Atheism to Defeat Religion by 2038

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
I was talked down to about using lower case g in god. People here don't like you if you have different beliefs, kind of like what they complain about.

You weren't talked down to. I was merely trying to clarify that the Pledge of Allegiance refers to the christian god due to it being Capitalized :

Post # 948

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
I'd rather children didn't hear God (it's capitalized due to the fact that the god of the Bible is the one the pledge is referring to)in a government proclamation, yet here we are.

(it's capitalized due to the fact that the god of the Bible is the one the pledge is referring to)

I explained it further by posting this :

Post# 952

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
On the other hand, if we are referring to the specific god-concept that a group worships, then it may be appropriate to use capitalization. We can say that Christians are supposed to follow what their god wants them to do, or we can say that Christians are supposed to follow what God wants them to do. Either works, but we capitalize God in the latter sentence because we are essentially using it as a proper name - just as if we were talking about Apollo, Mercury, or Odin.
http://atheism.about.com/od/doesgodexist/a/ca...

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to tell people they're not alone if they don't believe? I hear music, see adult establishments and more every day that says no religion here. Look at the news and the crime, drugs on the streets and disrespect in schools. I'm not saying those are typical atheists, but they aren't religious. People know they're not alone if they don't believe. It takes more courage to believe.

This has nothing to do with my question. I asked how a billboard that says "Don't beleive in God? You're not alone" is demeaning?

And for the record, non religious people only make up about 15% of the population here in America :

http://www.usnews.com/news/religion/articles/...

So to say that non religious people are commiting all those crimes is a rather ridiculous claim. And before you reply please study this :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

Libertatem wrote:

it has been my experience when I have accused them of believing "God" doesn't exist, I am sometimes berated or nudged to not phrase it that way.

Let me illustrate the issue with an analogy using trust. There are people that we know well enough to trust. There are people that we know cannot be trusted. And there are people that we don't know well enough to call them either.

I don't know you well enough to trust you. Is it right to say that I distrust you? I don't think so. It's certainly not the clearest way to say what is the case. That's what I would say about people that I know are unethical - I distrust them. You would probably prefer that I described my feelings about you clearly, such as "I don't know him well enough to trust him! rather than saying "I distrust him." You wouldn't be happy if I said that they were the same, or couldn't see a difference, or used the language you didn't like and asked me not to use.

This is similar.

I don't have enough evidence to accept that a god exists. Is it right to say that I believe that God doesn't exist? I don't think so. It's certainly not the clearest way to say what is the case. That's what I would say about people that positively affirm that they reject the possibility of a deity. We ask you to say that we have not accepted any god claim. We don't like it when you say that reject god, especially those who then accuse us of coming to a conclusion without evidence - a leap of faith. But that's not my position, and I would prefer that when you discuss what you think I claim to be true, that you use language that makes it clear what it is I actually claim.

Please don't say that you can't see the difference. And please don't be one of those people who can, but just doesn't care about being accurate or misrepresenting people as much as he cares about promoting his religion by any means.

Now please look at your words again and reconsider them after having read the above. Do you see the objection a skeptic might have, and the grounds for them? And if you do, do you care? Do such things matter to you?

ilovedesigirls wrote:

not playing a sport is not a sport and "off" is not a TV channel. Not believing in a god is not a belief. Bald isn't a hair colour.

Those are some good ones. Also, health is not a disease. Transparent is not a color. And irreligiosity is not a religion.

wee honeybee wrote:

<quoted text>
You have to tell people they're not alone if they don't believe? I hear music, see adult establishments and more every day that says no religion here. Look at the news and the crime, drugs on the streets and disrespect in schools. I'm not saying those are typical atheists, but they aren't religious. People know they're not alone if they don't believe. It takes more courage to believe.

Actually, everything you described is heavily religious. Religion has a justification for it, while atheists tend to avoid doing things wrong because we do not. However, I can state from a very well rounded and expansive personal experience, all junkies abusing drugs, and even stealing money from the government to pay for these drugs, are religious. Most of them are even christian, specifically. They go to church and "pray for god's help" then get forgiven and the preachers encourage them saying "god still loves you." Disrespect in schools tends to be from the attitude of "everything I need to know I learned in church" and this also justifies their disrespecting not only other students, but any teacher as well.

