat them up: they creep up on me in dark aisles with no one else around, sometimes they are even black men, and boy, I've written letters, complained on site, on line, more than once yelled furiously and very loudly at them --- when someone scares me I get angry. I think I've made a change --- the last time I was there the guy with the clipboard was buttonholing only couples and carefully staying only in the middle areas that are well lighted. I think there is a lot less tolerance than there used to be for intrusive people coming at strangers to sell or persuade them of something. There is so much more stranger danger than there used to be. I really hate intrusiveness. Somebody else's religion does not excuse that sort of behavior. Again, with the exception of revelarts, I don't think Christians do that sort of thing nearly as much as some of these cults that are trying to build up.

Is it less scary if it's a 5'2 little Asian? :lol: :coffee: :poke:

[Robert A Whit]

I don't really see the point. If you need God as acrutch for explaining the rationale for natural laws and civil behavior, then you're obviously weak of conscious conviction. More often its used as justifiaction for going being uncivil. There are some things which we can't explain the origin of, ethics for example, but I don't need God to explain why killing someone is wrong or any other action that is detrimental towards a thriving society is the way that it is. I thi k eastern religions have a much better grasp of this than do western. Reason is surely enough to fulfill any meaningful ends that religion has. But reason doesn't bode well when exposed to the truth of human beings as inherently selfish, and it is a powerful tool in whitewashing misdeeds under the color of some higher calling. Clearly I'm not religious, but I don't believe its all bad; I've little doubt that many a person has been assisted by God and religion and, if they believe themselves incapable of doing such things without God (meaning they lacked the scruples to behave as such otherwise), then God is benevolent and religion is a good thing.

I have no idea who you said that to Logroller but let me try to respond to some of your points.
GOD is no scrutch to me. I accept GOD as sure as you accept the presence of the universe and all it contains.

I don't personally ascribe it to GOD that GOD would be so weak as to create something not perfect so I in no way blame GOD for how Humans act. I don't blame the wolf for eating the sheep. I don't blame humans for their way of acting. i think all in all, it is natural to humans.

Besides their many failings, humans can't explain it all. Not in science books nor the Bible.

Even if so called Science puts out what happens and why it happens, not many humans ever get that message. Climate change is one instance.

I believe that climate change is much more natural than some scientists will admit. I don't blame that on humans.

I prefer by far the civil route of conversation. I don't take very kindly to fools or those who insult though. But they still can be fools. And I can't stop them from insulting somebody.

What humans do you mean that you don't approve being killed?

Do you approve any of these having been killed by humans?
1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Tojo
4. Mussolini
5. Goebbels
6. Saddam Hussein
7. GA and TX executed two men days ago.

I am sticking to the more modern that were killed.

As to ethics, I suspect that shortly after the dawn of humans who could reason, talk and think much, some of them started fretting over ethics. It evolved over a very long time. Ethics to you or me may be wildly different than some tribal chief in Africa. We may see ethics as different from ours as say to somebody living in China. Ethics depends on who you are and where you are.

As the world has long noted, religion to a pygmy in Africa may be very different than how it is in many other lands.

I realize you speak from the narrow sector called Americans but figure that give you enough time and you too may figure some of it out.

FTR, my being a Mormon in no way has me rushing about knocking on doors. I really don't deal much in my church ideology.

My church does teach though that as Man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

I really hope I can do what it takes to fit the last part of that statement.

[logroller]

Is it less scary if it's a 5'2 little Asian? :lol: :coffee: :poke:
When it comes to "BJs", one would assume.


I have no idea who you said that to Logroller but let me try to respond to some of your points.
GOD is no scrutch to me. I accept GOD as sure as you accept the presence of the universe and all it contains.

I don't personally ascribe it to GOD that GOD would be so weak as to create something not perfect so I in no way blame GOD for how Humans act. I don't blame the wolf for eating the sheep. I don't blame humans for their way of acting. i think all in all, it is natural to humans.

Besides their many failings, humans can't explain it all. Not in science books nor the Bible.

Even if so called Science puts out what happens and why it happens, not many humans ever get that message. Climate change is one instance.

I believe that climate change is much more natural than some scientists will admit. I don't blame that on humans.

I prefer by far the civil route of conversation. I don't take very kindly to fools or those who insult though. But they still can be fools. And I can't stop them from insulting somebody.

What humans do you mean that you don't approve being killed?

Do you approve any of these having been killed by humans?
1. Hitler
2. Stalin
3. Tojo
4. Mussolini
5. Goebbels
6. Saddam Hussein
7. GA and TX executed two men days ago.

I am sticking to the more modern that were killed.

As to ethics, I suspect that shortly after the dawn of humans who could reason, talk and think much, some of them started fretting over ethics. It evolved over a very long time. Ethics to you or me may be wildly different than some tribal chief in Africa. We may see ethics as different from ours as say to somebody living in China. Ethics depends on who you are and where you are.

As the world has long noted, religion to a pygmy in Africa may be very different than how it is in many other lands.

I realize you speak from the narrow sector called Americans but figure that give you enough time and you too may figure some of it out.

FTR, my being a Mormon in no way has me rushing about knocking on doors. I really don't deal much in my church ideology.

My church does teach though that as Man is, God once was. As God is, man may become.

I really hope I can do what it takes to fit the last part of that statement.
Extract God from your argument and what, if anything, changes?

[Robert A Whit]

The solution is simple. You don't knock on my door and try to convert me to a heretical cult with truly weird beliefs, and I won't have to call you terrible.

That's "you" plural. I recognize that you said you didn't do that sort of thing, and good for you.

How can you speak for my beliefs?

I apologize to you for you thinking my church is a cult. We had to get you to think that way perhaps. I assure you, we are no cult. Somehow you got steered wrong. And it was not the missionaries that steered you wrong given you said you never let any of them in.

[jimnyc]

When it comes to "BJs", one would assume.

No visuals, thank you! :poke:

[Robert A Whit]

Extract God from your argument and what, if anything, changes?

Let me define GOD then.

First in scientific terms.

At one point, nothing existed that humans could observe, then or now.

We can't describe the void but modern science believes that the void had no elements of any sort, no time, no laws of physics, no chemical bonds, nothing.

We now have what we see today. We can see very well that there is a universe.

My term for what created that is GOD.

Mundame posts she shouts loudly and furiously at strangers then she calls me terrible due to my religion?

I don't do any of that to strangers.

Been many years since i knocked on doors of homes to seek business.

Most door to door real estate salesmen blurt out, do you know anybody that wants to sell?

That in my view is not correct.

I made them offers. Not to sell their home, but I asked if they knew anybody that wanted to buy. If they did not, they might start out asking me what their home is worth.

But when you tell somebody you want to sell their home, they might as well be out in the street.

I got much better results with do you know a person who wants to buy property. I sold a lot that way and also got plenty of listings on homes.

[Voted4Reagan]

And yet the disbelieve it so much they feel the need to preach to all the believers.

Switch the dis and the believe. Sound like a religion that preaches?

Exactly...

and they certainly are more preachy about it!!

[logroller]

Let me define GOD then.

First in scientific terms.

At one point, nothing existed that humans could observe, then or now.

We can't describe the void but modern science believes that the void had no elements of any sort, no time, no laws of physics, no chemical bonds, nothing.

We now have what we see today. We can see very well that there is a universe.

My term for what created that is GOD.
I didn't ask for your definition of God; I asked how your argument would change if God were omitted. You can believe whatever you so choose; don't think climate change is an issue, I don't care. It's not much of issue for me either. What is an issue to me is the vast amount of energy we have consumed, and continue to consume. You think godless Africans use the amount of energy you or I do? I assure you, they do not. And if climate change is a natural phenomenon, and mankind plays little role in its progression, then the only thing we can do is adapt as it progresses. In order to do this, we wil need to conserve resources to effectuate our survival. (I.e.:heavenly salvation) Climate change proponents understand this, and some recognize that many people will not take the necessary precautions unless some evil outcome is forlorned. Eg: hell. Religion effectuates the same sort of manipulation of social behavior. Reason is wholly at the source of mankind's behavior, preying upon irrationality is just a far more effective mechanism. Why we concern ourselves with concepts devoid of reason is beyond me. I love the bumper sticker, "if you live your life like there is no God, you'd better be right." wtf is that supposed to mean? i cant lead a good life based upon my own reasons for doing so, or there's less of an incentive to do good if hell isn't? As though my believing in God's existence is the determinant of my behavior. dont get me wrong, if religion helps you to share and influence and be influeced by others in the furthemnt of goodness, good on you; inwoild think the ooof is in the pudding though, not the recipe.
Who cares what was before time, it doesn't make a difference, does it? Purely an intellectual exercise without any possible real life application. I don't believe in God per se, but according to your definition above, I too find it useful to explain things where people reject the concept that we cannot answer everything. But to me, its an exercise not unlike that of a placating a child who consistently asks 'why'. because God, thats why. So He, God, Allah, Buddha, etc. are all just tools to content us of our wary ignorance. Nothing that God explains Is truly explained; its just excused. Bertrand Russell once said, "What men really want is not knowledge but certainty."

[Robert A Whit]

I didn't ask for your definition of God; I asked how your argument would change if God were omitted. You can believe whatever you so choose; don't think climate change is an issue, I don't care. It's not much of issue for me either. What is an issue to me is the vast amount of energy we have consumed, and continue to consume. You think godless Africans use the amount of energy you or I do? I assure you, they do not. And if climate change is a natural phenomenon, and mankind plays little role in its progression, then the only thing we can do is adapt as it progresses. In order to do this, we wil need to conserve resources to effectuate our survival. (I.e.:heavenly salvation) Climate change proponents understand this, and some recognize that many people will not take the necessary precautions unless some evil outcome is forlorned. Eg: hell. Religion effectuates the same sort of manipulation of social behavior. Reason is wholly at the source of mankind's behavior, preying upon irrationality is just a far more effective mechanism. Why we concern ourselves with concepts devoid of reason is beyond me. I love the bumper sticker, "if you live your life like there is no God, you'd better be right." wtf is that supposed to mean? i cant lead a good life based upon my own reasons for doing so, or there's less of an incentive to do good if hell isn't? As though my believing in God's existence is the determinant of my behavior. dont get me wrong, if religion helps you to share and influence and be influeced by others in the furthemnt of goodness, good on you; inwoild think the ooof is in the pudding though, not the recipe.
Who cares what was before time, it doesn't make a difference, does it? Purely an intellectual exercise without any possible real life application. I don't believe in God per se, but according to your definition above, I too find it useful to explain things where people reject the concept that we cannot answer everything. But to me, its an exercise not unlike that of a placating a child who consistently asks 'why'. because God, thats why. So He, God, Allah, Buddha, etc. are all just tools to content us of our wary ignorance. Nothing that God explains Is truly explained; its just excused. Bertrand Russell once said, "What men really want is not knowledge but certainty."

Based on your opening shot, just fired my way, I would estimate you fancy yourself as an ultra authoritarian type of person.

I guess I do too.

I had to define GOD since once GOD is defined, one can then and only then examine the proposition of what if you omitted GOD. You left open to my imagination what you had to mean by that. I enjoy the universe and the fruits of it too much to remove GOD from my concepts.

As different the past century has been from earlier centuries, where back then the deal was finding a way to keep growing food for horses and other animals as population increased, so will in this century prove to be more changes that will help you not worry so much about energy sources.

I can make a powerful argument you need not worry for perhaps three more centuries. I suspect by that time vehicles powered by nuclear devices will be quite commonplace.

In college in 1957, my bet was by this time cars, trucks, etc would be powered by fuel cells. Proving I am not much of a predictor.

I see the climate doom types as, well to be blunt, sort of like snake oil salesmen. The sort who belong to those wild religions you don't like.

Other than Muslims, some Asians, and I suspect many living in South America, must of the world has pretty much cured over population. We import population or ours would be stagnating as is much of Europe, but for them importing population growers, aka Muslims.

Well you presented a fine argument about how you see religion. Tell you the truth, I am a Mormon. I believe my spot in the afterlife is a flat guarantee. I trust God that much.

I am not dismissing you point by point but i never try to impose my beliefs on you and I don't see how you could impose yours on me unless I was willing. I am not. You are not.

I offered in simple minded terms, not saying I am simple minded, but in terms too fundamental to deny. If you deny those terms, nothing i can say to change your mind.

I see this as sort of like you are denying the universe, the planets and all living forms of life.

All I can say to that is WOW!!!!!!

Back when I learned science, I think we were then taught the steady state of the universe theory and I fear you are stuck back in that same past. I accept the big bang theory. Seems to me it fits what happened and is happening.

Oh when you are fretting over climate change, keep in mind that it was then science to teach the steady state theory of the universe. Science was wrong so it changed. Climate change types will be forced to change by evidence. They predict doom. They won't get doom.

[logroller]

Based on your opening shot, just fired my way, I would estimate you fancy yourself as an ultra authoritarian type of person.

I guess I do too.

I had to define GOD since once GOD is defined, one can then and only then examine the proposition of what if you omitted GOD. You left open to my imagination what you had to mean by that. I enjoy the universe and the fruits of it too much to remove GOD from my concepts.

As different the past century has been from earlier centuries, where back then the deal was finding a way to keep growing food for horses and other animals as population increased, so will in this century prove to be more changes that will help you not worry so much about energy sources.

