Atheists know the most about religion.
I really love this stuff!! It gives me much needed self-esteem...
So, atheists know more about religion than the religious people do. It doesn't mean that we, as in atheists, are right about there being no God, but at least we don't have to suffer the insults of the religious who continually say that atheists "just don't know what they are talking about".
HA!!
--------------Article quotes:
The New York Times reports: [bold highlight mine] -
Researchers from the independent Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life phoned more than 3,400 Americans and asked them 32 questions about the Bible, Christianity and other world religions, famous religious figures and the constitutional principles governing religion in public life.
On average, people who took the survey answered half the questions incorrectly, and many flubbed even questions about their own faith.
Those who scored the highest were atheists and agnostics, as well as two religious minorities: Jews and Mormons. The results were the same even after the researchers controlled for factors like age and racial differences.
------Quotes - Indicators of Religious Belief:
Study: "The more impoverished you are the more likely you are to be religious. Poverty also seems to be directly correlated with education; the more money you have the more likely you are to be educated and/or intelligent."
"A prime example of poverty in action is the prison population. Prisons are predominantly full of uneducated, strongly religious minorities."
The simple fact is that the more you know about science, logic, psychology, and rational thought -- in other words, the more intelligent you are -- the more likely you are to be an atheist.
Without a doubt the most likely conclusion is that a lack of intelligence is one of several factors that incline someone to be religious. Certainly wealthy people are religious, and certainly smart people are religious, but evidence shows that people who are neither wealthy nor smart are much more likely to be religious.
------- some test results [all participants] -
Only 45 % could name all four Gospels.
Slightly more than half (54%) knew that the Quran is the holy book of Islam.
53% of Protestants don't know Martin Luther inspired the Reformation
-------------Link to article from PEW center [they ran this quiz] -
I'm glad I'm not an atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair 1919 - 1995
What a treacherous bunch.
Noah, I'd be careful not to equate education with intelligence too closely. There are lots of people who are highly intelligent that have not been able to access higher education for a variety of other reasons.
I'm sure, though, that higher education does lead to more questioning of religious dogma and it's likely that people who have doubts will go on more of a quest to explore the nitty gritty of religious belief. So this doesn't surprise me completely.
I did find it odd that only 40% of Catholics understood what transubstantiation was, though.
I did four years at the upper level, and I can't remember discussing atheism at all. Not once. To announce that you're an atheist is to express an extremist point of view as far as science is concerned. Scientists are more concerned about the little things, like global warming, fusion, gravity, particle physics and so on. I don't know any scientist who claims to know whether there is a god or not. If rabbits and chimpanzees don't understand the universe, why should we be able to?
Well, I was in the arts, and we didn't discuss atheism specifically. However, we did look at a lot of concepts, writing, history, etc that would lead one to question dogmatism. Remember, atheists AND agnostics seemed to know more about religions than the religious practitioners themselves. The study has less to do with belief or understanding the universe than it does with knowing religious tenets and concepts taught as dogma.
this story was pretty funny, i found the part that most people know very little about their own religions to be interesting. It seems to say they just believe it, no questions asked, even if that means they don't really know what they supposedly believe in.
And with the point about religious people not knowing anything about other religions either says to me 1. they shouldn't be throwing around accusations about other religions since they don't know much about them and 2. they never considered any other religions than the ones the people around them believe in.
That's something i've always wondered. if you believe in god, and that he "speaks" to you etc how is it that religions were so regionally specific? wouldn't there have been hindu FN's and christian africans etc?
Because regionalities have a culture and people tend to congregate and frame things to their own (ie cultures) reference?
Its only when they come into contact with other cultures can they question/develop their beliefs, especially since their beliefs will correspond to their own experience. (like no snow so no santa claus but after contact with other cultures, africa invents kwaanza)
The headline kind of gets the facts backwards. It's not that atheists go out of their way to learn about religion, it's that the more you know about religions (plural; comparative), the more likely you are to reject them. If you simply accept whatever belief-system you were brought up in, you don't need to know a great deal about it: that's the preacher's job.
If I was an atheist, I suppose I would probably try to have some basic knowledge of world religions in order to perhaps defend my extremist point of view should it be necessary. And I can imagine atheists want to defend and even impose their point of view on others not unlike religious groups knocking on doors campaigning for their point of view. But I don't think that the comparison between clued up atheists and Southern Baptists is all that revealing. Is it really religion at the root cause of their ignorance of general facts about other religions? Or are there other contributing factors? What about poverty and defunding of education systems, and lack of access to information and life chances in general?
Does it make just as much sense to say that certain religious people living in "red" US have-not states and Northern Ontario are most likely to be unaware of the fact that Hinduism is a major religion in Asia? Or that this same general group of people are most likely to believe the official CAN-AM government narrative on "al-Qaeda" led by Elvis bin Laden, hook, line and sinker? I don't think religion is a root cause of anything in general so much as it could be a contributing factor toward naivety and lack of guile in general. I think we could create a long list of contributing factors effecting general ignorance of world history and important facts. I do think there are people with axes to grind wrt religion, and much of it is political or based on their own personal experiences.
I don't have any personal beeds with atheists as long as they don't try to force their extremist points of view on me or others. I think tolerance of others and their beliefs is a good idea. Hate speech should not be tolerated imo. And it's a fine line. We don't want to someday be forced to wear the color of our cloth on our lapels all over again.
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Perhaps its because some people find it 'extremely' disturbing when others apply rational thought to issues like religion?
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Totally agreed, but many go from that statement to ridiculing and mocking the religious which would be an extreme akin to attacking/mocking gays, women, muslims, other countries etc
Totally agreed, but many go from that statement to ridiculing and mocking the religious which would be an extreme akin to attacking/mocking gays, women, muslims, other countries etc
Unlike Southern Baptists, Catholics, or Moslems who are known for their kindly attitude towards gays, women, and cultural diversity.
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Because that's agnosticism not atheism? Those people meet two doors down in room 42 every Saturday for beer and wings. I find a lot of them are clueless but not all. It's a good time though.
So if I see no evidence for the tooth fairy, the moon being made out of cheese, or that the earth is flat, then I must keep my mind open to the possibility nonetheless for fear of being labeled 'extremist'?
That kind of labeling is just a species of apologetics that would be seen as absurd if applied anywhere but in the field of religion.
Totally agreed, but many go from that statement to ridiculing and mocking the religious which would be an extreme akin to attacking/mocking gays, women, muslims, other countries etc
Ridiculing and mocking, i can see as being in the same family.
Attacking/mocking, however, is not only not a single concept, they're not even "akin" to each other: linking them in this way is setting up a false association. Good PR; bad logic. I imagined that muslims were included in "the religious", but maybe now they have an exclusive catergory of their own, like Jews. Anyway, i don't know what particular verbal response would constitute mockery, what would qualify as an attack, and what would be considered an extreme form of either. Are there any groups that it's acceptable to ridicule? What about if they attack first?