If you want to generalize, at least have some real evidence to support it. Did you know that AA, a heavily religious program, has the same success rate as alcoholics just quitting? Same with NA. I know several of these people as well, when they fail to resist their addiction they just say that they "aren't strong enough without god" and pay it no matter. The secular one has a slightly higher success rate, when they fail to resist their addiction they also fess up and take the blame. You see, all information and data suggests that religion enables these things you attempt to blame atheists for, yet you generalize with nothing to back it up.

ronan wrote:

An agnostic would say: "I don't know if there is a god or not".
An atheist would say: "There is no god".

I am an atheist, and I do not say that, because I am an agnostic atheist. The following is the nomenclature being used by increasingly more skeptics:

FOUR COMBINATIONS of KNOWING and BELIEVING

If you BELIEVE there is a god, you are a theist. If you claim to know so, you are called GNOSTIC. Those who don’t believe are atheist, and those claim not to know are agnostics.

Most theists claim to be gnostic [4], that is, to know that gods exist, as do a few atheists [2]. Most atheists, like me, claim to be agnostic [1], as do a few theists [3].

[1] Agnostic atheist - Does accept the claim that gods exists, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.

[2] Gnostic atheist - Believes that no god exists and claims to know so for a fact.

[3] Agnostic theist - Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know so for a fact.

[4] Gnostic theist - Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.

This more modern nomenclature is supplanting the old schema popularized by Webster wherein there are only three categories - atheist, agnostic and theist - arranged in a linear scale analogous to small, medium and large. By way of contrast to the three in a line geometry of Webster's schema, the geometry of the above is better represented by a 2x2 square grid like Punnet square, crossing knowing (G and -G for gnostic and agnostic) with believing (T and -T for theistic and atheistic).

ronan wrote:

I have always found that self-confessed atheists try to convince others people

Why wouldn't we? For fear of being called proselytizers by theists? If so, everybody with an advocacy is a religious fanatic - every business that advertises, every charity that raises funds, and every candidate seeking elective office. That's perfectly natural, not a great insight or revelation.

ronan wrote:

mostly among the so-called intellectuals.

We do better pitching rational skepticism with intellectuals. We leave the low lying fruit to the theists because we have to. We can't compete with promises of magic and immortality in the subset of people willing to accept those promises uncritically.

ronan wrote:

Some atheists display the same fanaticism than some believers.

Did you have a point? Is that meaningful, or expected?

Hedonist wrote:

The god of the Bible / Torah / Quaran is so easily dismissed as false as to be laughable. And all of the other attributes that one would normally wish to ascribe to a deity can just as easily be shown to be absurd.

That's really the end of the discussion with regard to how one should live their life. The most important question is not the unanswerable one - is there some kind of deity - but whether we have any obligation to any god as is often claimed. That is, do we need to follow one of the religions to attain some reward to avoid some punishment?

The answer is no if we can rule out the Abrahamic gods that demand our loyalty with threats and promises. As your comment implies, we can. And that's the end of the practical considerations. There is no need to participate in any religion, and the claims of the Western religions in particular can all be dismissed as mythology or lies.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
I am an atheist, and I do not say that, because I am an agnostic atheist. The following is the nomenclature being used by increasingly more skeptics:
FOUR COMBINATIONS of KNOWING and BELIEVING
If you BELIEVE there is a god, you are a theist. If you claim to know so, you are called GNOSTIC. Those who don’t believe are atheist, and those claim not to know are agnostics.
Most theists claim to be gnostic [4], that is, to know that gods exist, as do a few atheists [2]. Most atheists, like me, claim to be agnostic [1], as do a few theists [3].
[1] Agnostic atheist - Does accept the claim that gods exists, but doesn't claim to know that none do for a fact.
[2] Gnostic atheist - Believes that no god exists and claims to know so for a fact.
[3] Agnostic theist - Believes a god exists, but doesn't claim to know so for a fact.
[4] Gnostic theist - Believes a god exists and claims to know that this belief is true.
This more modern nomenclature is supplanting the old schema popularized by Webster wherein there are only three categories - atheist, agnostic and theist - arranged in a linear scale analogous to small, medium and large. By way of contrast to the three in a line geometry of Webster's schema, the geometry of the above is better represented by a 2x2 square grid like Punnet square, crossing knowing (G and -G for gnostic and agnostic) with believing (T and -T for theistic and atheistic).

http://multiply.com/mu/scarrynight/image/5/ph...

Hedonist wrote:

Are you really just upset because you came into a forum with the word "atheism" in the title and thought you could just make up any thing you wanted to about atheists and we'd just roll over. Nope, I'm tired of being stepped on. Go away.