I can make a powerful argument you need not worry for perhaps three more centuries. I suspect by that time vehicles powered by nuclear devices will be quite commonplace.

In college in 1957, my bet was by this time cars, trucks, etc would be powered by fuel cells. Proving I am not much of a predictor.

I see the climate doom types as, well to be blunt, sort of like snake oil salesmen. The sort who belong to those wild religions you don't like.

Other than Muslims, some Asians, and I suspect many living in South America, must of the world has pretty much cured over population. We import population or ours would be stagnating as is much of Europe, but for them importing population growers, aka Muslims.

Well you presented a fine argument about how you see religion. Tell you the truth, I am a Mormon. I believe my spot in the afterlife is a flat guarantee. I trust God that much.

I am not dismissing you point by point but i never try to impose my beliefs on you and I don't see how you could impose yours on me unless I was willing. I am not. You are not.

I offered in simple minded terms, not saying I am simple minded, but in terms too fundamental to deny. If you deny those terms, nothing i can say to change your mind.

I see this as sort of like you are denying the universe, the planets and all living forms of life.

All I can say to that is WOW!!!!!!

Back when I learned science, I think we were then taught the steady state of the universe theory and I fear you are stuck back in that same past. I accept the big bang theory. Seems to me it fits what happened and is happening.

Oh when you are fretting over climate change, keep in mind that it was then science to teach the steady state theory of the universe. Science was wrong so it changed. Climate change types will be forced to change by evidence. They predict doom. They won't get doom.
For what its worth, I'm a registered republican; but I don think that means much. No more than if I registered democrat it would change my beliefs. Nor would my believing in God change my actions. I'm not denying the universe; I'm saying what purpose does it serve. If tomorrow Pluto smacked into the earth and vaporized life as we know it, it wouldn't fundamentally change how I live today. Would it you? If it did not smack into the earth, would it fundamentally change how you live your today? The fundamentals of religion have always been one of obedience to save one from sacrifice. The lesson of Jesus was to assuage that concern. That a sacrifice has already been made, just be obedient. I do abide, but not because of Jesus; but rather that I see no point in sacrificing a sheep to guarantee that the rains will come or some blight avoided. As you referred to the physical realms of the universe, the sun and earth, examining the history of religion about these discoveries shows a broadly fearful response of irrational behaviors. So your use of scientific discovery as evidence if God and religious devition to belief shstems is humorous to say the least. tKe evolution as an example; specifically man's descent from apes and cknsider the religious response. i mean really, anyattemlt to paint religion as scientifically more adeot than non-religious tyoes is asisine.

The essence of man is we seek to explain things, even things which need no explanation. Any purpose that God serves on Earth is really served by man. so it seems to always hinges upon heaven; the proverbial carrot. In that i should plow my fields because I need eat later is easily explained by the fact i harvest carrots that resulted from what i plowed previously. all very matter of fact; I dont need to god to justify my actions. If I live a life worth living, my way of living will live on. If I live a life not worth living, my way of life will surely perish. You want to call that heaven and hell, be my guest. Regardless, I hope we both are living a life worth living and heaven, as it is to be, is all around us.

[revelarts]

quite a conversation.
seems religious people are called terrible, weak, scary, manipulative, irrational, chidish AND pushy.
Anyone wonder why some religious folks might be a bit defensive?

no way to address it it all in a few words . i'l drop a few just touch a few items


I don't really see the point. If you need God as a crutch for explaining -if it's real then is it a crutch?- the rationale for natural laws and civil behavior, there is no rationale for 'natrual law' or universal basis for 'civil' behavior. I asked you to give me one on several occassions and you've only asserted that you don't need God. that's not a reason- then you're obviously weak of conscious conviction. Only obvious if you make a whole lot of assumption that you have not proved. More often its used as justification for going being uncivil. Frankly that not true. unless of course inviting people to church etc is BY NATURAL LAW' considered uncivil. There are some things which we can't explain the origin of, not if you open to the possiblity of GOD, it's called being open minded-ethics for example, yes with God you cnnot explain its origin OR its' boundaries but I don't need God to explain why killing someone is wrong why not, some people thinks it's OK to kill in the womb or ailing older folks or the inferior in germany. or any other action that is detrimental towards a thriving society is the way that it is. detrimental towards a thriving society? that utilitarinism not morality. And who decides what a Thriving socity is, well i guess it one that uses the 'right' amount of energy. I think eastern religions have a much better grasp of this than do western. they've got better grasp than atheist, that's for sure. Reason is surely enough to fulfill any meaningful ends that religion has. Is that's blind faith in reason, to do something it never has. But reason doesn't bode well when exposed to the truth of human beings as inherently selfish, AH a clear observation about human nature and it is a powerful tool in whitewashing misdeeds under the color of some higher calling. Didn't you just say REASON was a higher calling and a thriving socity i think Moa and Stalin said similar. Clearly I'm not religious, but I don't believe its all bad; ok, thanks I guess. I've little doubt that many a person has been assisted by God and religion and, if they believe themselves incapable of doing such things without God (meaning they lacked the scruples to behave as such otherwise), So you say man is selfish but when someone ask God for help and gets it, overcomes his nature somewhat, you then blame him for his weakness. Which (you Imply) Atheist like yourself don't have then God is benevolent and religion is a good thing. worse than a backhanded compliment no thanks. Is arrogance a fault or is that one that only religious people see as a problem.


Some people are okay with door-to-door stuff --- I'm seriously not.
sorry Certainly not with people who have the gall to want to interfere with my beliefs!!!
Interfere? Are your beliefs so sensitive that the very idea of someone approaching you with there own puts them in the position of galling you?

And I don't think there ARE any door-to-door salesmen much anymore, are there? I think that went out in the 1970s, IIRC.
Window sales people and lawn services go door to here fairly often.

Now they have people waylaying shoppers at BJs warehouse foods, trying to sign them up for home repairs with quite hard-sale tactics. I positively eat them up: they creep up on me in dark aisles with no one else around, sometimes they are even black men, and boy, I've written letters, complained on site, on line, more than once yelled furiously and very loudly at them --- when someone scares me I get angry. I think I've made a change --- the last time I was there the guy with the clipboard was buttonholing only couples and carefully staying only in the middle areas that are well lighted. I think there is a lot less tolerance than there used to be for intrusive people coming at strangers to sell or persuade them of something. There is so much more stranger danger than there used to be. I really hate intrusiveness. Somebody else's religion does not excuse that sort of behavior. Again, with the exception of revelarts, I don't think Christians do that sort of thing nearly as much as some of these cults that are trying to build up.
Mundame frankly it seems you have several overactive fears. seriously someone approaching you in BJ's to make a sale is scary. no offense but they don't have the problem.


I didn't ask for your definition of God; I asked how your argument would change if God were omitted. ...
Why we concern ourselves with concepts devoid of reason is beyond me.
While Robert made a few good points, points that many athesit like to wave off , the ethics question still looms large. Assuming "everyone knows" and "thriving society" are not reasons. tryants can make trains run on time and Did jeffery Dahner and Charles Manson know? Does the child molester know? Is MBLA worong or right, why? Is evil real or just a religious word. If there is No creator then, it's every man for himself, that's reasonable correct? the statanic commandment, "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" is reasonable, society be d@mnned.




I love the bumper sticker, "if you live your life like there is no God, you'd better be right." wtf is that supposed to mean? i cant lead a good life based upon my own reasons for doing so, Well theologically it's kind of a bad sticker. But the answer to you question is , sure you can do good things based on your own reasons, but it doesn't cover the bad you've done. That's a false religious notion that's implied in the sticker. that good deeds get people to heaven or keeps them out of hell


or there's less of an incentive to do good if hell isn't?
Well the fear of hell has keep some people from doing wrong from time to time. possibly made them to right a time or too as well. but see above.

As though my believing in God's existence is the determinant of my behavior.
just as the existence of a wife will change your behavior if you really believe in God your behaivor will change. But just as there are faithful good husbands and unfaithful poor husbands. Some Christians don't love God enough to make very many changes in their behavior either.

dont get me wrong, if religion helps you to share and influence and be influeced by others in the furthemnt of goodness, good on you; inwoild think the ooof is in the pudding though, not the recipe.
If you don't take time to look for the pudding and just assume the recipes a crok because others have said so then how would you know?

.


Who cares what was before time, it doesn't make a difference, does it? if it's true it make a HUGE difference. There's another person in the room.
.
.

Purely an intellectual exercise without any possible real life application.
like the salvation army, the red cross, hospitals, the abolition of slavery, missionaries bringing modern health around the world, translating more human languages than any other in history and giving a written lauguge to as many, improving the lot of women, preaching idea of human equality world wide ...



I don't believe in God per se, but according to your definition above, I too find it useful to explain things where people reject the concept that we cannot answer everything. But to me, its an exercise not unlike that of a placating a child who consistently asks 'why'. because God, thats why. So He, God, Allah, Buddha, etc. are all just tools to content us of our wary ignorance. Nothing that God explains Is truly explained; its just excused. Bertrand Russell once said, "What men really want is not knowledge but certainty."
Certainy is what you seem to have. you don't seem content to allow for a mystery of God as a possibility.

Your faith seems fixed hard in what you call reason but you've ignored the places in your reason where you've filled in the blanks with nothing.
Science assume a lot and you've taken that bit of modern highpriestly cultural as gospel truth. where there are no scientific answers it's assumed there will be -evolution of the gaps- or, they are "not relevant".

Each of us humans is here only a very short bit of time , is it really that important what we think or do? why? do you know? are you certain or is it a mystery that leap over and just try to do some "good"?

[Missileman]

just as the existence of a wife will change your behaivor if you really believe in God your behaivor will change.

What kind of unimaginable monsters might pedophile priests be if not for their faith? Whew! Dodged a bullet there. Score one for belief in god. :rolleyes:

[cadet]

I know, it's terrible. You can't turn on a TV or radio without some anti-preacher filling the airways. :rolleyes:


If that's the best you can manage, hang it up.

I wasn't joking, my facebook is FILLED with atheism.
And I only have the 2 or 3 friends that are... Every single one I know HAS to tell me their atheist. And then ask ME what I am.
Then proceed to tell me I'm wrong.

I usually say something like "If you can preach to me, that means I can preach to you, want to accept Jesus? No? I'll stop when you stop."

[revelarts]

What kind of unimaginable monsters might pedophile priests be if not for their faith? Whew! Dodged a bullet there. Score one for belief in god. :rolleyes:

what would they be if they really believed and acted what they are supposed to preach is the question?

They can't be much more the monster than they already are. using "good" as a cloak for their evil.
Jesus said something about Wolves in sheep clothing.

But by your standards who's to say what's a monster Missile? are you judging?

[Robert A Whit]

For what its worth, I'm a registered republican; but I don think that means much. No more than if I registered democrat it would change my beliefs. Nor would my believing in God change my actions. I'm not denying the universe; I'm saying what purpose does it serve. If tomorrow Pluto smacked into the earth and vaporized life as we know it, it wouldn't fundamentally change how I live today. Would it you? If it did not smack into the earth, would it fundamentally change how you live your today? The fundamentals of religion have always been one of obedience to save one from sacrifice. The lesson of Jesus was to assuage that concern. That a sacrifice has already been made, just be obedient. I do abide, but not because of Jesus; but rather that I see no point in sacrificing a sheep to guarantee that the rains will come or some blight avoided. As you referred to the physical realms of the universe, the sun and earth, examining the history of religion about these discoveries shows a broadly fearful response of irrational behaviors. So your use of scientific discovery as evidence if God and religious devition to belief shstems is humorous to say the least. tKe evolution as an example; specifically man's descent from apes and cknsider the religious response. i mean really, anyattemlt to paint religion as scientifically more adeot than non-religious tyoes is asisine.

The essence of man is we seek to explain things, even things which need no explanation. Any purpose that God serves on Earth is really served by man. so it seems to always hinges upon heaven; the proverbial carrot. In that i should plow my fields because I need eat later is easily explained by the fact i harvest carrots that resulted from what i plowed previously. all very matter of fact; I dont need to god to justify my actions. If I live a life worth living, my way of living will live on. If I live a life not worth living, my way of life will surely perish. You want to call that heaven and hell, be my guest. Regardless, I hope we both are living a life worth living and heaven, as it is to be, is all around us.

What would it mean? To be killed? Well, I expect I would transform to a being that then moves to be in the area of God. Nope, like you, I don't plan on much more change if any.

At no point do I plan to sacrifice animals. I seldom talk of Jesus but since you did, based on the Bible, he lived. I am aware that Roman history of that era was very good. Reading my very good books on that era, I don't see the Romans talking of Jesus. I understand a Roman historian mentioned him but don't recall him saying much about the man.

I have my personal reasons other than that why I believe I will be with GOD upon this body dying.

I don't put much stock in Genesis account of the beginning. But not to be cranky, back in those days they simply reasoned some things out and of course did not know much about the Universe. Heck, they did not even have those lids on toilets a man had to put back down for the ladies. You have not yet caught me discussing hell. A Plausible explanation is we live there right now. That we may upon death stay here to come back again or move to a higher plane where we may actually see GOD visit or even higher where we may be around GOD all the time.

If you want no part of that, don't become Mormon. We think it is our fate. (fingers crossed)

[gabosaurus]

How can you speak for my beliefs?