I'm not aware of a tooth fairy or cheese moon sect unless they are registered in Taiwan or the Bahamas.
No one is forcing anyone to believe anything here. Your mind is your personal property. I'm not aware of Bahais or Muslims bombing and invading any country in order to force their beliefs on hundreds of millions of others or to enslave them by an oppressive monetary system whatsoever.
[rant=bagkitty]
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Because that's agnosticism not atheism? Those people meet two doors down in room 42 every Saturday for beer and wings. I find a lot of them are clueless but not all. It's a good time though.
Where is the thread about word usage that grates on your nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard when we really need it?
Agnosticism is not about being open to reconsidering nonsense about "god" if evidence is provided, it is a philosophical position that states, in essence, one cannot have knowledge about the existence/non-existence of "god" (or any other "ultimate reality").
The etymology is quite transparent agnostos (unknown) - a (negation) coupled with gnosis (knowledge).
It doesn't mean being wishy-washy, waiting for evidence, undecided, sitting on the fence or anything similar thing.
It is not waiting for a better evidence to be presented - it is a firm position that, by definition, one cannot have knowledge about the subject at hand.
Not that one doesn't yet have the information necessary, but that one cannot have the information.
Cannot, ever.
Cannot, can not, no, not going to happen, not on the menu, unh-uh, no, no no...
[/rant]
I'm not aware of a tooth fairy or cheese moon sect unless they are registered in Taiwan or the Bahamas.
No one is forcing anyone to believe anything here. Your mind is your personal property. I'm not aware of Bahais or Muslims bombing and invading any country in order to force their beliefs on hundreds of millions of others or to enslave them by an oppressive monetary system whatsoever.
Not the Bahais, no, but Muslims certainly have had violent imperialist expansions, and the Christians are famous for it. The TF and CM sects are considered heretical and mostly stay underground during daylight hours.
American scientists are less likely than the general public to believe in God. However, it is still the case that a majority of them believe either in God or a "higher power". I'm not aware of a similar poll on Canadian attitudes. See:
http://pewforum.org/Science-and-Bioethics/Scientists-and-Belief.aspx
The really interesting part of the study, for me, is when they controlled for educational level. So when you compare atheists and believers who have the same educational level, the atheists still out-score believers on measures of religious knowledge.
I suppose you can regard atheism as extremist if you consider that the vast majority of people in the world are believers. But taken on its own, atheism is rational. No belief system has a single shred of real evidence for the existence of any dieties - when you consider the hundreds of belief systems that exist, or have existed, what is the likelihood that any of them are correct in their reckonings?
I consider religion to be a product of culture, and religious scriptures sometimes reflect deep truths about the human condition. But religions, IMV, are not reflective of anything that actually exists in the physical world.
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Totally agreed, but many go from that statement to ridiculing and mocking the religious which would be an extreme akin to attacking/mocking gays, women, muslims, other countries etc
It's not the same thing at all.
If we're talking about Christianity, we're talking about the dominant fallback, and an institution that has perpetrated a great deal of oppression over a very long time. It's like a white guy crying racism because somebody made fun of his priveleged position.
The fact is, religion is privelege. There is an expectation and demand that it be "respected" - ie: you can't say anything not nice about my beliefs, but I'm allowed to smear you because you don't agree. Come on. Most of the ridicule happens when the religious make unreasonable demands, like prayer in school and creationism in science class. Or how about inserting religious principle into law? Mocking seems to me to be a healthy way to deal with such things. Is it a bad thing to point out the absurdity of the religious communities cries for respect?
Should I have to respect Pope Benedict's assertion that child rape is okay because Jebus forgives? Is it a bad thing to make fun of that pompous old coot? I should respect the tripe Harun Yaya publishes as "science" informed by religion? Or do they richly deserve ridicule?
Unlike Fidel, I don't think most atheists give a flying fuck what religious people believe, provided they keep it to themselves. Unfortunately, because religion has held a priveleged status in our society and culture for a very long time, it flies under our radar and creeps into public habits and spaces without us even thinking about it. I think it's time we did.
[rant=bagkitty]
Why do people keep refering to atheism as extreme? it is not extreme to say "I see no evidence of a higher power, I am open to reconsidering if someone can present me with evidence"
Because that's agnosticism not atheism? Those people meet two doors down in room 42 every Saturday for beer and wings. I find a lot of them are clueless but not all. It's a good time though.
Where is the thread about word usage that grates on your nerves like fingernails on a chalkboard when we really need it?
Agnosticism is not about being open to reconsidering nonsense about "god" if evidence is provided, it is a philosophical position that states, in essence, one cannot have knowledge about the existence/non-existence of "god" (or any other "ultimate reality").
The etymology is quite transparent agnostos (unknown) - a (negation) coupled with gnosis (knowledge).
It doesn't mean being wishy-washy, waiting for evidence, undecided, sitting on the fence or anything similar thing.
It is not waiting for a better evidence to be presented - it is a firm position that, by definition, one cannot have knowledge about the subject at hand.
Not that one doesn't yet have the information necessary, but that one cannot have the information.
Cannot, ever.
Cannot, can not, no, not going to happen, not on the menu, unh-uh, no, no no...
[/rant]
But if you claim to know the unknowable, then you're either an atheist or a believer. Both are considered extremist points of view within the context of the discussion about deities and-or the lack of evidence for them.
Fidel, by the same standard you are positing in your post, all religious believers (of divinities anyway) are also "extremists" - they claim to have knowledge, although apparently it not verifiable by most commonly accepted definitions of the term.
I would suggest, though, that atheists should be considered "less" extreme -- all the verifiable information appears on our side of the divide.
It is funny that this burden of proof (proof a negative) seems to fall on us poor atheists, whereas in most instances (believers in the existence of dragons or sasquatch) it is the those who assert the existence of such creatures that are expected to take on the burden. Funny old world.
I'm glad I'm not an atheist. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madalyn_Murray_O'Hair 1919 - 1995
What a treacherous bunch.
bold added
Is this the kind of characterization we should avoid when talking about "the religious"?
Could anyone find a biography of a religious leader who has behaved as badly as this woman? I wonder, if we lined up all the - let's just choose a single religion, say Catholics - let's make it even easier: confine it to bishops and above - who have stolen from, betrayed, denounced and murdered one another, and all the atheists - rank and file included - who have done the same, which would be the larger number? Which would be the larger percentage?
Seems like the only difference between atheists and Cheese-Moonies is that the Cheese-Moonies have minority rights.
What is 'extreme' about accepting there is little to no evidence for a particular phenomena (in this case god)?
As framed by the major religions, god has definite attributes and effects. As such, the issue is not unknowable but open to scientific examination. After examining the question of whether god in the Christian, Hindu, Islamic sense exists, an atheist is someone who assigns the possibility such a low probability that it would be irrational to behave on the basis of a belief in such a diety.