Bravo!

At the end of the day, after we have explained it all seventy-three ways, and we can see that not one theist has modified his or her responses one iota, we just have to abandon hope of reaching any mutually acceptable compromise or understanding as has always been the case.

The difference is that we will soon be empowered to simply make changes with or without the theists' assent according to secularist principles. They're fair. You know it. I know it. We have no duty to wait for the Christians to agree. Jesus will return before that happens.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Bravo!
At the end of the day, after we have explained it all seventy-three ways, and we can see that not one theist has modified his or her responses one iota, we just have to abandon hope of reaching any mutually acceptable compromise or understanding as has always been the case.
The difference is that we will soon be empowered to simply make changes with or without the theists' assent according to secularist principles. They're fair. You know it. I know it. We have no duty to wait for the Christians to agree. Jesus will return before that happens.

The fundies don't realize that their attempting to be dishonest is actually helping to betray their ignorance to the point that more people are shedding the weight of the myths. It's pretty cool actually, the more they argue with us, the stronger we get. Not many "types" of ideas get that privilege.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Why wouldn't we? For fear of being called proselytizers by theists? If so, everybody with an advocacy is a religious fanatic - every business that advertises, every charity that raises funds, and every candidate seeking elective office. That's perfectly natural, not a great insight or revelation.
<quoted text>
We do better pitching rational skepticism with intellectuals. We leave the low lying fruit to the theists because we have to. We can't compete with promises of magic and immortality in the subset of people willing to accept those promises uncritically.
<quoted text>
Did you have a point? Is that meaningful, or expected?

Poor old Ronan! Left school at 16, pulled himself up by his bootstraps, a minor capitalist who now believes he's one of the "conservative" elite. He dos'nt understand the meaning of "interlectual"! But! He pontificates about any subject.

The Voice wrote:

No lawsuits are brought forward to force religious expression, yet Athiests constantly sue to restrict religious expression.

You say that like it's praise for the theists. They don't need to sue us. We deny them nothing that they are entitled to, which is freedom to worship whatever they choose, in any way they choose that isn't criminal, and wherever they are welcome, which always includes their homes, privately owned businesses, and places of worship at a minimum.

But any more than that is too much. You don't get to plaster your religion over the commonwealth, which I mean in the most literal sense of the word - the parts of the country owned collectively, like the monuments, courthouses, and the currency. And you don't get to use the government, the schools or the law to promote religion.

Sorry. It's not negotiable with secularists. And when we have majority status, we'll scrub all mentions of your god from our oaths, pledges and currency. Your religion doesn't belong there. It offends me to see "In God We Trust" on my money, because I'm part of "we," just as it would offend you to see "We Don't Believe In Any God" on the money.

And it embarrasses me, too, the way that seeing "In Smurfs We Trust" or "In Santa We Trust" would embarrass you.

My experience is that not one single theist in all of Christiandom gives a crap what non-Christians think about any of this. You only care about what you want. Message received. The consequences are that we will simply make the changes when we can without your assent. And you will be free to do whatever it is you do in your own private space. Most of us don't care what people like you believe, as long as you keep it out of the lives of unbelievers.

I really doubt that any of us would mind, for example, if you dipped a chicken claw in goat's blood, hammered it to your bedpost, and danced around it all night in the nude while howling at the full moon if that's what gives your life meaning, moral grounding, and a framework for understanding the universe. Go for it!

But you may NOT nail your bloody chicken parts onto the courthouse wall, or try to prevent gay people from marrying because the chicken doesn't approve. And you'll have to live without seeing the chicken's name on the money or in the Pledge.

madscot wrote:

<quoted text>
Personally everytime I recite the PoA I say "one nation under a mf'ing groove".

Have I shared my version with you?

Gun nation,
Plunder, fraud,
Withered liberty,
Adjust us for a fall

Very Cynical Person wrote:

I have been very tolerant until the religious attack, and then all tolerance is out the window. Most of us here have been through this so much that we at times start off on the attack.

Remember that there are two or more ideas of tolerance all going under the same name, and you needn't respect them all.

Religious tolerance in the political sense just means that people are free to worship as they see fit without fear of governmental persecution. Christians have that in America, and will still have that even after their god has been removed from the public domain (the pledge, the currency, the monuments and government buildings, the law books), and their church is compelled to pay its fair share of taxes.