I apologize to you for you thinking my church is a cult. We had to get you to think that way perhaps. I assure you, we are no cult. Somehow you got steered wrong. And it was not the missionaries that steered you wrong given you said you never let any of them in.

There are devout religious leaders who equate LDS with Islam and Scientology. Says none of them follow the prescribed beliefs of God.

[Robert A Whit]

Say Logroller, et al

Bear with me for a few moments please

Do you accept that Alexander the Great lived and conquered Persia? And much more?
He lived before Jesus lived.

Do you accept Archimedes, Plato? Do you accept they lived?

I am asking because one wonders.

Do you accept that Davy Crockett lived? How about Thomas Paine?

I ask because you seem to accept those people.

This begs a question. If you accept them as having lived and done many things, based only on written records, what prevents you from accepting Jesus Christ based on written records?

Have you at any point read the new testament? I read part of it but I used to play it in my cars recording system. I tell ya, if you read up on Jesus, and understand what happened, you might convert yourself. I can't do it. If a person is willing to try, I could try but I am not a teacher of the Bible.


http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=619414#post619414)
How can you speak for my beliefs?

I apologize to you for you thinking my church is a cult. We had to get you to think that way perhaps. I assure you, we are no cult. Somehow you got steered wrong. And it was not the missionaries that steered you wrong given you said you never let any of them in.



There are devout religious leaders who equate LDS with Islam and Scientology. Says none of them follow the prescribed beliefs of God.

Could be they are cults. If you mean we don't follow the teachings of the entire Bible, you are not correct.

I wish all those calling my church a cult would visit for 4 Sundays in a row. I don't see how they then could claim we are a Cult. A cult is easy to spot. The first time in fact.

[Voted4Reagan]

There are devout religious leaders who equate LDS with Islam and Scientology. Says none of them follow the prescribed beliefs of God.

Name them.... Source please

I cant wait to see this.......

[PostmodernProphet]

Are they offended by a God they don't believe in or pushy people who push their God upon them?

this argument is heard frequently among the AtheistsRUs crowd......you know the ones I mean.....the type who are always pushing their beliefs about keeping God out of everything on everyone else.....


If atheism is a religion then bald is a hair color.

have you noticed how many more men are shaving their heads lately?..........

[Voted4Reagan]

this argument is heard frequently among the AtheistsRUs crowd......you know the ones I mean.....the type who are always pushing their beliefs about keeping God out of everything on everyone else.....

Correct, and being so organized it is indeed it's own religion.

They preach FOR Atheist principles.

They Preach Against the Monotheistic beliefs.

They try and Proselytize their beliefs.


Sounds like a religion to me!!

The Atheist Church in America....

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/publiccatholic/files/2013/02/6a0p1.jpg

[tailfins]

Can someone be pushy expressing what they believe?

I presume you have never met a Lyndon LaRouche or Fred Phelps follower.

[Missileman]

I wasn't joking, my facebook is FILLED with atheism.
And I only have the 2 or 3 friends that are... Every single one I know HAS to tell me their atheist. And then ask ME what I am.
Then proceed to tell me I'm wrong.

I usually say something like "If you can preach to me, that means I can preach to you, want to accept Jesus? No? I'll stop when you stop."

Well you ARE acquainted with several who HAVEN'T. Two or three out of millions doesn't make a pattern you can brush all with.


what would they be if they really believed and acted what they are supposed to preach is the question?

They can't be much more the monster than they already are. using "good" as a cloak for their evil.
Jesus said something about Wolves in sheep clothing.

But by your standards who's to say what's a monster Missile? are you judging?

Not me...I was just fishing for the typical answer, and I got it.


Say Logroller, et al

Bear with me for a few moments please

Do you accept that Alexander the Great lived and conquered Persia? And much more?
He lived before Jesus lived.

Do you accept Archimedes, Plato? Do you accept they lived?

I am asking because one wonders.

Do you accept that Davy Crockett lived? How about Thomas Paine?

I ask because you seem to accept those people.

This begs a question. If you accept them as having lived and done many things, based only on written records, what prevents you from accepting Jesus Christ based on written records?

Have you at any point read the new testament? I read part of it but I used to play it in my cars recording system. I tell ya, if you read up on Jesus, and understand what happened, you might convert yourself. I can't do it. If a person is willing to try, I could try but I am not a teacher of the Bible.

I don't recall anyone claiming that Alexander, Archimedes, Plato, Davey Crockett, or Thomas Paine were the son of God. Jim Jones claimed he was and there were quite a few followers that believed it. I KNOW Jim Jones existed. Does that mean he WAS the son of god?

I have no doubt that Jesus existed and preached a different brand of Judaeism. That in no way certifies claims of divinity.

[cadet]

Not me...I was just fishing for the typical answer, and I got it.

Have you ever met ONE atheist that DOESN'T try to cram it down your throat?
The internet alone is full of anti-christianity from atheists. They only seem to go after christians too... Why not buddhist?

[revelarts]

Not me...I was just fishing for the typical answer, and I got it.

Fine, funny that you read all of what i wrote and Didn't answer ANY of my points.
but here's 1 for you and log.

Is MBLA -the Man Boy Love Association- wrong or right, why?
Are the Chines policys of Forced abortions wrong or right, why?
Why shouldn't Manson and Dahmer or Stalin do what they did?
basically
Is right and wrong good and evil real?
IF SO, where does right and wrong come from
what are it's universal parameters
and why should we assume that everyone should abide by it?

No God has to tell you guys anything about being "good",
and tradition isn't reason, so reason has to get you there somehow please show me.

[Missileman]

Correct, and being so organized it is indeed it's own religion.

They preach FOR Atheist principles.

They Preach Against the Monotheistic beliefs.

They try and Proselytize their beliefs.


Sounds like a religion to me!!

The Atheist Church in America....

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/publiccatholic/files/2013/02/6a0p1.jpg

Always the same story. You can't rationally justify your beliefs, so you try to equate my disbelief with your belief. There is no atheist tome, there are no atheistic rituals, there are no atheistic pilgrimages, there is no atheist "holy" site, there is no atheist church, there is no atheist pope, atheists don't attend "services" where we can sing and pray to no one, the vast majority of us don't financially support any atheist organization.

Having a set of principles does not make Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or atheist a religion. BTW, I had to google these atheist "principles" being totally unfamiliar with them. Most made me chuckle. It's apparent to me that you want to judge all atheists based on this kooky fringe subset. I guess you'll have no problem if I paint all Christians with a Phelps brush then.


Have you ever met ONE atheist that DOESN'T try to cram it down your throat?
The internet alone is full of anti-christianity from atheists. They only seem to go after christians too... Why not buddhist?

There are several right here on this message board.


Fine, funny that you read all of what i wrote and Didn't answer ANY of my points.
but here's 1 for you and log.

Is MBLA -the Man Boy Love Association- wrong or right, why? It's wrong...exploitation.
Are the Chines policys of Forced abortions wrong or right, why? It's wrong...excess government control
Why shouldn't Manson and Dahmer or Stalin do what they did? Violates the golden rule.
basically
Is right and wrong good and evil real? Sure
IF SO, where does right and wrong come from Human beings
what are it's universal parameters Mine's a simple one, follow the golden rule
and why should we assume that everyone should abide by it? Can you imagine what the world would be if everyone DID follow the golden rule.

No God has to tell you guys anything about being "good",
and tradition isn't reason, so reason has to get you there somehow please show me.

You can't reason your way to "Do unto others"?

[cadet]

Correct, and being so organized it is indeed it's own religion.

They preach FOR Atheist principles.

They Preach Against the Monotheistic beliefs.

They try and Proselytize their beliefs.


Sounds like a religion to me!!

The Atheist Church in America....

http://wp.patheos.com.s3.amazonaws.com/blogs/publiccatholic/files/2013/02/6a0p1.jpg

http://atheistpictures.com/
I was going to start posting pictures, but i found craptons of sites with what i was looking for. I'm just gonna leave this one.

[revelarts]

You can't reason your way to "Do unto others"?


"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
you mean from the book of Luke... in the Bible.
you mean what Jesus said.

So THAT'S our reason, well sure... i agree.

[Voted4Reagan]

http://atheistpictures.com/
I was going to start posting pictures, but i found craptons of sites with what i was looking for. I'm just gonna leave this one.

It does say it all... doesnt it Cadet?

Nice to see we agree on something.... for a change...

:beer::beer:


"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
you mean from the book of Luke... in the Bible.
you mean what Jesus said.

So THAT'S our reason, well sure... i agree.

Nice to see that Atheists turn to the Bible...

Interesting...

[Missileman]

"Do to others as you would have them do to you."
you mean from the book of Luke... in the Bible.
you mean what Jesus said.

So THAT'S our reason, well sure... i agree.

It didn't originate with Christ...he copped it off an atheist.

Just kidding, he copped it from another religion/civilization though.

[revelarts]

It didn't originate with Christ...he copped it off an atheist.

Just kidding, he copped it from another religion/civilization though.

You mean the cultures that had human sacrifice for good crops or fertility
or the ones where the kings and priest were gods and could do what ever they wanted with the people?

[Missileman]

You mean the cultures that had human sacrifice for good crops or fertility
or the ones where the kings and priest were gods and could do what ever they wanted with the people?

As opposed to the religion that had a human sacrifice for eternal life? :poke:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Golden_Rule

[revelarts]

As opposed to the religion that had a human sacrifice for eternal life? :poke:



Well when you can control the life and death.
1 sacrifice for all mankind who can rise from the dead is not really a moral problem is it?

[Missileman]

Well when you can control the life and death.
1 sacrifice for all mankind who can rise from the dead is not really a moral problem is it?

So you can justify a human sacrifice in your own mind, but condemn someone else who justified theirs? I think there's a term for that...can't quite put my finger on it though. :rolleyes:

As to the bolded part, it's not really a sacrifice if there aren't any negative consequences.

[revelarts]

So you can justify a human sacrifice in your own mind, but condemn someone else who justified theirs? I think there's a term for that...can't quite put my finger on it though. :rolleyes:
is the word your looking for Hero.
As in when a person decides to die for another. like in the military, or police or someone voluntarily taking a bullet for another.
No, I don't have problem with that compared to taking out a child's heart or throwing a woman into fire for the sake of the group or tradition.




As to the bolded part, it's not really a sacrifice if there aren't any negative consequences.
It's called a win win.
But um the painful consequences of crucifixion weren't diminished, and death was a a true negative, it just wasn't permanent.

Can you answer a question or 2 of mine I'm still waiting for some reasons,
Obviously the ONLY reason the Golden Rule took root in western culture is because Christians were so pushy.

[Voted4Reagan]

One would have to conclude that a system of DISBELIEF'S is just as much a Religion as is a system of BELIEFS.

[fj1200]

I don't get your remark at all.

It was a question. :poke: It's hard for one to be offended by something they don't believe to be there. It's easy to be offended by some being pushy* with something they don't believe to be there.

*pushy defined by the one "pushed"

[Missileman]

is the word your looking for Hero.
As in when a person decides to die for another. like in the military, or police or someone voluntarily taking a bullet for another.
No, I don't have problem with that compared to taking out a child's heart or throwing a woman into fire for the sake of the group or tradition.



It's called a win win.
But um the painful consequences of crucifixion weren't diminished, and death was a a true negative, it just wasn't permanent.

Can you answer a question or 2 of mine I'm still waiting for some reasons,
Obviously the ONLY reason the Golden Rule took root in western culture is because Christians were so pushy.

Really? Then explain its existence all over the world hundreds and thousands of years before Christianity.

[Missileman]

One would have to conclude that a system of DISBELIEF'S is just as much a Religion as is a system of BELIEFS.

It's not a system of disbeliefs. Is not believing in Santa a system? Is not believing in the Tooth Fairy a system?

[revelarts]

Really? Then explain its existence all over the world hundreds and thousands of years before Christianity.

I've been pretty consistent and strait forward in answering your questions Missile, you got any reasons for the Golden rule you say was around all over the world while the druids had child sacrifice in Ireland. before Patrick showed up with the idea. the Hawaiians were tossing girls into volcanoes to appease the gods there before the missionaries showed up. There are some in India today in their religion that still think human sacrifice is necessary, did they miss the golden rule memo that EVERYONE had before Jesus showed up and Christians started to push people around?

What's your reason why anyone -everyone- should obey the golden rule?
Where did it come from?
What's your reason why the Mafia the Taliban, the Chinese gov't most middle eastern dictatorships , drug dealers, crocked cops, lying politicians, child molesters, thieves, rapist, conmen don't seem to do it?

If everybody knows or has it, and don't Need God to help tell them or apply it?

What's wrong with the idea of everyman for himself? A godless reason why not please.

[fj1200]

this argument is heard frequently among the AtheistsRUs crowd......you know the ones I mean.....the type who are always pushing their beliefs about keeping God out of everything on everyone else.....

I never said that there weren't thin skinned Atheists.


I presume you have never met a Lyndon LaRouche or Fred Phelps follower.

First rule of debating; know the answer before you ask. ;)

[Robert A Whit]

http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Robert A Whit http://www.debatepolicy.com/images/debate_policy/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?p=619451#post619451)

Say Logroller, et al

Bear with me for a few moments please

Do you accept that Alexander the Great lived and conquered Persia? And much more?
He lived before Jesus lived.