As Bertrand Russell put it, I can't prove that there isn't a tea pot currently orbiting the planet Neptune, but I think the possibility is so unlikely that I can get on with my life without entertaining it as a hypothesis. Similarly, I don't lie awake at night worrying that tomorrow the law of gravity will suddenly become invalid and I'll fly off into outer space.
While I cannot definately prove god doesn't exist, but the issue is rendered almost trivial by the lack of any evidence supporting such a belief.
..... I cannot definately prove god doesn't exist, ....
How about this: The pope has not been struck by lightning.
(If he is, any time in the next seven days, i'll re-examine my beliefs.)
There is nothing "extreme" in not believing in a man in the sky. Fidel is just pissed because y'all aren't the believer he is. He cannot stand when people mock religion but has absolutely no problem mocking atheists. Just ignore it, afterall, kind of hard to take anyone serious who believes the hogwash written by a bunch of woman hating men.
TimeBandit - loved loved loved your post!
bound up with brain structure and organized bodily energy. Therefore it is rational to suppose that mental life ceases when bodily life ceases. The argument is only one of probability,but it is as strong as those upon which
most scientific conclusions are based".
And Russell devoted a whole chapter to do we survive death? His argument is based on a materialist view that the mind is a function of brain "machinery" and so must cease to exist when the brain dies. Russell believed that we are nothing but the result of purely chance outcomes of chemical reactions: "the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms." He went on to write, "Only on the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."
The only problem with this is that Russell based his opinions on what is now considered an a scientific world view that was completely revolutionized and reshapen since turn of the last century. People who argue that the human mind is simply a matter of brain function or that atomic matter is the ultimate reality are actually out of touch with modern scientific, cosmological and neurophysiological theories.
Scientists think about gravity all the time. They want to know more about this invisible force all around us.
[...]
And Russell devoted a whole chapter to do we survive death? His argument is based on a materialist view that the mind is a function of brain "machinery" and so must cease to exist when the brain dies. Russell believed that we are nothing but the result of purely chance outcomes of chemical reactions: "the outcome of accidental collocations of atoms." He went on to write, "Only on the scaffolding of these truths, only on the firm foundation of unyielding despair, can the soul's habitation henceforth be safely built."
The only problem with this is that Russell based his opinions on what is now considered an a scientific world view that was completely revolutionized and reshapen since turn of the last century. People who argue that the human mind is simply a matter of brain function or that atomic matter is the ultimate reality are actually out of touch with modern scientific, cosmological and neurophysiological theories.
Poor dear old Bertrand, he didn't live long enough to see that documentary film, Men In Black... otherwise he would have seen the truth revealed, that it is little Arquillian's inside our heads running the show. Materialist indeed!
And can I join in the chorus about Timebandit's excellent post?
The only problem with this is that Russell based his opinions on what is now considered an a scientific world view that was completely revolutionized and reshapen since turn of the last century. People who argue that the human mind is simply a matter of brain function or that atomic matter is the ultimate reality are actually out of touch with modern scientific, cosmological and neurophysiological theories..
Not that this is relevant to anything concerning the topic at hand, but I do have to express my surprise that neurophysiologists have discarded the notion that the human mind is a property of brain function.
Whether there is life after death is entirely unrelated to the question of a god's existence. Logically, there can be a god but no afterlife, and vice versa. I don't want to get drawn into that issue in this thread but suffice it to say that survival of anything recognizably 'you' after the body dies seems highly unlikely.
True, but entirely irrelevant to the point I was making.
You might be surprised with how much has been discarded since the overthrow of Newtonian atomic theory.
Betrand Russell would agree with you if he were still alive. There have been scientists since Russell though who do not subscribe to the materialist scientific world view just so you're aware.
I've learned an aweful lot about "God" from atheists and agnostics. Especially Baruch Spinoza.
He's my favourite Atheist/Agnostic Rationalist, who once said : Whatsoever is, is in God, and without God nothing can be, or be conceived.
I think that Baruch understands what Jesus the Nazarene was saying in Luke 17:21
Life after death ? Death is just a blip on our charts. There is only Life.
Everyone knows this. Or at least i thought they did.
Nobody "knows" anything of the kind. There is believing, and you're welcome to do so if it makes you happy. But in the absence of evidence, you "know" nothing of the sort.
I know everything I need to know, and you know what you need to know.
Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.
That is what is so great about babble, it attracts all the know-it-alls
And weirdos.
i'd place myself firmly in the weirdo camp.
perhaps you can explain a bit more what you mean OFFGRID by your assertion that death is just a blip. As it is, your claim is too unspecific to be able to discus it.
I used to be tolerant, even amusedly respectlful of religios people. Not any more. Now that I expect witch-burning to resume any day, I feel the need to fight back with everything at my disposal: including ridicule and calling spades spades. The gloves are off and they started it.
Well, I like what John Lennon says ....
"I'm not afraid of death because I don't believe in it. It's just getting out of one car, and into another."
but then he also said .... "The more I see the less I know for sure." -
and "I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind"
"I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky.I believe that what people call God is something in all of us" Lennon
"I believe that what Jesus & Mohammed & Buddha & all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong" Lennon
alien....
I used to be tolerant, even amusedly respectlful of religios people. Not any more. Now that I expect witch-burning to resume any day, I feel the need to fight back with everything at my disposal: including ridicule and calling spades spades. The gloves are off and they started it.
That's pretty much how I feel as well. It's funny don't you think, that religious people all scream when they feel their beliefs are being mocked, yet these same people have absolutely no problem in propping up antiquated notions of women, gays, and just about anyone who isn't straight white and God-fearing. And propping up these insane ideas is exactly what they do by attending their churches, giving money to these churches and then claiming - "oh, not my religion, we don't do that". Well hell yes you do! Every single different religious ideology thinks they are the ones who are chosen to go to heaven, everyone else is going to some other place because, oh no! they don't believe in the exact same thought system.
On top of that every single time someone feels the need to tell me, and others like me, that we are "extreme" I want to strangle them. Extreme you say? WTF are we to make of these big books that continually tell us we are fundamentally flawed (as women) and that every single thing wrong in the world is the fault of women (hello Eve!). Yes, take that big book with those ancient words and get lost!
Screw religious "tolerance". I will have no tolerance for misogynistic, backwards thinking, flat earth freaks. Look at the nuttiness the so-called Christians do every single day towards their fellow man. There is no defence for that shit. None. I don't care if your church is "enlightened", your whole religion is based upon inequality, and that inequality is the shit women, black people, native people, ....have been fighting since those big book words were conveniently translated into language we could understand.
Yes..let's all bow down for the words of the mighty and be thankful that we have anything at all, because you know, it is all God's way. Right!
I am not against all who are religious. As long as they keep their beliefs to themselves and don't try to force it on others, may their God(s) be with them. I am against those who actively try to destroy my world. Then it becomes self-defence.