You don't have to pretend to respect religion or faith to be tolerant. And you don't have to be any friendlier or any more accommodating to theists in these threads than you feel is appropriate. This is a public forum and includes unbelievers. Many theists have never dialogued with unbelievers about these topics anywhere else, and are accustomed to being treated with deference, as in church or at the dinner table. And they are shocked at our posting. You hear non-stop blow back about your bad manners and your hate of god and all Christians.

We've all tried to explain until we're blue in the face, but it doesn't help. The Christian remains ethnocentric and rebukes you as the demon filled enemy of God and country. Eventually, you just don't care what they believe. And fortunately, it looks like we don't need to. Eventually, unbelievers will attain majority status in America, and we can just make those changes without Christian approval. They're fair, notwithstanding any whining about hate, persecution, or intolerance.

The other thing about advocating tolerance is that we don't mean that we will tolerate anything. We don't tolerate crime, and we don't tolerate intolerance. We tolerate the tolerant - not the intolerant, and we don't let our intolerant enemies call us hypocrites for so doing. That is not hypocritical. What we want is a mutually tolerant society. Those that don't agree or that can't play nicely will not be tolerated.

It's no more hypocritical than saying that we advocate for a peaceful, nonviolent way of life, but will take up arms to defend or restore that status.

abe wrote:

<quoted text>You do not understand what is to be poor. You should be force to live among them for a year. Lot of these people are very fine people, just down on their luck, sickness, deaths in family accidents and no insurance. as in the rich and famous, their is always some that are running a scam. a lot of these people worked many years and paid in taxes, medicare and social security. Their are many reasons for them to be on welfare and you are not in a position or don't want to be where you know what is going on. You seem to hate poor people. I was poor growing up. I lived in a shotgun house with no electric, no running water and my Father farmed. when the crops were laid by, he went to pipeling. Later years, after getting a steady job, he did carpentor work sometime till midnight on his work days. We were poor, but we had plenty to eat, my father, his father , his mother, my mother, his brothers, his only sister worked too. He worked day and night and got us out of poverty. and we lived fairly comfortable after that. Also we had good neighbors. Everyone helped each other when they needed help. now days their are too many people like you that don't give a d... about anyone but yourself. Now sir, you have a good nite, if you can.

Does being poor mean you could not learn to read and comprehend? As for the poor and me hating them, your wrong, I just hate your ability to understand english.

abe wrote:

Ps; lol in a suit.we as a family did not have a suit and we also went to church. In my opinion, God was their for my family. How bout that now.

Good for you, and you understand just like a christian.

havent forgotten wrote:

<quoted text>You totally misread his comment, too bad. He phrased it in highclass indirect language, and not in the down to earth personal experience language - but you are not on opposite sides.

Thanks HF for trying to explain to numbnuts. The bible has f*cked up his/her ability to understand the written english word.

ilovedesigirls wrote:

<quoted text>
They do NOT start on an equal footing. It's survival of the fittest. Only those with good genes will get to mate. Anyway communism doesn't work. It's been proven time and again.

There are many alternatives in between all out social darwinist capitalism and communism. Neither of those extremes works out well for society as a whole. Either of them benefits a very small group at the expense of the remainder of society. In general, the solution to the problems created by one extreme is seldom found in running to the opposite extreme.

Capitalism naturally tends to monopoly, with great disparity in wealth. The end stage is not competition, but the stifling of competition. We can see this in many industries today. The corner pharmacy and hardware stores have been crushed by the large chains. Chain restaurants have put many independents out of business. Wherever Wal-Mart goes in, small stores on Main Street die.

Historically, capitalism has been modulated to blunt this tendency, starting with Teddy Roosevelt and the trustbusters, and FDR's New Deal. Likewise, in Europe, capitalism has been alloyed with socialist features to mitigate its worst excesses. The current conditions suggest that some further tinkering is needed to reign in the worst excesses of the financial industry, moderate the income disparity, and check the political power of wealth.

LOL in a suit wrote:

<quoted text>Does being poor mean you could not learn to read and comprehend? As for the poor and me hating them, your wrong, I just hate your ability to understand english.

Being poor did not hinder my education. I got my high school diploma. Got my college degree. went through many other tech schools. by the way, I really did not know i was poor till i was a grown man. Almost everyone around us was in the same shape. Almost every neighbor would come to your help without being asked to do so, if you needed it. That is not true today. You do not know what you are talking about. I was never hungry a day in my life. when i was you my father raise the food., and we enjoyed life, which most people do not today. More hate is building up every day. Now sir , you have a good day.