Do you accept Archimedes, Plato? Do you accept they lived?

I am asking because one wonders.

Do you accept that Davy Crockett lived? How about Thomas Paine?

I ask because you seem to accept those people.

This begs a question. If you accept them as having lived and done many things, based only on written records, what prevents you from accepting Jesus Christ based on written records?

Have you at any point read the new testament? I read part of it but I used to play it in my cars recording system. I tell ya, if you read up on Jesus, and understand what happened, you might convert yourself. I can't do it. If a person is willing to try, I could try but I am not a teacher of the Bible.




I don't recall anyone claiming that Alexander, Archimedes, Plato, Davey Crockett, or Thomas Paine were the son of God. Jim Jones claimed he was and there were quite a few followers that believed it. I KNOW Jim Jones existed. Does that mean he WAS the son of god?

I have no doubt that Jesus existed and preached a different brand of Judaeism. That in no way certifies claims of divinity.

No, nobody said they were the son of God. I know a very good book on this topic and it makes many claims that Jesus is the son of god.

Perhaps you missed studying that particular book?????

[PostmodernProphet]

Really? Then explain its existence all over the world hundreds and thousands of years before Christianity.

????....you realize that God gave his law to his people prior to the birth of Christ, right?.......

[Robert A Whit]

Always the same story. You can't rationally justify your beliefs, so you try to equate my disbelief with your belief. There is no atheist tome, there are no atheistic rituals, there are no atheistic pilgrimages, there is no atheist "holy" site, there is no atheist church, there is no atheist pope, atheists don't attend "services" where we can sing and pray to no one, the vast majority of us don't financially support any atheist organization.

Having a set of principles does not make Democrat, Republican, Libertarian, or atheist a religion. BTW, I had to google these atheist "principles" being totally unfamiliar with them. Most made me chuckle. It's apparent to me that you want to judge all atheists based on this kooky fringe subset. I guess you'll have no problem if I paint all Christians with a Phelps brush then.

It does not matter to me if you are a non believer.

One thing seems clear to me. Membership in churches seems to be growing, despite the chortles of atheists.

[Voted4Reagan]

It's not a system of disbeliefs. Is not believing in Santa a system? Is not believing in the Tooth Fairy a system?

Really?

well... Atheism certainly has many core values and beliefs/Disbelief's as the basis of it's existence...

1. Lets start with the Definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

a·the·ist [ey-thee-ist]

noun a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.

MUST DENY OR DISBELIEVE THE EXISTENCE OF A SUPREME BEING OR BEINGS

(That is a Belief...not a Disbelief)

Atheist's believe that to be true... it is therefore a Fundamental BELIEF. It is a Criteria of Atheism as surely as Circumcision is to people of the Jewish Faith and Baptism is to Christians and Catholics.

Lets move on shall we?

#2: Next: Atheistic Declaration on Secularism

http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai/declarations/324-dublin-declaration-2011




Personal Freedoms




Freedom of conscience, religion and belief are private and unlimited. Freedom to practice religion should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others.
All people should be free to participate equally in the democratic process.
Freedom of expression should be limited only by the need to respect the rights and freedoms of others. There should be no right ‘not to be offended’ in law. All blasphemy laws, whether explicit or implicit, should be repealed and should not be enacted.



Secular Democracy




The sovereignty of the State is derived from the people and not from any god or gods.
The only reference in the constitution to religion should be an assertion that the State is secular.
The State should be based on democracy, human rights and the rule of law. Public policy should be formed by applying reason, and not religious faith, to evidence.
Government should be secular. The state should be strictly neutral in matters of religion and its absence, favouring none and discriminating against none.
Religions should have no special financial consideration in public life, such as tax-free status for religious activities, or grants to promote religion or run faith schools.
Membership of a religion should not be a basis for appointing a person to any State position.
The law should neither grant nor refuse any right, privilege, power or immunity, on the basis of faith or religion or the absence of either.



Secular Education




State education should be secular. Religious education, if it happens, should be limited to education about religion and its absence.
Children should be taught about the diversity of religious and nonreligious philosophical beliefs in an objective manner, with no faith formation in school hours.
Children should be educated in critical thinking and the distinction between faith and reason as a guide to knowledge. Science should be taught free from religious interference.



One Law For All




There should be one secular law for all, democratically decided and evenly enforced, with no jurisdiction for religious courts to settle civil matters or family disputes.
The law should not criminalise private conduct because the doctrine of any religion deems such conduct to be immoral, if that private conduct respects the rights and freedoms of others.
Employers or social service providers with religious beliefs should not be allowed to discriminate on any grounds not essential to the job in question.

Look at all of those statements. All guidelines as defined by ATHEIST ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL as how Atheism should exist in a Secular Society.

Christians/Jews and Muslims have similar declarations in the Torah, Quran and the Bible. we call them the 10 Commandments, Leviticus, Deuteronomy and in Islam they are called Hadiths.

By creating a declaration and guidelines as such and proclaiming these to be the basis for modern Atheism the ATHEIST ALLIANCE INTERNATIONAL has effectively created what can be called "ATHEISTIC COMMANDMENTS".

#3: Atheist Alliance BY-LAWS

http://www.atheistalliance.org/about-aai/bylaws

1. The vision of the Alliance (the “Vision”) is a secular world where public policy, scientific inquiry and education are not influenced by religious beliefs, but based upon sound reasoning, rationality and evidence.
2. The mission of the Alliance (the “Mission”) is to challenge and confront religious faith, to strengthen global atheism by promoting the growth and interaction of atheist/freethought organisations around the world and to undertake international educational and advocacy projects.
3. The Alliance is legally established in the State of California, USA, and is subject to the relevant laws and regulations of that state.
BYLAWS
4. The Bylaws were adopted by the Board following incorporation of the Alliance.
5. These Bylaws may be amended at a General Meeting. Motions to amend the Bylaws must be received by the Secretary at least eight weeks prior to a General Meeting.
6. Notwithstanding clause 5 the Board may make trivial amendments to the Bylaws for the purposes of grammar, punctuation or clarity, subject to appeal at a General Meeting.
7. Any doubt that may arise as to the interpretation of these Bylaws shall be resolved by the Board, subject to appeal at a General Meeting.
8. Any Director or Member may propose an amendment to the Bylaws. Such a proposal must state the specific new language proposed, indicate the old language to be modified or replaced, and be accompanied by a statement of the reasons for the proposed changes.
9. To be effective, amendments to the Bylaws must be passed by at least a Two-Thirds Majority of votes cast by Members at a General Meeting.
DEFINITIONS
10. In these Bylaws:


“Affiliate Member” means any organisation that is a full member of the Alliance, having met the required criteria, having paid its annual fees on time, and having fulfilled its annual responsibilities to the Alliance.
“Annual General Meeting” means the General Meeting of the Alliance held each year at place and time to be determined by the Board.
“Associate Member” means any organisation that has an agreed co-operative partnership with the Alliance in order to further common aims, having met the required criteria, having paid its annual fees on time, and having fulfilled its annual responsibilities to the Alliance.
“Board” means the body consisting of the Officers and the other Directors as appointed or elected in accordance with these Bylaws.
“Director” means a member of the Board and includes Officers.
“General Meeting” means any meeting of the Members, called on an annual or extraordinary basis in accordance with the procedures set out in these Bylaws, for purposes which may include: electing or removing Directors, voting on properly received motions, passing statements of Alliance policy, and receiving information from the Board in respect of the Alliance’s operations. Members eligible to participate in General Meetings may do so in person or through any electronic means approved for that purpose by the Board.
“Individual Member” means any person who is an individual member of the Alliance, having met the required criteria, having paid their annual fees on time, and having fulfilled their annual responsibilities to the Alliance.
“First Past the Post” means a voting system in which the nominees with the highest number of votes are elected.
“Member” means an Affiliate Member, Associate Member and/or Individual Member as the context requires.
“Officer” means a Director that is the President, Vice President, Treasurer or Secretary and any other position held by a Director that is deemed to be such by the Board.
“Simple Majority” means more than half of all votes cast (not counting abstaining or neutral votes).
“Two-Thirds Majority” means the votes in cast in favour must be at least twice the number of the votes cast against (not counting abstaining or neutral votes).

MEMBERS
11. There are three classes of membership of the Alliance – Affiliate Members, Associate Members and Individual Members.
12. Membership is open to all organisations or individuals who subscribe to the Vision and Mission of the Alliance.
13. The Board can suspend or revoke any Membership if it judges that the Member concerned has failed to meet the relevant Membership criteria, or if it considers that the Member’s activities are incompatible with the best interests of the Alliance as a whole.
14. The Board shall set annual Membership fees for each category of membership, which must be paid in full within 60 days of receipt of an invoice by the Member. The Board may waive or reduce fees for any organisation at any class of membership if it is satisfied that the group suffers financial hardship and its membership would be a benefit to the Alliance.
15. Any Member whose annual fees (as adjusted for any waiver or reduction by the Board) have not been paid on time will forfeit their votes (if any) at any General Meeting, may not nominate a person or stand for election to the Board, and may have their membership suspended or revoked by the Board.
16. Any Member wishing to terminate their Membership can do so by notifying the Secretary in writing of their intention, their reasons, and the effective date of the termination.
Affiliate Membership
17. Affiliate Membership is open to local, regional, national and supra-national organisations throughout the world (with one exception in relation to groups from the United States of America, detailed in clause 23) that are determined by the Board to meet the following criteria:


The organisation must be a recognised group within the atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethought community
The organisation must operate in an ethical manner.
The organisation must be able to demonstrate that it has a democratic character (including elections to its governing body at least every four years).

18. Applications for Affiliate Membership will be subject to review and approval by the Board. All such applications must include at least: the application form, a copy of the applicant’s bylaws or constitution or similar document, a statement that the applicant subscribes to the Vision and Mission of the Alliance, contact details for three current officers of the applicant, its membership figures, and details of the applicant’s activities.
19. The criteria for Affiliate Membership may be changed from time to time by the Board.
20. If an organisation’s Affiliate Membership application is refused by the Board it may have its application voted on at the next General Meeting. If the application is approved by a Simple Majority of the votes cast at the General Meeting the organisation will be approved for Affiliate Membership by the Board (subject to the exception stated in clause 23).
21. A condition of continuing Affiliate Membership is that each Affiliate Member must respond as reasonably requested to an inquiry from the Board regarding its up-to-date membership figures, most recent elections, current bylaws and current contact details for at least three officers.
22. Affiliate Members hold voting rights at General Meetings. The number of votes each Affiliate Member is eligible to cast is weighted based on the size of their membership as per clause 75.
23. While the Alliance may admit national organisations from the United States of America (the “USA”) as Affiliate Members, only local and regional groups based in the USA that are members of Atheist Alliance of America Inc., may be accepted by the Board as Affiliate Members.
Associate Membership
24. Associate Membership is open to local, regional, national and supra-national organisations throughout the world that want to have a co-operative relationship with the Alliance and that are determined by the Board to meet the following criteria:


The organisation must be a recognised group within the atheist/agnostic/humanist/freethought community.
The organisation must operate in an ethical manner.