I agree with that. The unfortunate thing is that for every one true Christian there are a 100 screaming to take people's rights away and instead of coming down hard on their Christian peeps, they tend to slag people for being upset with religion. No wonder people are rightfully upset with religion ( I am talking organized big religion) - it brings us wars, inequality and intolerance. All nicely enclosed in the words of the big book and thrown at us as an excuse to make us feel small.
Well, I like what John Lennon says ....
"I'm not afraid of death because I don't believe in it. It's just getting out of one car, and into another."
but then he also said .... "The more I see the less I know for sure." -
and "I believe in everything until it's disproved. So I believe in fairies, myths, dragons. It all exists, even if it's in your mind"
"I believe in God, but not as one thing, not as an old man in the sky.I believe that what people call God is something in all of us" Lennon
"I believe that what Jesus & Mohammed & Buddha & all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong" Lennon
Sure... Because being a pop musician makes one uniquely qualified to tell the rest of the world what to think... Good grief.
Your post is two things: Irrelevent and silly.
Your post is two things: Irrelevent and silly.
Plus: sad, really.
Just about as qualified as an old man in some silly robes...
I agree with what Timebandit already said about this, but I'd like to add one point: unlike being gay or being a women, or having dark skin, one chooses to be religious.
The same way one chooses your favorite sports team. Don't cry "extreme" when someone ridicules your choice to believe in the Montreal Canadiens.
"I believe that what Jesus & Mohammed & Buddha & all the rest said was right. It's just that the translations have gone wrong" Lennon
Gallup pollsters found that 53% of Canadians believe in life after death. 27% believe in reincarnation. I think much of this can be attributed to Eastern religious influence on North Americans of the last few decades. The decline of Christianity is said to be a factor in creating a spiritual vacuum filled by alternative spiritual views of people looking for answers to the most fundamental questions of all. I think there has been a decline in faith in our public leaders as well, but that's another topic of discussion.
Belief in reincarnation or transmigration of souls of some kind is one of the oldest and most common religious beliefs known. It is thought to have come to the west from India by Pythagoras and Plato, but it's found in almost every tribe and culture in the world. Australian aborigines believe it and so do Inuit of the Arctic. Belief in the afterlife is shared by the large part of humanity, including some of the best ancient and modern minds ever to consider the mysteries of our existence. Is it the case that book authors like Richard Dawkins are unfailingly correct concerning their opinions of all things spiritual, and that seven major world religions and spiritual beliefs handed down from century to century are completely in error?
Wow, what a lot of great thoughts in this thread! As for the "extreme" label for atheists, that must have something to do with being in a minority, going against the accepted social standards, eh?
By the way, Islam and atheism are gaining the most adherants these days, all over the world. I hope we will have over 50% atheists by 2050 [to coincide with the end of the world as we know it as our oily past catches up with us!!]
I appreciate what Timebandit said:
"Noah, I'd be careful not to equate education with intelligence too closely. There are lots of people who are highly intelligent that have not been able to access higher education for a variety of other reasons."
- because I admit that I was thinking that. I like to have my head snapped a bit. Still, being willing to dig deeper must have something to do with religion.
The study does hint that poor people and uneducated people are more likely to be religious, and since atheism is more common in those who question things, it seems that religious belief does tend to exist more in the "incurious" than in those who question things. But being curious is not the same as intelligence either [I think I get it?].
As for the reply that said "its ok that you are an atheist, just don't try pushing it on us", I gotta point out that that is a bit hypocritical because religions have been pushed on people all along, and even that statement suggests that I need their permission to be so "extreme". But lets not fight, I am a pacifist atheist [as most atheist are]
I have read other studies that show that atheists are generally more MORAL too. Religious people have committed some of the worst and ugliest atrocities, and the Catholics Priests are still abusing boys. I know, its not ALL religious people acting badly, and it is often about politics and not religion, but the point is that RELIGION SEEMS TO DO NOTHING TO CREATE GOOD PEOPLE.
I might have missed a few replies above, but so far it appears that only ONE other poster here is willing to say they are atheist. I think more are, but it is still a bit scary to say so - religious people can be scary at times. Peace,
If being ‘atheist’ means seeing it proven that there is no “creator” (I deliberately avoided using the undefined word g.o.d.) or "life after death", then I can’t say I am one. I am a scientist with an open mind.
However, I agree with Dawkins that it is extremely unlikely that there would be one. All religions seem so obviously man-made that it is hard to take them seriously (“if triangles had gods, it would have 3 sides”).
Organized religion on the other hand is nothing but a political club, after power and wealth.
The catholic pope was railing against ‘aggressive secularism’ which was rich from someone practicing aggressive power-lust. Besides, aggressive secularism is an oxy-moron on par with ‘violent pacifism’ or ‘blood-thirsty vegetarianism’.
Wow. that doesn't place hundreds of millions, or even billions of human beings in a very positive light at all. It kind of makes me think about the new age environmental movement that basically says human beings are a scourge of the earth. Phil Windsor spoke of culling the herd as a perfectly natural phenomenon wrt healing the planet, and apparently so that there might be more of the earth to go around for rich and powerful people. Prince Bernhard, WWF founding member, apparently dropped his Nazi affiliations in favour of pledging allegiance to pagan gods of nature.
In any event there seem to be new movements of one kind or another which tend to demonize hundreds of millions of ordinary people as enemies of their cause or another. I think a lot of it is politically motivated. The rich and powerful are pressing hard against democracy and against regulation of their corrupt business practices and their own crimes against the environment for which hundreds of millions of ordinary people are blamed for it happening by so called environmentalists who tend to pledge support to the same political parties in bed with corporate polluters.
We look for truth in every aspect of our culture and society. When we don't find truth in places where it should expect to find it, we tend to look elsewhere. Humanity needs a belief system which places human needs at the centre of its belief system. We may not have a right to exploit the earth for our own sinful ways of greed and lust of power, and I'm being generous here when I say "we", because most of humanity have not succumbed to the same seven deadly sins threatening the planet and everything that lives. It's only a few of us who violate laws of nature and general morality to extremes. I have faith in humanity and our fellow human beings. I don't think very many of us think of hundreds of millions of humanity as sheep and cattle that want culling in order to make the world a better place for an elite minority of us. I think there are people in low places, though, and who scheme and plot to do wicked things for their own gain.
Agent Jones: Only human.
Is there truth in science fiction?
Belief in the afterlife is shared by the large part of humanity, including some of the best ancient and modern minds ever to consider the mysteries of our existence. Is it the case that book authors like Richard Dawkins are unfailingly correct concerning their opinions of all things spiritual, and that seven major world religions and spiritual beliefs handed down from century to century are completely in error?
Just because a lot of people believe something does not make it true, or a valid argument.
Funny thing about Dawkins - he doesn't actually claim that he is unfailingly correct concerning his opinion on the spiritual. There's a scale that he had in his book, The God Delusion, that deals with a 7 point scale of theistic belief/non-belief:
1. Strong theist. 100 per cent probability of God. In the words of C.G. Jung, 'I do not believe, I know.'
2. Very high probability but short of 100 per cent. De facto theist. 'I cannot know for certain, but I strongly believe in God and live my life on the assumption that he is there.'
3. Higher than 50 per cent but not very high. Technically agnostic but leaning towards theism. 'I am very uncertain, but I am inclined to believe in God.'
4. Exactly 50 per cent. Completely impartial agnostic. 'God's existence and non-existence are exactly equiprobable.'
5. Lower than 50 per cent but not very low. Technically agnostic but leaning towards atheism. 'I do not know whether God exists but I'm inclined to be sceptical.'
6. Very low probability, but short of zero. De facto atheist. 'I cannot know for certain but I think God is very improbable, and I live my life on the assumption that he is not there.'
7. Strong atheist. 'I know there is no God, with the same conviction as Jung "knows" there is one.'
The interesting thing is that Dawkins puts himself at 6, not 7. He's apparently willing to entertain evidence to the contrary, and willing to change his mind if that evidence is strong enough - which is more than most religious people will.
Agent Jones: Only human.
Is there truth in science fiction?
Uh, no. If there was it wouldn't be science fiction.
I think Richard Dawkins subsribes to the con man view of reality, that there's a sucker born every minute. He doesn't know, and you shouldn't expect him to know. With respect to Dawkins' book sales, there is another saying: A fool and his money are soon parted.
Yes, Richard Dawkins really is one of the more clever of us.
Exactly what I said a few posts up.
Great minds think alike...
I think Richard Dawkins subsribes to the con man view of reality, that there's a sucker born every minute. He doesn't know, and you shouldn't expect him to know. With respect to Dawkin's book sales, there is another saying: A fool and his money are soon parted.
Fidel, how on Earth can you argue with intellectual integrity: somebody saying, openly, honestly that "I don't know for a fact, but I find it extremely unlikely for these reasons". He had every right to say that, he was honest and open to say that, his reasons were good and convincing and I admire him for saying that.
How many religious icons have ever expressed even mild doubt in a similarly honest way (don't tell me that they don't have doubt -- they would not be sane if they did not).
Fidel, I am sorry, but I am disappointed in you.
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about religion here.
"Belief" is not a matter of assenting to certain propositions like, "God is a being greater than any other." It is a way of leading your life. Many people I know in my mainstream Protestant sect wouldn't consider the question "Does God exist?" either meaningful or interesting. As Northrop Frye remarks in one of his notebooks, because God is grammatically a noun doesn't mean that he is therefore a being. He may be more a verb, so to speak.
Put it another way. Imagine you are sitting in a room and hear:"Who put the bomp in the bomp-she-bomp-she-bomp?" Militant atheists will immediately be scandalized: "What is this so-called bomp? A nonsensical projection of your needs. There is nothing in 'bomp' which cannot be explained by other, more familiar concepts, you poor deluded fools."
The rest of us will get up and dance.
Then "Belief" belongs in Sociology, Psychology or Ethics and not religion.
Agent Jones: Only human.
Is there truth in science fiction?
Uh, no. If there was it wouldn't be science fiction.
Groan. Arthur Clarke's The Sentinel(2001:A Space Odyssey) is the basis for major parts pf NASA's space program since tricky Dick was in the White House. Space shuttles? International space station? Strauss' Blue Danube? Okay, that wasn't Clarke nor the many scientists he consulted before writing the Sentinel - that was the genus of a long dead musician.
Imagination isn't truth until it has been realized.
Some imagining in the field of science fiction writing has led to things that have come to pass - in the last year I've shot some stuff that was, until recently the realm of sci-fi and is quickly becoming reality. But calling it "truth" before it happens is a stretch.
Exactly what I said a few posts up.
Great minds think alike...
Flirt!
(But how can I argue with that?)
Flirt!
(But how can I argue with that?)
I was referring to Dawkins and me!
PS. ... but I do like your posts...
There seems to be a lot of misunderstanding about religion here.
"Belief" is not a matter of assenting to certain propositions like, "God is a being greater than any other." It is a way of leading your life. Many people I know in my mainstream Protestant sect wouldn't consider the question "Does God exist?" either meaningful or interesting. As Northrop Frye remarks in one of his notebooks, because God is grammatically a noun doesn't mean that he is therefore a being. He may be more a verb, so to speak.
Put it another way. Imagine you are sitting in a room and hear:"Who put the bomp in the bomp-she-bomp-she-bomp?" Militant atheists will immediately be scandalized: "What is this so-called bomp? A nonsensical projection of your needs. There is nothing in 'bomp' which cannot be explained by other, more familiar concepts, you poor deluded fools."
The rest of us will get up and dance.
I quite disagree with you. Most atheists love to dance - I suppose not having to entertain the debate of whether or not you're going to hell for doing so loosens you up a bit...
I also disagree with your depiction of the nature of belief. Ask my SIL, a devout evangelical what she "believes" and she will tell you some very specific things - Jesus did x y and z and that's a fact. And God, with a capital G is very much a noun. She behaves a certain way based on those beliefs, but before considering the "bomp", she'd have to consult with the pastor to make sure Satan isn't involved and that it is a purely holy "bomp".
People believe in all manner of things. Resurrection, transubstantiation, heaven, hell. These are not behaviours, nor are they verbs. That's just something moderates tell themselves so they don't have to acknowledge just how cuckoo religion can get.
I think Richard Dawkins subsribes to the con man view of reality, that there's a sucker born every minute. He doesn't know, and you shouldn't expect him to know. With respect to Dawkin's book sales, there is another saying: A fool and his money are soon parted.
Fidel, how on Earth can you argue with intellectual integrity: somebody saying, openly, honestly that "I don't know for a fact, but I find it extremely unlikely for these reasons". He had every right to say that, he was honest and open to say that, his reasons were good and convincing and I admire him for saying that.
How many religious icons have ever expressed even mild doubt in a similarly honest way (don't tell me that they don't have doubts -- they would not be sane if they did not).
Fidel, I am sorry, but I am disappointed in you.
Well I should apologize here. I have all kinds of respect for Richard Dawkins. I think he is much more mild mannered than many of his rabidly atheist followers. But his reasons for suggesting that there is no god are entirely speculative.
Dawkins suggests that the existence of God would have effects in the physical universe and - like any other hypothesis - can be tested and falsified. Does anyone have any problems with Dawkins' materialist view of reality? If Dawkins really is an evolutionary biologist, does he think evolution is a law of nature that only works on this one planet among many billions of planets since creation of the universe? If that's ther case, then apparently heads of the Catholic Church are more broad minded than Dawkins and his flock who donate cash offerings to Dawkins' retirement fund.