25. Applications for Associate Membership will be subject to review and approval by the Board. All such applications must include at least: the application form, a statement that the applicant subscribes to the Alliance’s Vision and Mission, contact details for one current officer of the applicant and details of the applicant’s activities.
26. The criteria for Associate Membership can be changed from time to time by the Board.
27. If an organisation’s Associate Membership application is refused by the Board it may have its application voted on at the next General Meeting. If the application is approved by a Simple Majority of the votes cast at the General Meeting the organisation will be approved for Associate Membership by the Board.
28. A condition of continuing Associate Membership is that each Associate must respond as reasonably requested to an inquiry from the Board regarding its current contact details for at least one officer.
29. Associate Members may participate in General Meetings but have no voting rights.
Individual Membership
30. Individual Membership of the Alliance is open to any person throughout the world who wants to support the work of the Alliance. Individuals may join the Alliance independently of any Affiliate Member or Associate Member.
31. Applications for Individual Membership will be subject to review by the Board. All such applications must include at least: the application form, a statement that the applicant subscribes to the Alliance’s Vision and Mission and the applicant’s contact details.
32. The criteria for Individual Membership can be changed from time to time by the Board.
33. If an individual’s Individual Membership application is refused by the Board the person may have their application voted on at the next General Meeting. If the application is approved by a Simple Majority of the votes cast at the General Meeting the individual will be approved for Individual Membership by the Board.
34. A condition of continuing Individual Membership is that each member must respond as reasonably requested to an inquiry from the Board regarding their current contact details.
35. Individual Members may participate in General Meetings but have no voting rights.
36. The Board may establish several categories of Individual Membership for various purposes at its discretion.
BOARD OF DIRECTORS
37. There shall be a Board of the Alliance. The Board has full executive authority and responsibility for the operations and activities of the Alliance, subject only to compliance at all times with the provisions of relevant laws, these Bylaws and any policies passed by the Board.
38. The Board will comprise a minimum of four Directors and a maximum of thirteen Directors.
39. The Board will include at least four Officers – President, Vice President, Treasurer and Secretary.
40. The Board may create or abolish additional Officer positions from time to time as it deems appropriate.
41. The President of the Alliance shall be the chairperson of meetings and of the Board and in the absence of the President, the Vice President shall so act. If at any meeting, neither the President nor the Vice President is present, the Directors present must choose an alternative chairperson for the meeting.
42. The Board may meet and otherwise despatch its business and regulate its meetings as it sees fit, but must hold at least six scheduled meetings to which all Directors are invited per year. Meetings of the Board may include in-person meetings, teleconferences, videoconferences and other formats as the Board chooses.
43. Meetings of the Board may be called by the President, Secretary or any two Directors.
44. A quorum shall consist of the minimum whole number of Directors that is more than half the number of Directors (excluding any Directors that have been suspended in accordance with clause 66) at that time.
45. Subject to clause 66, the business of the Board shall be decided by a Simple Majority. Where there is an equality of votes, the chairperson shall have a second or casting vote
46. The Board may delegate any of its powers to committees consisting of its members as it thinks fit. Any committee so formed shall, in the exercise of the powers so delegated, conform to any regulations that may be imposed upon it by the Board.
47. The Board is required to submit to each Annual General Meeting a report on the current and proposed operations of the Alliance and a statement of the previous year’s accounts.
48. Only the President, and any other persons specifically designated by the Board as the President’s agents for this purpose, may communicate or purport to communicate officially on behalf of the Alliance.
49. Director (including Officer) positions are voluntary roles. The Alliance shall not make any salary, stipend or similar payments to Directors (including Officers) in their capacity as Directors (or Officers). Directors may, however, receive reimbursement of expenses incurred in the performance of their duties, subject to Board approval.
ELECTION OF DIRECTORS
50. The inaugural Directors were appointed by the Incorporator on the basis of the votes recorded by the Affiliate Members at the Members’ meeting held in Dublin on 3 June 2011.
51. Subsequent to appointment of the inaugural Directors, the Members who are entitled to vote at General Meetings will elect the Directors.
52. Any person nominated by an Affiliate or Associate Member or who is an Individual Member may be considered for election as a Director. Affiliate and Associate Members may nominate one of their own members. Individual Members may nominate themselves.
53. All Members will be given reasonable notice of any upcoming Director election and a reasonable opportunity to nominate for the available positions.
54. Nominations for the election of Directors must be submitted to the Secretary at least eight weeks in advance of the Annual General Meeting. If fewer nominations than the maximum number of positions available, have been received by such time, additional nominations may be made up to the earlier of the time at which nominations equal to the maximum number of positions available are received or one week prior to the next Annual General Meeting.
55. Notwithstanding the provisions of any other clause in these Bylaws, in all circumstances, no more than one person nominated by any single Affiliate or Associate Member may be a Director at any time, and no more than three people from any single nation may be Directors at any time. Regardless of whether or not a person was actually nominated by an Affiliate or Associate Member, a person will be deemed to be “nominated” by an Affiliate or Associate if they are a member of the board (or substantially similar body) of, hold an executive position at, or have a significant influence on the operations of, the relevant Affiliate or Associate. If a person may be deemed to be “nominated” by more than one Affiliate or Associate then that person may choose which applicable Affiliate or Associate from which they will be nominated by for the purposes of this clause.
56. The election of Directors shall be conducted by a person nominated by the Board, who shall not be a person standing for election at that time (the “returning officer”). The voting, counting and recording of votes shall be carried out in the most efficient manner reasonably available. At the conclusion of counting the votes, the returning officer shall prepare a report advising: the outcome of the election, the number of Members voting, the total number of votes cast, and the number of votes cast for each nominee.
57. Elections to the Board shall be conducted on the following basis:


If the number of candidates is equal to or less than the maximum number of positions available (as prescribed in clause 38), then Affiliate Members will cast a vote for or against each candidate. Each candidate will only be elected if a Simple Majority of the votes cast are in favour of their election.
If more than the maximum number of Directors are nominated, then Affiliate Members will vote for their preferred candidate(s) on a First Past the Post basis. Affiliate Members may vote for or against any number of candidates, provided they only vote for a number that would result in no more than the maximum number of permitted Directors in accordance with clause 38. The highest ranked candidates, in order of those that received the highest number of votes, corresponding to the number of positions to be filled, will be elected, provided such people receive a Simple Majority of the votes cast in favour of their election. In the event of an equality of votes for two or more candidates for the last elected position(s), the returning officer shall draw lots between the candidates with an equality of votes to determine who shall be elected.

TERMS OF APPOINTMENT AND VACANCIES IN THE BOARD
58. Subject to clauses 59 - 61, Directors shall generally serve terms of two years and are eligible for re-election when their term expires.
59. As an exceptional measure, to establish a staggered pattern for Directors' terms, when the inaugural Board was appointed by the Incorporator, seven Directors were appointed for a term of one year.
60. Any Directors elected will be elected for the term stated in the relevant Notice of Meeting. A reference to “one year” and “two year” terms will be taken to mean the time until the next Annual General Meeting (in the case of a one year term) and until Annual General Meeting after the next (in the case of a two year term) regardless of the actual length of time to the dates of those meetings.
61. If required to assist with the effective function of the Board, the Board may permit Directors to be nominated for a term other than as prescribed by clause 58. Any such term shall not be longer than two years.
62. The Board may, at any time, appoint a Director, either to fill a casual vacancy or as an addition to the existing Directors provided:


The person satisfies the eligibility criteria set out in clause 52, and
The total number of Directors remains within the minimum and maximum set out in clause 38.

63. Any Director appointed in accordance with clause 62 may remain a Director until the next Annual General Meeting, at which time that person must nominate for election by the Members or resign as a Director.
64. The position of any Director shall be vacated:


If a person resigns their position as a Director by notice in writing;
If a person is absent from three consecutive meetings of the Board or a total of five meetings within one year without leave of absence from the Board and the Board resolves that their position be vacated; or
If a person has been expelled by the Members at a General Meeting.

65. In exceptional circumstances, where concerns are raised or allegations are made that a Director has failed in material and serious degree to observe established rules of conduct, or has engaged in conduct materially and seriously prejudicial to the purposes and interests of the Alliance, a special Board meeting may be held to consider such concerns or allegations, on the following basis:


The Director will be given at least 14 days notice of this special meeting, by any method reasonably considered to provide actual notice, along with details of the concerns or allegations and any evidence provided by the person who raised such concerns or allegations.
The Director will be given the opportunity to submit a written statement in advance of the meeting, which, if submitted, will be provided to all Directors. The Director will also be given the opportunity to make a statement to and to answer any questions at the meeting, following which the Director will withdraw from the meeting to allow the Board to deliberate the matter.
If the Director fails to participate in the special meeting or to submit a written statement without reasonable excuse, the concerns or allegations will be dealt with regardless of that Director’s absence and on the basis of the evidence available.

66. At the special meeting the Board may decide to take no action, to suspend the Director for a period it considers appropriate, to recommend that the Director is expelled at a General Meeting or to sanction the Director in some other way (excluding expulsion of the Director). Any decision to suspend or recommend the expulsion of a Director will only be effective if approved by a Two-Thirds Majority.
67. For the period of any suspension a Director will not be invited to or participate in Board meetings or Board discussions or decisions of the Board that occur outside Board meetings.
68. If there is a vote to expel any Director at a General Meeting and that Director is the nominee of an Affiliate Member, any votes cast by that Affiliate Member on the matter will be discounted.
ELECTION OF OFFICERS
69. The inaugural Officers were appointed on the basis of the votes recorded by the Affiliate Members at the Members’ meeting held in Dublin on 3 June 2011.
70. Excluding the inaugural Officers, the Board will appoint Officers following such positions becoming vacant.
71. An Officer position becomes vacant:


if the Officer resigns their position by notice in writing;
if the term of the Director holding that Officer position expires at an Annual General Meeting and the Director is not re-elected at that Annual General Meeting;
automatically, at the first Board meeting after each Annual General Meeting; or
if the Board removes a Director from an Officer position.

72. Elections of Officers will be conducted on the following basis:


If only one person is nominated for any Officer position then Directors will cast a vote for or against that person. A candidate will only be elected if a Simple Majority of the votes cast are in favour of the election. If the candidate is not elected, additional nominations may be tendered and a further vote undertaken.
If more than one person is nominated for any Officer position then Directors will vote for each such person on a First Past the Post basis. In the event that no candidate achieves an absolute majority from such vote, then all but the two candidates who received the most votes will be eliminated, and a second round of voting undertaken, with the candidate who then achieves a Simple Majority of votes in favour elected. In the event of an equality of votes between the two final candidates, the returning officer shall draw lots between the two candidates to determine who shall be elected.

VOTING RIGHTS OF MEMBERS
73. Only Affiliate Members are eligible to vote at General Meetings.
74. Associate Members and Individual Members may participate in General Meetings but are not entitled to vote.
75. The number of votes each Affiliate Member is eligible to cast is weighted based on the size of their paid membership. All Affiliate Members are entitled to at least one vote, those with between 100 and 300 paid members are entitled to an additional vote (two votes in total) and Affiliates with over 300 paid members are entitled to an additional two votes (three votes in total). In the event that an Affiliate has members that are also organisations of individuals the Board will determine the appropriate voting level.
76. At least four weeks before each General Meeting, a roll will be prepared of the Affiliate Members entitled to vote at the General Meeting, including the number of votes they are entitled to cast and the person authorised to cast those votes on the Affiliate Member’s behalf.
GENERAL MEETINGS
77. The first Annual General Meeting of the Alliance must take place within 15 months of incorporation. Thereafter, the Alliance shall hold an Annual General Meeting each calendar year and not more than 18 months after the last Annual General Meeting.
78. The Annual General Meeting will approve the accounts and elect Directors.
79. At least twelve weeks prior to the Annual General Meeting, Members shall be notified of the date and location of the meeting and of the general nature of the business to come before the meeting.
80. At least eight weeks prior to any General Meeting other than the Annual General Meeting, members of the Alliance shall be notified of the date and location of the meeting and of the general nature of the business to come before the meeting.
81. Members that wish to propose a motion at an Annual General Meeting must submit that motion to the Secretary at least eight weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
82. Members that wish to propose a motion at a General Meeting other than an Annual General Meeting must submit that motion to the Secretary at least seven weeks prior to the date of the meeting.
83. If a Member proposes a motion for consideration at an Annual General Meeting or a General Meeting and will not be present (in person or by proxy) at that meeting, the Member may request that the Secretary (or an appropriate person arranged by the Secretary and approved by the Member) represent the Member at that meeting.
84. All motions will be presented to Members at least six weeks prior to the date of a General Meeting, and any proposed amendments to motions must be received by the Secretary at least five weeks in advance of the meeting.
85. The Secretary will present to all Members, no later than four weeks prior to the date of the General Meeting, a complete agenda including all Director nominations, all motions and amendments, the roll of voters as per clause 76, and any necessary background information. In the case of Director nominations, this information will include a short description of each nominee’s qualifications and statement related to their candidacy, the country in which they are based and whether or not they are an Individual Member and/or the nominee or member of any Affiliate or Associate Member.
86. The Board can propose and accept emergency motions later than the times referenced in clauses 81, 82, 84 and 85, but only on matters that have arisen since the closure date for receipt of motions.
87. No business shall be transacted at any General Meeting unless a quorum is present. At least one representative each from at least five Affiliate Members constitutes a quorum for the purposes of a General Meeting.
88. Representatives participating in a General Meeting in person, by proxy or through such electronic forums as the Board approves will be considered present, hold their allocated voting rights and count towards quorum.
89. Any Affiliate Member that is unable to attend a General Meeting may authorise another Member or the Chair of the meeting to cast a proxy vote on its behalf, provided that the Secretary is notified of this arrangement at least three days prior to the meeting.
90. The President of the Alliance shall be the chairperson of any General Meeting and in the absence of the President, the Vice President shall so act. If at any General Meeting, neither the President nor the Vice President is present, the Directors present must choose an alternative chairperson for the meeting.
91. Motions other than Special Resolutions put to a General Meeting shall be decided on either a Simple Majority or a majority based on preferential voting, as determined by the Board and described in the Notice of Meeting, depending on the nature of the motion. Where there is an equality of votes, the chairperson shall have an additional or casting vote.
92. Special Resolutions must be approved by at least a Two-Thirds Majority of votes cast at a General Meeting. The Alliance may only undertake the following actions or transactions with the support of a Special Resolution:


Change of name of the Alliance
Change of Vision
Change of Mission
Merger of the Alliance with another organisation
Dissolution of the Alliance
Expression of no confidence in the Board or any Director

93. The Board, or Affiliate Members representing at least 25% of the total votes that may be cast at a General Meeting, may, whenever they think fit, convene a General Meeting.
94. The accidental omission to give notice of a General Meeting to, or the non-receipt of notice of a General Meeting by, any Member shall not invalidate the proceedings at that meeting.
ACCOUNTS
95. The Board shall cause proper accounts to be kept, showing: all money received and expended by the Alliance; all sales and purchases of goods and services by the Alliance; and the assets and liabilities of the Alliance. The accounts shall be such as are necessary to give a true and fair view of the state of the Alliance’s affairs and to explain its transactions
96. The Alliance’s financial year shall end on 31 December.
INDEMNITY
97. Each Director of the Alliance shall be indemnified by the Alliance against any claim against them, provided that the act committed or omission made by such Directors that led to such claim arose out of the Director’s lawful discharge of their duties for and on behalf of the Alliance.
98. The Alliance will pay the costs and expenses incurred by the Director or for which that Director is liable for (as reasonably evidenced by such Director) that arise from a claim as set out in clause 97.