Is Dawkins ruling out the existence of parallel worlds and other dimensions and perhaps sentient beings many billions of years more technologically advanced than ourselves? Does Dawkins believe that he is the smartest being ever to have lived anywhere in the universe? Of course he doesn't. Dawkins is keenly aware of his own material wants and needs in this earthly existence. That's what I think. Can we blame Dawkins for selling his educated opinion to thousands of people wanting to know the ultimate truth which Dawkins alone can not possibly possess?
Actually, Fidel, Dawkins has admitted that there is a possibility that life may evolve on other planets. I also don't think he's selling any "ultimate truth", nor does his audience look for any such thing. That's preposterous.
Just because you'd like there to be an "ultimate truth" doesn't mean that all of us need one.
Apology accepted.
However, any suggestion that there is a god is also "entirely speculative".
You may have your reasons to believe in one speculation, Dawkins (and many others) may find the other speculation a lot more convincing. So long as we don't go to war over speculations, everything is all right.
Gott Mit Uns
This may be the core essence of the entire argument.
Apology accepted.
However, any suggestion that there is a god is also "entirely speculative".
You may have your reasons to believe in one speculation, Dawkins (and many others) may find the other speculation a lot more convincing. So long as we don't go to war over speculations, everything is all right.
I think that the reasons for war have very little to do with religion actually. I really don't think we have anything to fear of Islam or the fact that billions of people believe in an afterlife. I said that I respect Dawkins and other scientists who incorporate evolutionary theory into their own theories of reality, like David Deutsch for instance and a self-declared atheist himself.
However, I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence from the past and present for me to believe that anything is possible with respect to an afterlife. And with that in mind, it's not much more difficult for me to have a leap of faith in a god or god like being who may have been responsible for a great many things in this universe a very long time ago. If we consider what scientists like Michio Kaku have to say about his own possibilist view of things in general, then I think there is a lot we just don't know at this stage of human evolution.
Maybe it's like the poster offgrid alluded to, that death is a natural part of the life cycle. Death could be as easy as walking through a door to another form of existence. We see transformations of life with the butterfly. It wasn't always a butterfly. Perhaps our carbon based bodies in atomic form are no longer needed at the end of the coccoon stage of life, and that part of us which matters undergoes a transmigration of sorts but not from a primary to a secondary stage of physical being but from the physical to the metaphysical. Perhaps the human soul transmigrates to another more stable form of energy of higher frequencies of energy which go on to the big dance - the cosmic dance of Shiva.
Science has reached a fork in the road. Some suggest that centurioes ago, Hopi shaman and the Egyptians prophesied this dual choice for humanity. I don't know about that. But cosmologist Larry Krauss says that one way leads to a materialist understanding of the fabric of reality. The other path "promises to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics." Which way now?
Imagination isn't truth until it has been realized.
Some imagining in the field of science fiction writing has led to things that have come to pass - in the last year I've shot some stuff that was, until recently the realm of sci-fi and is quickly becoming reality. But calling it "truth" before it happens is a stretch.
I wish religious people would just admit that their beliefs are pretty far fetched and rationally don't hold up to scrutiny, but they believe it anyways.
The problem is, they often insist it is real and that the rest of us should put up with all the by products of this belief system like abortion rules for africa, anti science views, morality laws, etc.
the problem isn't the spiritual belief in a "higher power" but the propaganda that organizes millions of people to adhere to one version or another.
Imagination isn't truth until it has been realized.
Some imagining in the field of science fiction writing has led to things that have come to pass - in the last year I've shot some stuff that was, until recently the realm of sci-fi and is quickly becoming reality. But calling it "truth" before it happens is a stretch.
A much-translated fragment attributed to somebody we can't even be sure existed is as much a rebuttal as the retelling of Jack and the Beanstalk.
I mean, it's not even original.
Apology accepted.
However, any suggestion that there is a god is also "entirely speculative".
You may have your reasons to believe in one speculation, Dawkins (and many others) may find the other speculation a lot more convincing. So long as we don't go to war over speculations, everything is all right.
I think that the reasons for war have very little to do with religion actually. I really don't think we have anything to fear of Islam or the fact that billions of people believe in an afterlife. I said that I respect Dawkins and other scientists who incorporate evolutionary theory into their own theories of reality, like David Deutsch for instance and a self-declared atheist himself.
However, I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence from the past and present for me to believe that anything is possible with respect to an afterlife. And with that in mind, it's not much more difficult for me to have a leap of faith in a god or god like being who may have been responsible for a great many things in this universe a very long time ago. If we consider what scientists like Michio Kaku have to say about his own possibilist view of things in general, then I think there is a lot we just don't know at this stage of human evolution.
Maybe it's like the poster offgrid alluded to, that death is a natural part of the life cycle. Death could be as easy as walking through a door to another form of existence. We see transformations of life with the butterfly. It wasn't always a butterfly. Perhaps our carbon based bodies in atomic form are no longer needed at the end of the coccoon stage of life, and that part of us which matters undergoes a transmigration of sorts but not from a primary to a secondary stage of physical being but from the physical to the metaphysical. Perhaps the human soul transmigrates to another more stable form of energy of higher frequencies of energy which go on to the big dance - the cosmic dance of Shiva.
Science has reached a fork in the road. Some suggest that centurioes ago, Hopi shaman and the Egyptians prophesied this dual choice for humanity. I don't know about that. But cosmologist Larry Krauss says that one way leads to a materialist understanding of the fabric of reality. The other path "promises to turn much of what is now metaphysics into physics." Which way now?
It's not about possibility, it's about probability. This fork in the road is your own construction. I don't begrudge your beliefs, but I'm not really interested in believers' speculations. A bug's development has no connection to any larger truth about death except in your imagination.
"God is the indwelling ...." Baruch Spinoza
In the Anishinabek Language we called the Sun and 13 phases of the moon "Giizis" ... When the Priests came to Turtle Island talking about "Jesus" and his 13 disciples we thought they were talking about the sun and the moons.
It should be easy to summarize what every intelligent and decent human being should agree about regarding religion.
The following are my own Ten Commandments
1. There is no undeniable proof for either belief or non-belief – both are speculative based on personal inclination and experience.
2. For non-believers, belief seems silly; for believers, non-belief seems barren
3. Personal belief or non-belief is harmless unless it stops being personal
4. Neither side has the right to aggressive proselytization
5. Neither side has the right to force the other to change their way of life solely based on belief or non-belief
6. Much harm and hurt may result from attempting 4. or 5. from either side
7. Organized religion at the highest level usually becomes a power-house, often contrary to the teaching of their religion
8. Non-belief is usually unorganized and powerless
9. Logical contradictions within religions, and between competing religions, contribute to non-belief.
10. Contradictions between dogma and action in many religious camps contribute to non-belief
Actually, Fidel, Dawkins has admitted that there is a possibility that life may evolve on other planets. I also don't think he's selling any "ultimate truth", nor does his audience look for any such thing. That's preposterous.
Just because you'd like there to be an "ultimate truth" doesn't mean that all of us need one.
But you're not arguing from a standpoint of any proof whatsoever. And Dawkins doesn't mention the reams of circumstantial and other evidence for gods or god-like beings. Hundreds of millions of people around the world have no doubt in their minds that there is an afterlife and that we have a real connection to the stars in a religious sense. Science says we have a real connection to the stars in a physical sense. We are all star dust according to science. I've already shown you that your concept of science fiction is one of disbelief first and foremost. Mortal human beans are capable of making science fiction a reality. Science fiction made real and evolution are both just a matter of time according to Arthur Clarke and Charles Darwin.
What would it take for you to believe that I have god-like abilities? Would you believe it if I were to soar into the sky above, say, a US Military missile silo and disable the weapons systems for a day or two by merely shining a beam of light down on a high security missile complex? Would that knock your socks off?
As Carl Sagan said about UFO-s: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Sorry, Fidel, I have not seen it in the link you provided.
As Carl Sagan said about UFO-s: "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". Sorry, Fidel, I have not seen it in the link you provided.
Well the US Military has a problem then. It means they have a number of crazy people managing nuclear weapons systems. They are seeing things which you don't believe.
Carl Sagan went to school with Canadian nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman. And Friedman is convinced of the evidence and that there is a massive cover-up. It's the story of the millennium according to many believers. Why would our little gods in power here in our earthly realm want to cover it up? Are they afraid that us ordinary people might not believe they are masters of the universe?
The evidence is all around us. There are eye witness testimonials dating back centuries. Paintings centuries old depict strange lights in the sky. There is photographic evidence dating back to the 19th century. There is physical evidence with radar. And there is evidence from US Government officials and whistlblowers. Some of the whistleblowers tell us not to believe in Elvis bin Laden bogeyman. And some of us have to believe in such invisible bogeymen for psychological reasons. And some of the whistleblowers are now telling us that our little gods, our earthly god wannabes are not really gods at all. I suppose some people really do have innate belief systems which are fragile and need insulating from the truth for whatever reasons. Some people are afraid of truth.
Fidel, none of that constitutes real evidence. Eyewitness testimony works in a legal context, but it's considered the weakest form of evidence in a scientific context - people draw conclusions from coincidence, try to find meaning in things that don't necessarily have connection. We're wired for it, there are sound evolutionary reasons for it, but we're often wrong, too. And people make shit up. They do it all the time, for a variety of reasons.
Like I said, believe what you like, but don't expect other people to necessarily be swayed by fantasies and wishes.
Well first you people say there is no evidence whatsoever. I've shown how wrong that point of view is. There is all kinds of evidence for god-like beings albeit ranging from mythology of old to seven major world religions, to circumstantial and even physical evidence.
So, at this point disbelievers and naysayers must take a giant defensive step backwards and resort to personal attacks against modern day witches and sorcerers pointing to the evidence. It's as Friedman says, the debunkers seem to employ four major rules:
You have to be crazy people to be in the US Military today, let alone manage nuclear missiles. No sane person could preside over mega-death.
Proof by association? Come on, Fidel, you know better than that. Show me a live or dead alien (other than myself
Show me anything other than heresay, photos, strange lights and all others that can be misunderstood and/or faked. Without that you don't have a leg to stand on.
You're just figuring that out now?
These are people who inscribe bible verses on rifle scopes.
Good to know you share a belief system with the Crusader armies.
Well first you people say there is no evidence whatsoever. I've shown how wrong that point of view is. There is all kinds of evidence for god-like beings albeit ranging from mythology of old to seven major world religions, to circumstantial and even physical evidence.
So, at this point disbelievers and naysayers must take a giant defensive step backwards and resort to personal attacks against modern day witches and sorcerers pointing to the evidence.
You haven't "shown" anything - you've asserted some interesting fantasies, that's all. That does not constitute evidence. Mythology and religion is only evidence that we hairless apes have good imaginations. For anything real, they are pathetic circumstantial evidence and they are not even close to physical evidence. Saying it is won't make it so.
I have made no personal attacks, either, so your comment is out of line.
Uh! Here comes the inquisition. Burn him he's a witch! ha ha
These are people who inscribe bible verses on rifle scopes.
Good to know you share a belief system with the Crusader armies.
Those are mostly poor Americans who have few choices or life chances but to join the military. They're in and out after a three or nine year contract as a rule and end up in the civilian economy as trades people. We're talking about career guys not enlisted men. These guys are retired colonels and leutenant colonels, captains, former US Air Force officials, pilots and even a number of former astronauts with PhDs claiming to have seen things that would, and obviously from what some babblers have said about their own disbelief, blow their minds into retreating in a defensive shell. It's heresy as far as they are concerned.
No if you view the press club video, they are all retired US Air Force officers. One of them says the US Government employs tactics of defamation and threats of firing off the job and loss of pension benefits for those daring to blow the whistle. One of the retired officers says he doesn't care about being labelled a kook by the inquisition or the babbling brigade of "debunkers." They are just reporting to the public what they were instructed to cover up. And for those babblers who've labelled me as being unAmerican a number of times before, the US Government isn't the only government involved in this ongoing cover-up of truth.
Okay, so now we're on to aliens... Why are we on to aliens?
(no offense, alien...)
Sorry, Fidel, still no hard evidence.
Nothing that could not be misunderstood or faked for a variety of reasons.
You see, I have never seen an electron in my life, but I personally ran experiments, many times, in a reliable and repeatable way, that convinced me that a subatomic particle with a specific charge, mass and spin does exist. I call it an electron.
Now, please show me something that reliable and convincing.
Okay, so now we're on to aliens... Why are we on to aliens?
(no offense, alien...)
It's part of the natural progression... god(s), aliens, unicorns then dragons.
Don't forget the witches and sorcerers!
Well I realize you people have solid credentials as well known babblers: Timebandit, "alien" and even Jingles telling me that I am crazy. And as much as I might find your arguments compelling from your anonymous babblers point of view, I must point out that there are real people with real credentials pointing us in the exact opposite direction to what you're all telling me about extraordinary phenomena. Some of the well known military officials and even NASA astronauts have confronted UN officials with their findings. Believe it or not, there are people in this world more famous and more credentialed than your good selves who believe that extraordinary things are happening in our skies above us and for a long time.
This is also what Stanton Friedman says about it. He has never observed an electron or proton up close either. Hole theory and quantum theory says they must exist though.
I've never been to Tokyo or Tuvalu. I know they exist though because there are photographs. And I trust other peoples eye witness accounts who've seen Tokyo and Tuvalu with their own eyes. At some point you have to believe that people are telling the truth. They can't all be liars and frauds, and alien and Jingles and Timebandit keepers of all truth. If you people tell me you've never seen a UFO, then I have every reason to believe you.