HOLY GUACAMOLE! 98 BY-LAWS GOVERNING THE ORGANIZATION!!

lets look at #1 for a minute:

1. The vision of the Alliance (the “Vision”) is a secular world where public policy, scientific inquiry and education are not influenced by religious beliefs, but based upon sound reasoning, rationality and evidence.

There you have it.. a central unifying dogmatic statement.. They have a VISION based not on religion but on Science and Reason and Rationality. This defines the vision and how it will be achieved. It is a core PRINCIPLE much as the GOLDEN RULE is to Christians and Jews.


Want me to keep going Missleman?

It certainly seems that the governing body of atheism has set up rules, guidelines, edicts and laws to govern its action from Education to monetary issues.


Sounds like a Church to me...

[logroller]

One would have to conclude that a system of DISBELIEF'S is just as much a Religion as is a system of BELIEFS.
Such a conclusion is a logical falsehood. While religion centers on belief in God, divinity or, generically, the supernatural, belief in God is not the exclusive domain of religion. If you say someone is religious, it implies they are compelled by their belief in some divine guidance to observe some behavior. Whereas beliefs and/or disbelief in God need not demonstrate any religious observation whatsoever. You're putting the cart before the horse. For if you don't believe in the supernatural, you cannot be religious-- it's definitively so. Some people cast about the term in an odd fashion; saying, for example, To religiously lock the door. Personally, I lock my door because it adds security as a barrier to intrusion. But if someone locks their door seven times repeatedly, that may have some divine significance and thus, would be religious....or they could have obsessive compulsive disorder, or both. Why we do things is more the focus than what we do. Hence the message from the New Testament; not by our acts, lest none shall boast. But humility has significance regardless of divine justification. So too with a plethora of other religious practices, ibid the golden rule. Which is why I find it odd that some people who reject climate change can wholly submit to divine revelation and spiritual deliverance. I can explain the benefits of observing certain practices respective of either without referring to God or climate change. If the bible and sins/sins of omission help you understand why not kill or why you should be generous, ok-- as a tool of understanding I can see your reasoning. but if I do not, why does it matter?

[fj1200]

There you have it.. a central unifying dogmatic statement.. They have a VISION based not on religion but on Science and Reason and Rationality. This defines the vision and how it will be achieved. It is a core PRINCIPLE much as the GOLDEN RULE is to Christians and Jews.


Want me to keep going Missleman?

It certainly seems that the governing body of atheism has set up rules, guidelines, edicts and laws to govern its action from Education to monetary issues.


Sounds like a Church to me...

You better not, that rubber band you're stretching is about to snap. Any competent organization is going to have a vision, religious or not.

[revelarts]

.... Why we do things is more the focus than what we do. Hence the message from the New Testament; not by our acts, lest none shall boast. But humility has significance regardless of divine justification. So too with a plethora of other religious practices, ibid the golden rule. Which is why I find it odd that some people who reject climate change can wholly submit to divine revelation and spiritual deliverance. I can explain the benefits of observing certain practices respective of either without referring to God or climate change. If the bible and sins/sins of omission help you understand why not kill or why you should be generous, ok-- as a tool of understanding I can see your reasoning. but if I do not, why does it matter?
Why should we answer your question?
But Log you keep talking about benefits and good etc.
WHILE you've asserted that you don't need God for good or anything really. and ALL YOU NEED is REASON to come to SAME good and beneficial conclusions. I keep pointing out there's no reason why anyone SHOULD BE good. And Plenty of People who are not or don't seem aware enough to even let others live, let alone to worry about the climate change your so concerned about.
But now you ask why it matters? I'd like to see reason for everyone to be good or act for the benefit of society please.
WHY are you and Missile dodging the question?

[Voted4Reagan]

WHY are you and Missile dodging the question?



because... they know that there are core beliefs to the priciples to which they subscribe.

just like any other religion....

[revelarts]

the point about Atheism being a religion is an interesting one. but it's not really.... However...
At the very least it's a belief system. a world view. that holds the place that religion proper holds for others.
the supreme court has ruled as much in a case or 2.

the atheist club you mention V4R is an example of their philosophic world view.
the humanist manifestos version 1 and 2 are similar.
Atheist humanist do outline their beliefs in various ways. with as much doctrine as any church or cult.

Many don't like to call it a religion though. And that's technically correct.
But in practically terms the tenets of humanism and various atheist philosophers thinly serve the same functions.

"The world is basically like this. That's what i believe based on the evidence i accept. You should too. And look so does this cool smart group i hang out with."

[Missileman]

Really?

well... Atheism certainly has many core values and beliefs/Disbelief's as the basis of it's existence...

1. Lets start with the Definition:

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/atheist

(snip)


You're posting about some fringe organization that accounts for a miniscule fraction of atheists. Their principles and goals aren't what defines an atheist any more than Phelps' principles and goals define what a Christian is.

Here's the facebook page from the convention you linked above.

http://www.facebook.com/pages/World-Atheist-Convention-Dublin-3rd-5th-June-2011/200603369971700

Go to the photos section and check out the throngs[/sarc] in attendance. I've seen larger bowling leagues.


you got any reasons for the Golden rule you say was around all over the world

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

[Robert A Whit]

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

It would be nice if the forum practiced the golden rule.

[revelarts]

History says it was around all over the world. History also says it was around a long time before it was attributed to Christ.

The reason it is a far-spread concept is because it's brilliantly simple and requires no divine intervention to apply or live by.

a reason please

[logroller]

Why should we answer your question?
But Log you keep talking about benefits and good etc.
WHILE you've asserted that you don't need God for good or anything really. and ALL YOU NEED is REASON to come to SAME good and beneficial conclusions. I keep pointing out there's no reason why anyone SHOULD BE good. And Plenty of People who are not or don't seem aware enough to even let others live, let alone to worry about the climate change your so concerned about.
But now you ask why it matters? I'd like to see reason for everyone to be good or act for the benefit of society please.
WHY are you and Missile dodging the question?
Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart. Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy. If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge; an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.

[Robert A Whit]

Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart. Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy. If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge; an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.

There is a book I once read. Made a lot of sense. Called the Science of God by Gerald Schroeder.

From a review at Amazon.com (see Amazon for the entire review)

Thinking outside the box,-- a seminal effort worth a read, <nobr>April 27, 2004</nobr>
By A Customer

This review is from: The Science of God: The Convergence of Scientific and Biblical Wisdom (Paperback)
As a scientist in an ongoing search for truth, I have been disappointed by ham-handed efforts of the creation crowd to cling to extreme minority viewpoints of credentialed scientists from diverse fields of science that would collectively be required to support a *literal* interpretation of Genesis. Similarly, I have been mystified by scientists who reflexively dismiss the idea of some kind of intelligent design outright by way of circular reasoning, arguing that since intelligent design can never be disproven, it is not scientific and thus could not be truth, since only science can properly assess truth.It is hard to understate, then, the moxie of Schroeder's innovative attempt to reconcile with Genesis scientifically DOMINANT paradigms (i.e. universe many billions of years old, terrestrial life hundreds of millions of years old, species variation to extensive degree by alteration or differential expression of genes). Schroeder introduces his intent thus: "In the following chapters, I attempt to avoid the subjective tendency of bending Bible to match science or science to match Bible." (softcover p.19) Whether he was successful or not is in the eye of the reader, but the explicit intent is refreshing.
This book, then, would be of particular interest to two groups:
1) Scientists who wonder how their mainstream conclusions could possibly be reconciled with ancient accounts of creation from the Hebrew Torah.
2) Jews and Christians who are discomforted by the apparent incompatability between the text of their faith versus the observed truth about our planet and universe as collected and interpreted by the VAST MAJORITY of professional scientists.
The prime example of this reconciliation is Schroeder's attempt to fit a 15-billion year old universe with the six-day account of Genesis by arguing that: 1) from a collective, "Creation-wide" perspective, time advanced differently in the primordial hot universe (time dilation), and 2) that "days" in the ancient hebrew text only adopted the terrestrial perception (instead of universal perception) of time passage upon the creation of man late in the "creation" process.
Later chapters address other issues, such as the likelihood that genetic variation by mutation at rates observed in today's laboratories (or even much greater rates) were sufficient to generate the speciation evidenced in the fossil record within the abbreviated time-frame indicated by the fossil record itself.

[logroller]

^ Not likely to make it to the top of my reading list robert. It'd be right there next to books on the lost atlantian society building the pyramids. Intellectual exercise devoid of benefit. Only so much time in the day, gotta put my efforts where I maximize benefit.

[revelarts]

Because there are synergistic effects of people working together. Two people working together can do more than what two can do apart.
yes and to 2 thieves or a gang can get more done than 1. utility is a reason for unity but not necessarily goodness.



Superficially, synergy appears irrelevant of whether it is good or bad, but the sum of experience shows that that goodness creates a harmony more congenial with synergy.
Log this is what? Experience shows you , that you get more synergy with good relations. ok, syngery is the goal then?



If you still find yourself asking why, then I refer you back to my previous statement regarding the use of God as a placeholder of certainty in lieu of knowledge;
I'm not asking myself why, I'm asking you.
You say REASON will fill the gap to get us to GOOD and RIGHT and WRONG without God.
Are you saying there is no certainty of goodness or right and wrong



an appeal to authority where 'because I said so' is deemed insufficient. But why should one quit pulling their sister's hair? Because father said so, or because the Father did? Doesn't matter to me, just knock it off.
WHY? why should he knock it off Log? to get more synergy? Authority is not a reason you accept, good examples is not a reason you accept. And finally it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter why, then your saying there's no real good reason correct?
But somehow YOU KNOW. you have some inner knowledge. You have some undefined, unreasoned certainty that it's better, good and morally right.

You really don't need a reason you just know it. You don't care where the moral motive comes from. That's what i'm getting here.

and that's my point.
Without God you have no logical reason for the fact of morality or to be morally good instead of selfish.
BUT You/we do have an inner wittiness of conscious that's completely unexplained by naturalistic causes. You say you don't care where it came from. Aren't you a little curious? An intelligent guy like yourself. Frankly i don't think you should let yourself be comfortable with that HOLE in your knowledge of human nature. The certainty you find in your soul did not come from an empty void.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

You might want to explore beyond your comfort zone Log.

[Robert A Whit]

^ Not likely to make it to the top of my reading list robert. It'd be right there next to books on the lost atlantian society building the pyramids. Intellectual exercise devoid of benefit. Only so much time in the day, gotta put my efforts where I maximize benefit.

i understand what you say.

Better to be judgmental about things you have not studied than to study and see what you missed.

[logroller]

yes and to 2 thieves or a gang can get more done than 1. utility is a reason for unity but not necessarily goodness.


Log this is what? Experience shows you , that you get more synergy with good relations. ok, syngery is the goal then?


I'm not asking myself why, I'm asking you.
You say REASON will fill the gap to get us to GOOD and RIGHT and WRONG without God.
Are you saying there is no certainty of goodness or right and wrong


WHY? why should he knock it off Log? to get more synergy? Authority is not a reason you accept, good examples is not a reason you accept. And finally it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter why, then your saying there's no real good reason correct?
But somehow YOU KNOW. you have some inner knowledge. You have some undefined, unreasoned certainty that it's better, good and morally right.

You really don't need a reason you just know it. You don't care where the moral motive comes from. That's what i'm getting here.

and that's my point.
Without God you have no logical reason for the fact of morality or to be morally good instead of selfish.
BUT You/we do have an inner wittiness of conscious that's completely unexplained by naturalistic causes. You say you don't care where it came from. Aren't you a little curious? An intelligent guy like yourself. Frankly i don't think you should let yourself be comfortable with that HOLE in your knowledge of human nature. The certainty you find in your soul did not come from an empty void.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

You might want to explore beyond your comfort zone Log.
I Sense the conversation is coming to an end. But I answered your question; you just don't like it; now you answer it -- why should i be good for God?

i understand what you say.

Better to be judgmental about things you have not studied than to study and see what you missed. I read over a thousand pages of text per week, not including web. I'm pretty knowledgable brother. Most of it centers on policy and compliance. Yet when I ask you simple questions abou climate change policies you have poblems with, sothat i can etter understand what issues you have you don't even bother to respond. Just tell me I need to read more. Nice dodge. So save me the drama about my passing judgement on not reading hundreds of pages of something when you fail to respond to a simple request that would take all of five minutes.

[tailfins]

Have to laugh a little here. Some years back, I was still living by myself and noticed a man and woman canvassing the area, knocking on doors and leaving small pamphlets at doors where they got no answer. Got to be witnesses I think. So I go to my altar and get my besom (small ceremonial broom) and check to see where my cat was. I hung my biggest pentacle on my neck and as they knocked I picked up cat and broom and opened the door. They paused in the act of holding out a pamphlet and stumbled over a question about talking to me about Jesus. I smiled and said I would be delighted if they would share Circle with me first. Yes I know I was being a little bad but they DID KNOCK FIRST. They couldn't leave fast enough and I am convinced to this day that they put some kind of invisible mark on my door because nobody from that sect ever came back there. Believe what you like, live your life as a human with principles based on your faith. That is the best advertising you can do for the religion you follow - show it as a living concept.