Okay now we're getting somewhere. Now we've come down a rung to stating, There is no "hard" evidence and not that there is no evidence. And remember, you've never seen an electron, and I've never been to Tuvalu or Tokyo.
Aliens now... Great Perforated Zombie in Heaven.
See, with god, credulity is boundless. Without god, reason and rationality exist.
I never said you were crazy. I said you hold certain beliefs in common with the Crusader armies that are currently engaging in the business of smiting the infidel. No pun intended.
Fidel, nobody called you crazy.
Maybe it is time to go back to the original topic of religion and I direct you to my "10 Commandments" in an earlier post. They are quite applicable to all kinds of beliefs, not just religious.
Do you have any argument with any of those 10? Just curious. You see, I use them as an acid test to gauge how honest, decent and/or intelligent my debating partners are.
You are certainly entitled to your beliefs (in religion, UFO-s or witchcraft) and there is no hard evidence that you are wrong either.
We just disagree about how convincing your stated reasons are.
It is back to Carl Sagan, I am afraid: no extraordinary evidence to your extraordinary claims, from where I can see it.
I suggest we should leave it at that.
On another Forum, another poster said that he is driven crazy by not knowing how the universe started.
My advice to him was (and that is where the thread ended): "Learn to live with not knowing or, failing that, convince yourself that you know the answer -- it would do no harm".
Does it matter that some of those US Air force whistleblowers and former astronauts who sometimes hallucinate about UFOs want nuclear weapons dismantling and scrapping?
Jingles, you believe in al-Qaeda bogeymen-fairies led by Elvis bin Laden. I believe you said so in so many words in another thread. And you can't provide us with any hard evidence for those official US Government claims. And yet you're here telling us that former US Government people and Air Force whistleblowers are not to be believed. Do you see the contradictory nature of your own beliefs? You tend to want to believe US Government narratives at times but not when US Government employees decouple themselves from the official story on various matters including UFOs and Elvis bin Laden. Why is that?
Stanton Friedman. And he's Canadian.
My Ten Commandments, Fidel?
Do you agree/disagree with any of them?
Please don't evade my question -- this is important if I am to continue my mostly good opinion of you.
You will find them in post #77
Okay, so now we're on to aliens... Why are we on to aliens?
Ordinary reality is boring?
Damn!
My cloak-generator must have failed!
Tentacles will be chopped off for this!!!
"2. For non-believers, belief seems silly; for believers, non-belief seems barren"
I'm not calling you silly or suggesting that you haven't bothered to look at the evidence before suggesting other people are silly. I don't know what you're claiming actually other than you've tossed around a few derogatory adjectives in this thread.
And that's a very good personal rule, alien. But in order to arrive at your ten personal commandments, you have to first ignore what other human beings have said about the issue. I don't like ignoring anybody, and neither does Canadian nuclear physicist Stanton Friedman. Friedman's a retired scientist who says people just haven't bothered to look at the evidence. And if you aren't going to address the evidence while speaking over me and everyone else, then why bother? As Friedman says, why bother with the evidence if you made up your mind already? And if you must resort to using derogatory adjectives and comments about me personally, then be my guest. But it won't add anything to your anonymous credibility in my opinion.
Thank you, Fidel, for answering.
Test completed.
As much fun as it has been to point out the absurdity of the metaphysics of the god-ridden (which is how I would characterize most of this thread), I am hoping that the probable continuation of this thread will turn its attention to the points Noah_Scape raised in post #50 - where he makes the observation "RELIGION SEEMS TO DO NOTHING TO CREATE GOOD PEOPLE".
I don't think that I am the only atheist "on-board" whose fundamental problem with the god-ridden has less to do with their assertions that their creation myths trump science as it does with their frequent assertions that they are the final arbiters of what is good/evil, or right/wrong. Since most of us aren't biologists or physicists, their metaphysical speculations don't tend to impact our immediate workaday lives - but when they move away from speculations on the origins of the universe and the age of the planet and move onto matters "moral" the impact can be profound, profoundly negative in a lot of instances.
Given that a lot of the assertions about "morality" that come out of the religious mindset have more to do with following arbitrary "revelations" - and most of the rest seem to be concerned with conditioning the "faithful" to act in hopes of a reward or refrain from acting out of a fear of punishment - I think the whole idea of "linking" religion and morality warrants a bit of a discussion.
I have hopes for the next thread...
Fidel, your first post here was to call non-believers "extremists". I don't know how much more extreme you can get in a belief in a man who created everything, who happens to hang out in the sky, and feels the need to consistently toss plagues, locusts and other evils onto a people he claims to care for. I know, maybe he has a great sense of humour.
Still, since you are a believer, do you happen to know how it was that god managed to put all the animals onto an ark? Also, do you have any opinion at all as to why these "great books" tend to hate women?
But you've said to us that you believe in the Elvis bin Laden bogeyman and al-Qaeda pixies. The feds tell you there is nothing to the UFO story. And these are they same people who've told you that they have bombed and invaded Yugoslavia, Afghanistan and Iraq in order to democratize those areas of the world.
Which of those official US and other western world government narratives is a lie? Or are they all lies? At which point are established liars to be believed? The official liars are not entirely responsible for what you think is the truth. At some point you have to choose whether or not to believe the official lies. Again, where is your hard evidence of Elvis did 9/11? You have none, and you have no evidence that the US Government isn't lying about UFOs at the same time. You want to disbelieve because that's what your god Uncle Sam has instructed you to be believe. Uncle Sam rents the space in your mind, and you're afraid to admit it.
And I never said you are crazy either. A little gullible maybe but not crazy.
How did this jump from god to 9/11? Let's get back on topic shall we? I would love to see a discussion on morality and religion. How about addressing some of those questions?
Funny thing is Fidel, no one has to believe in god in order to think 9/11 is an inside job. You do realize that right?
As much fun as it has been to point out the absurdity of the metaphysics of the god-ridden (which is how I would characterize most of this thread), I am hoping that the probable continuation of this thread will turn its attention to the points Noah_Scape raised in post #50 - where he makes the observation "RELIGION SEEMS TO DO NOTHING TO CREATE GOOD PEOPLE".
I have hopes for the next thread...
I hope you will be proven right, bagkitty, this would be a lot more important question than metaphysics is (fun as it may be for a while).
How did this jump from god to 9/11? Let's get back on topic shall we? I would love to see a discussion on morality and religion. How about addressing some of those questions?
Funny thing is Fidel, no one has to believe in god in order to think 9/11 is an inside job. You do realize that right?
9/11 and the military occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq are all based on lies and cover-ups.
This was merely a brain exercise to understand what we believe and why. Apparently some people believe some of the lies, none of the lies, or they believe ALL of the official lies.
Closing for length.