If my in-laws had that happen they might have a "prayer-and-cleansing" before knocking, but they would have been back. They are however Pentecostals, not jay-dubyas. I'm not sure what my church would have done. We are taught to stay far away from horoscopes, fortune telling, Ouija boards, or anything remotely resembling anything that looks like the occult. The JWs also go away if you put on your best southern drawl and say "Hey y'all we got jay-dubyas around". Maybe Tyr can tell us why that works, but it does.

My in-laws draw the ire and jealousy of other pastors in their community. Their "secret sauce" is to be the place were people are welcome when they are welcome nowhere else: All the so-called dregs of society as it were. One of his best sources of new members come from visiting jails.

[logroller]

If my in-laws had that happen they might have a "prayer-and-cleansing" before knocking, but they would have been back. They are however Pentecostals, not jay-dubyas. I'm not sure what my church would have done. We are taught to stay far away from horoscopes, fortune telling, Ouija boards, or anything remotely resembling anything that looks like the occult. The JWs also go away if you put on your best southern drawl and say "Hey y'all we got jay-dubyas around". Maybe Tyr can tell us why that works, but it does.

My in-laws draw the ire and jealousy of other pastors in their community. Their "secret sauce" is to be the place were people are welcome when they are welcome nowhere else: All the so-called dregs of society as it were. One of his best sources of new members come from visiting jails.
What about fortune cookies?
to me, it all centers on how much credence you afford such things. It one is inspired or instructed to strap bombs to oneself, it matters not to me whether it was in a horoscope or a Hadith.

[revelarts]

I Sense the conversation is coming to an end. But I answered your question; you just don't like it;...
Well the answer didn't align with your 1st assertions. That reason could get you to motives for good and good itself. But finally you said it doesn't matter where it came from , or how we get to it, but it -morality- is real you believe, and we should -for no real reason- live it.



now you answer it -- why should i be good for God?

Short answer, because it's what your made for. We're all created for love and for good.
We're not just naturalistic accidents boucning through the cosmic void until we die.

[tailfins]

What about fortune cookies?
to me, it all centers on how much credence you afford such things. It one is inspired or instructed to strap bombs to oneself, it matters not to me whether it was in a horoscope or a Hadith.

I don't read them. My kids said, look they're just generic messages that could apply to anybody such as "If you work hard, you'll be happy".

[Robert A Whit]

I read over a thousand pages of text per week, not including web. I'm pretty knowledgable brother. Most of it centers on policy and compliance. Yet when I ask you simple questions abou climate change policies you have poblems with, sothat i can etter understand what issues you have you don't even bother to respond. Just tell me I need to read more. Nice dodge. So save me the drama about my passing judgement on not reading hundreds of pages of something when you fail to respond to a simple request that would take all of five minutes.

Oh, we are back to climate change. I apologize if you believe I ruffed your feathers. I did not intend to. Didn't I report to you that Dr. Richard Lindzen whom I have e mailed to and got mail back said the best way to understand this is to read his many papers on Climate Change?

I bluntly asked him if he blames man. He was very kind to even mail me back. I read some of his papers. I find nothing in them to put the blame on humans. I thought I also mentioned how easy it was to e mail Dr. Lindzen.

He is the expert with the answers.

Did he totally acquit man? I can't say he did. But if you really want an actual expert, seek his counsel. Maybe I can post one of his papers.

<!--><xml> <w:WordDocument> <w:View>Normal</w:View> <w:Zoom>0</w:Zoom> <w:DoNotOptimizeForBrowser/> </w:WordDocument> </xml><![endif]-->http://www.examiner.com/article/carbon-dioxide-irrelevant-climate-debate-says-mit-scientist<!--><xml> <o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1026"/> </xml><![endif]--><!--><xml> <o:shapelayout v:ext="edit"> <o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1"/> </o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->


In a study sure to ruffle the feathers of the Global Warming cabal, Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT has published a paper which proves that IPCC models are overstating by 6 times, the relevance of CO2 in Earth’s Atmosphere. Dr. Lindzen has found that heat is radiated out in to space at a far higher rate than any modeling system to date can account for. Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong.
[I]The pdf file located at the link above from the Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html)[I] has absolutely, convincingly, and irrefutably proven the theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming to be completely false.
Professor Richard Lindzen of MIT’s peer reviewed work states “we now know that the effect of CO2 on temperature is small, we know why it is small, and we know that it is having very little effect on the climate.”

The global surface temperature record, which we update and publish
every month, has shown no statistically-significant “global warming”
for almost 15 years. Statistically-significant global cooling has now
persisted for very nearly eight years. Even a strong el Nino – expected
in the coming months – will be unlikely to reverse the cooling trend.
More significantly, the ARGO bathythermographs deployed
throughout the world’s oceans since 2003 show that the top 400
fathoms of the oceans, where it is agreed between all parties that at
least 80% of all heat caused by manmade “global warming” must
accumulate, have been cooling over the past six years. That now prolonged
ocean cooling is fatal to the “official” theory that “global
warming” will happen on anything other than a minute scale.
- SPPI Monthly CO2 Report: July 2009

If for no other reason than this: the IPCC assumes that the concentration of CO2 in 2100 will be 836 ppmv (parts per million volume). However, current graphs based on real data show that CO2 concentrations will only be 570 ppmv in 2100, cutting the IPCC’s estimates in half right there.
Another nail in the coffin of Global Warming is the observed rate of temperature change from 1980, which is observed to be 1.5 degrees C per century. The IPCC modeling calls for a range of 2.4 to 5.3 degree increase per century, which is far above what is observed in real data collected between 1980 and 2009. The graph below clearly represents a far different reality as opposed to the predictions.
Graph A
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Global_Temp_Anomalies.jpg
Not only is the IPCC basing its predictions on data that has been doubled from observed data, it is overstating the role of CO2 in Climate altogether. As the graph seen below shows, when charted for the years between 2002 and 2009, that solid red median line is going down, indicating global cooling.
Graph B
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Last_7_years.jpg

As significant as the above results are, it is not the Pièce de résistance. What is - the curious minded what to know? It is the ERBE results. The Earth Radiation Budget Experiment with 15 years worth of data. The ERBE result is absolutely devastating to the entire Global Warming Theory.
The following graph (Graph C) shows the ERBE results in the upper left hand corner, which is real recorded data, not a computer model. The 11 other graphs are the results from the models used by the UN and everyone else which state that more radiation should be held within Earth’s system, thereby causing warming of the climate. More simply put, the UN results illogically predict that as the oceans got warmer, the earth would simply hold more heat. The UN explains that it is CO2 which is holding this extra energy. This theory is not supportable by the simple fact that CO2 cannot hold that much heat, it is a very poor greenhouse gas compared with water. If anything, more clouds -water vapor- would conceivably hold the extra heat, but the corresponding rise in global temperatures this would cause have not been observed. This leaves only one conclusion, the Earth is radiating the extra heat into space, and this is supported by the data.
The ERBE results, which are factual data from real measurements made by satellite, show the exact opposite result from the UN/IPCC Projections (computer models which are not real data). As seas warm on earth, the earth releases more heat into space and the satellite results prove it.
Graph C



http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/ERBE_1.jpg
Observed reality vs. erroneous computer predictions:



The mismatch between reality and prediction is entirely clear. It is this
astonishing graph that provides the final evidence that the UN has
absurdly exaggerated the effect not only of CO2 but of all greenhouse
gases on global mean surface temperature. - Lindzen & Choi (2009).
For the sake of making the above graphs clear in their meanings, the term ?SST stands for Change in Sea Surface Temperature measured in Kelvin (A unit of temperature like to Celsius and Fahrenheit), and is a measurement of change in sea temperatures. A -1.0 number would indicate cooling, a zero reflects no temperature change, and a +1.0 would indicate an increase in temperature.
?Flux, The Vertical line in these graphs, measures the change in the amount of radiation released by the planet in the infra-red spectrum, heat in other words. From zero to +6 shows more heat radiated out into space. From zero to -6 shows less heat being radiated into space.
0 change in ?SST equals 0 change in ?Flux or no change. Less infra-red heat radiation going out into space should correlate to cooler sea surface temperatures, as there is less heat available to radiate out. More heat radiating out appears when sea surface temperature increases have occurred and more heat is available to radiate. Heat is radiated out into space as seas warm, and this overall maintains a climate equilibrium, This is proven by the ERBE graph in Graph C above as well as the other graphs presented in this article, which are based on observed data, not computer models.
Graph D
http://www.examiner.com/images/blog/wysiwyg/image/Ocean_Temps.jpg

[I]The 3300 Argo bathythermograph buoys deployed throughout the world’s oceans since late in 2003 have shown a slight cooling of the oceans over the past five years, directly contrary to the official theory that any “global warming” not showing in the atmosphere would definitely show up in the first 400 fathoms of the world’s oceans, where at least 80% of any surplus heat would be stored. Source: ARGO project, June 2009.
All of this data leads to the conclusion that the UN/IPCC models are not only wrong, they are so far off the mark as to be laughable. The satellite and bathythermograph data clearly do not match the IPCC theory, which means that the theory is incorrect.
What this data does tell us is if CO2 concentration should double, global temperatures will not rise by the devastating 6 degrees F the UN predicts, but by a completely harmless 1 degree F. The ERBE data shows an Earth system that is radiating more heat into space as sea surfaces warm, in other words a system at equilibrium, and is clearly demonstrated by observed data. The UN theory of Anthropogenic Global Warming is dead wrong.
The UN/IPCC have been using models that give a result that allow them to tell Nation States they must reduce and cap Carbon Emissions or the earth’s climate will warm by a devastating 6 degrees F. When in reality, more heat is simply radiated out into space as the ERBE OBSERVED DATA (Not a computer model) PROVES.
The United States House of Representatives has passed a Carbon tax (Cap and Trade) as have other governments in Europe, based on these completely erroneous models.
There are only a couple of conclusions to be made of this. Either the world has been misled by scientists working for the UN and IPCC due to faulty science, or faulty science has been deliberately used in a global scheme to generate tax revenues for the Governments instituting Cap and Trade Taxation policies.
Either way, the world has been the victim of some very bad science. The results of which can be seen in drastically reduced GDP in countries with the Cap and Trade laws in place, as well a a 5 - 10% decrease in standard of living for those citizens living there (Taxing Carbon designed to fail (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m5d24-Taxing-Carbon-designed-to-fail).), all with little or no effect on emissions globally.
Perhaps this will finally end the attempt by the Obama Administration as well as congress to tax a substance that trees need to survive, the very air we exhale thousands of times a day.
Thank you Professor Richard Lindzen, Dr. Ferenc M. Miskolczi, Dr. Miklós Zágoni, Dr. Mike Fox here in Oregon, and a great many other Scientists the world over, who decided to look at facts, instead of playing with models. Science is based on data, facts not theories. They took the facts, and let the theory write itself. The IPCC took theories and tried to cherry pick only the details that fit, and in the end failed to do even that.
Public policies should also be based on facts, not on unproven and in the end disproven theories. The United States and indeed the world is in the debt of these and other scientists, who relied on data and facts to describe our world and its climate! We are in their debt!
For more info: Science and Public Policy Institute (http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monthly_report/sppi_monthly_co2_report_july.html),Editorial: The science is in. the scare is out. Recent papers and data give a complete picture of why the UN is wrong. Climate change? Not so fast say Scientists (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m7d30-Climate-change-Not-so-fast-say-Scientists), Have it your way - Global warming is baloney (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m6d8-Have-it-your-way--Global-warming-is-baloney), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 1) (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m5d31-Einstein-like-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science), Einstein-like breakthrough in Climate Science (Part 2) (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m6d2-Einsteinlike-breakthrough-in-Climate-Science-Part-2), Oregon legislature plays Cap-n-Trade shell game (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m4d28-Oregon-legislature-plays-CapnTrade-shell-game), Democrats say Cap and Trade is a big tax (http://www.examiner.com/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m4d25-Democrats-say-Cap-and-Trade-is-a-big-tax), Taxing Carbon designed to fail (http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-7715-Portland-Civil-Rights-Examiner%7Ey2009m5d24-Taxing-Carbon-designed-to-fail)
Updated to clarify sourcing. All information in this article is directly from SPPI June Report. as is stated in the beginning of article. 8-18-2009 2:02pm Pacific

[logroller]

Well the answer didn't align with your 1st assertions. That reason could get you to motives for good and good itself. But finally you said it doesn't matter where it came from , or how we get to it, but it -morality- is real you believe, and we should -for no real reason- live it.
[QUOTE]
Social Darwinism. Doing good results in greater success. Not in every instance; but in sum, it does. That's the reason to live it, and its real. I meant that it doesn't matter if you believe in God to reach that same conclusion; not that it doesn't matter at all.


Short answer, because it's what your made for. We're all created for love and for good.
We're not just naturalistic accidents boucning through the cosmic void until we die.
Really? Then why is there so much bad in the world?
We have free will; which allows for far more than loving and doing good. We're like the swiss army of designs I guess. Makes us more capable...of survival, IMO. Which is why social darwinism seems far more adept at explaining our current design than God does.
And what if we are just naturalistic accidents, bouncing through the cosmos until we die? I'm not going to start raping and pillaging because of I lack belief in divine rectitude. Some do mind you; but so too do some who believe in God. I don't see the correlation between God creating man and man's goodness. I do see a correlation in man's use of God to influence behavior and those behaviors gaining traction; just not good/bad.

[Missileman]

a reason please

A reason for what? That children are capable of learning that if they strike someone, chances are they'll get hit back? You really think a god is required to arrive at that conclusion?

[Voted4Reagan]

such as "If you work hard, you'll be happy".

Last time I heard something Similar it was

"ARBEIT MACHT FREI"

[revelarts]

A reason for what? That children are capable of learning that if they strike someone, chances are they'll get hit back? You really think a god is required to arrive at that conclusion?
Some learn they have to duck or hit with a club or a knife instead. or maybe get a gang.

[Missileman]

Some learn they have to duck or hit with a club or a knife instead. or maybe get a gang.

Also attributable to a belief in God?

[logroller]

Oh, we are back to climate change. I apologize if you believe I ruffed your feathers. I did not intend to. Didn't I report to you that Dr. Richard Lindzen whom I have e mailed to and got mail back said the best way to understand this is to read his many papers on Climate Change?

I bluntly asked him if he blames man. He was very kind to even mail me back. I read some of his papers. I find nothing in them to put the blame on humans. I thought I also mentioned how easy it was to e mail Dr. Lindzen.

He is the expert with the answers.

Did he totally acquit man? I can't say he did. But if you really want an actual expert, seek his counsel. Maybe I can post one of his papers.

http://www.examiner.com/article/carbon-dioxide-irrelevant-climate-debate-says-mit-scientist


(snip)



I didn't ask you what lidzen thought of climate change, I asked what specific climate change abatement policies you had issues with. And you dodge it again. The reason I ask is that, like believing in a higher power, climate change serves a real world purpose that has nothing to do with the core tenet of belief. As for ipcc, its a political juggernaut. It has as much to do with climate change as the AMA has to do with medicine. Its just a tool of influence, like religion.

There is a universal purpose to things; in an accept that climate change is farcical and still find positive outcomes from people believing in it. Just as I can accept there is no god, and find positive outcomes from people believing. That, to me, is a universal truth.

[mundame]

quite a conversation.
seems religious people are called terrible, weak, scary, manipulative, irrational, chidish AND pushy.
Anyone wonder why some religious folks might be a bit defensive?



I hope you are defensive: religious people who are terrible,scary, maipulative, and pushy should stop doing all that. That's wrong behavior. If you are religious, do that on your own time and leave other people alone about it.

Hard-sell tactics are wrong when salesmen stalk customers through the aisles at BJs and it's even wronger when hard-sell religious people knock on peoples' doors at their own homes. Talk about intrusive and pushy!! Darn.

I do think the society is turning away from tolerating this sort of thing, however, and it's getting less as time goes on.


WHY? why should he knock it off Log? to get more synergy? Authority is not a reason you accept, good examples is not a reason you accept. And finally it doesn't matter.
If it doesn't matter why, then your saying there's no real good reason correct?
But somehow YOU KNOW. you have some inner knowledge. You have some undefined, unreasoned certainty that it's better, good and morally right.



The question is whether any morality is possible without religious belief? ANY religious belief, or does it have to be Christian? Buddhism has a very well-developed system of ethics that began several centuries before Christianity: would theirs count?

How about secular humanism? That is obviously what is replacing Christianity in the West. A sort of vague belief that we ought to do good, if we could figure out what it is: maybe not eating meat? Maybe believing in global warming? Okay, it's incoherent at present. What is to replace Christianity is not well developed; Islam is trying to exploit that. I don't think it will succeed: whatever gentle system we want, we certainly don't want violent, abusive Islam!

I think morality is instinctive, because without SOME sort of system of beliefs about what to do and what not to do, people simply all kill each other till there is no one left: Hobbes' point about people all having to live separately: lives that are nasty, brutish, and short. Religions grow up so people don't have to each invent a new system: and these religions control people, as far as they can, usually rather poorly, and also perpetuate themselves by including support for the religious heirarchy in their belief system.

There have been thousands of religions that promote ethical standards, many of them quite violent, like the human sacrifices of Aztecs and the kill-'em-all warrior beliefs of Vikings and Mongols. The point is simply whether it allows the culture that has the beliefs to succeed and persevere, working together and reproducing and spreading out.

[Abbey Marie]

What about fortune cookies?
to me, it all centers on how much credence you afford such things. It one is inspired or instructed to strap bombs to oneself, it matters not to me whether it was in a horoscope or a Hadith.

It should; tomorrow's Horoscope might say "A good day to be kind to your neighbor", whereas the Hadith is written in stone, so to speak.

[Robert A Whit]

I didn't ask you what lidzen thought of climate change, I asked what specific climate change abatement policies you had issues with. And you dodge it again. The reason I ask is that, like believing in a higher power, climate change serves a real world purpose that has nothing to do with the core tenet of belief. As for ipcc, its a political juggernaut. It has as much to do with climate change as the AMA has to do with medicine. Its just a tool of influence, like religion.

There is a universal purpose to things; in an accept that climate change is farcical and still find positive outcomes from people believing in it. Just as I can accept there is no god, and find positive outcomes from people believing. That, to me, is a universal truth.

Well, given Climate change as blamed on humans is a myth, without naming each thing I don't agree with as policy, bluntly any policy that reduces our right to choose, such as autos, or fuels, offends me and I object to said policies. It is based on lies.

If you mean policies to save resources, they don't base their claims on that. I believe in technology and believe that what humans use for transport in another 100 years or 200 years will be very different than today. That is fine with me. But let the inventors and free market decide and end this crap of making it political.

The Report by Lindzen says it is cooling. But as you know, they are not doing anything over that issue.

Have you read Professor Muller's excellent book called Physics for future presidents?

In his book, he gives outstanding discussions over the various fuel sources. I happen to have had at one time a very good personal library on all things automobile, such as not only history of design, but books for those intending to design them.

In 1957, believing in electric cars, I felt then that we by this time would be driving cars powered by fuel cells. Turns out they have many problems that even by this time, make it so they are not your normal power plant for transportation. I guessed wrong in 1957.

To be clear, policy changes ought to be based on true and rational science and what can be actually designed and created to fit the market.

Take the Tesla. All electric. Who wants to blow $57,000 and up to carry a driver and passenger? Tessla won't market based on the car's weaknesses, they only tell you it's advantages.

The typical citizen knows much less about auto design than I know and I am no expert.

As professor Muller points out and I had already known, gasoline per gallon or pound of fuel packs a huge punch. And it is easy to find and still in ample supply.

Solar for the single home seems reasonable to me despite some problems. I understand that due to some city regulations or to protect the utilities, government puts up barriers such as forcing one to also be on the grid despite them having solar. This would entail more investigation than i intend to put forth though. I suspect Government intends to protect the public powers that be. How can government tax your own solar? They earn taxes on your regular utility bills. The way government works, they fight it when revenue sources are threatened.

Windmills are fine but work better where a more steady wind blows.

Tell you what, I hope this helps. If not, well that will do for me.

If you have specific on point questions, I may reply. Depends on what types of questions.

If you are going off onto philosophy, my take is maximize human freedom and minimize the control government has over your life. You know what is best for you. Better than those clods in DC and elsewhere.

Mundame, seems to me you don't want anybody to control your life.

May I presume that other than religion, you also mean government?

I don't know why you despise we Mormons since our young lads that approach strangers to tell them of our church mean you no harm. I bet if you simply tell them you are not one bit interested, they will take notes and not bug you.

I assure you my church is no cult. The theme of the Church is it cares about you and your family. They are awesome at making efforts to keep members from hard times. I have seen the church feed families, pay their home loans or rent so the members can not fall into poverty. Though the church does collect tithes, it has enormous resources that I am told is second only to the Catholics who have many more members than we have. Every time I have gone to church. I find the people not only very good and kind, but not one bit aggressive. We don't put the rush on people to try to convert them. You may have such a short fuse, that any of them on your door step offends you. But from their side, they do not intend to offend you.

My past wife was Jehovah witness and to be frank, for my money they are more like a cult than what you claim ours is. It is in how they deal with members. It bothers me a lot. I could not get involved with my then wife's church and did not accept their teachings. She tried to drag me to her church. I never did that to her as far as my church. I am trying to recall if she ever was in my church but I did go to hers a few times to see what it was about. I felt they were intensely controlling over members. I still think for the most part they are decent people. But I don't like such mind control.

[revelarts]

Well the answer didn't align with your 1st assertions. That reason could get you to motives for good and good itself. But finally you said it doesn't matter where it came from , or how we get to it, but it -morality- is real you believe, and we should -for no real reason- live it.

Social Darwinism. Doing good results in greater success. Not in every instance; but in sum, it does. That's the reason to live it, and its real. I meant that it doesn't matter if you believe in God to reach that same conclusion; not that it doesn't matter at all.


Really? Then why is there so much bad in the world?
We have free will; which allows for far more than loving and doing good. We're like the swiss army of designs I guess. Makes us more capable...of survival, IMO. Which is why social darwinism seems far more adept at explaining our current design than God does.
And what if we are just naturalistic accidents, bouncing through the cosmos until we die? I'm not going to start raping and pillaging because of I lack belief in divine rectitude. Some do mind you; but so too do some who believe in God. I don't see the correlation between God creating man and man's goodness. I do see a correlation in man's use of God to influence behavior and those behaviors gaining traction; just not good/bad.


this answer took me back a bit Log,
I didn't have a quick response to it , becuase #1 you never mentioned social Darwinism before,
2. your definition of it didn't line up with my understanding of it. but i know a some folks use it in a different ways.
3. most of the ways i understand it is in a VERY negative context. where it's used as an excuse for eugenics and the like.
and lastly your assertion that social Darwinism is "REAL". therefore it is a better ground for morality. Frankly it is not real, or a better ground.

so it took me a back a bit. that'd you'd use it as a reason why people should "do unto others" and "be good". you don't often get the golden rule from Social Darwinism or the idea of individual rights and definitely not any ideas about human equality.

frankly after thinking about it a looking around the internet to make sure i wasn't misrepresenting what social Darwinism tends to assert.
I'm still very surprised you would use that.
I even found a quote from the Atheist Dawkins that says he DOES NOT want to live in a society where Darwinism is the base, it would be fascist.
For him he recognizes that humans SHOULD live above what he considers our evolutionary roots/base. I don't know if he explains where how or why we are some how able to socailly leap above our dog eat dog roots , except with a wave of the hand and, 'IT's here therefore we -thank the natural forces- evolved to have morals somehow.' ipso facto chango tada science.

...They understand that even if the two were actually linked, human society allows us to move beyond some biological imperatives. Just because we are part of the animal kingdom does not mean that we have to act in the same manner as other members of that kingdom; we can exercise choice to create a social network not observed in other species.
Perhaps the world's best known popularizer of evolution, Richard Dawkins, made this point exceedingly well in a 2005 interview published in Die Presse. He said, "No self-respecting person would want to live in a society that operates according to Darwinian laws. I am a passionate Darwinist, when it involves explaining the development of life. However, I am a passionate anti-Darwinist when it involves the kind of society in which we want to live. A Darwinian state would be a Fascist state."

from wiki


Social Darwinism is an ideology of society that seeks to apply biological concepts of Darwinism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwinism) or of evolutionary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) theory to sociology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociology) and politics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics), often with the assumption that conflict between groups in society leads to social progress as superior groups outcompete inferior ones.
The name social Darwinism is a modern name given to the various theories of society that emerged in England and the United States in the 1870s, which, it is alleged, sought to apply biological concepts to sociology and politics.[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-Riggenbach-1)[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-2) The term social Darwinism gained widespread currency when used in 1944 to oppose these earlier concepts. Today, because of the negative connotations of the theory of social Darwinism, especially after the atrocities of the Second World War (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_World_War) (including the Holocaust (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust)), few people would describe themselves as Social Darwinists and the term is generally seen as pejorative.[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-h428-3)
Social Darwinism is generally understood to use the concepts of struggle for existence and survival of the fittest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survival_of_the_fittest) to justify social policies which make no distinction between those able to support themselves and those unable to support themselves. Many such views stress competition between individuals in laissez-faire (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laissez-faire) capitalism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism); but the ideology has also motivated ideas of eugenics (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics), scientific racism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_racism), imperialism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperialism),[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-TCL-4) fascism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism), Nazism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazism) and struggle between national or racial groups.[5] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-5)[6] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-6)
Opponents of evolution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution) theory have often maintained that social Darwinism is a logical entailment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logical_consequence) of a belief in evolutionary theory, while biologists and historians maintain that it is rather a perversion of Charles Darwin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Darwin)'s ideas.[7] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-ToA_CA002.1-7) While most scholars recognize historical links between Darwin's theory and forms of social Darwinism, they also maintain that social Darwinism is not a necessary consequence of the principles of biological evolution[8] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_Darwinism#cite_note-8) and that using biological evolution as a justification for policies of inequality amounts to committing the naturalistic fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy)....

[avatar4321]

Found this:

"Who's more irrational? Somebody who believes in a God they don't see, or a person who is a offended by a God they don't even believe in?"

Clearly the latter. There are other senses. Hearing. Touch. You can experience God through the other senses. But to be offended by something you don't believe in? It's foolish to be offended when none is intended and even more foolish whenoffense is intended. I know I wouldn't be offended if the tooth fairy said something bad about me cause I dont believe there is one.