Atheism

When Mormons or JW's come to my house, I just preach to them and they usually leave right away.

Are you sure it wasn't the IRS?

Mormons=bicycles, IRS=SUV's

Candy is dandy, but liquor is quicker.

They didn't hand me the tax form. It was the spiel on their religion. I am not sure if Watchtower and Mormons are related.

I once rang a doorbell with a sign saying "**** OFF" next to it. The guy was expecting me so I ignored it.

F.O sounds like jack off which means he wants you to masterbait on his doorstep, right?

Spendius may be a little wrong in what he says but I do not think that even Spendius would do that!

I certainly wouldn't. There are few enough golden moments in a day to waste one in such a place.

Why would you want to get a Mormon drunk?

It is good to see your replies Spendius!

It is a code for, Speaking nicely while rejecting them is too slow.

It was where unbaptized babies went.
I faintly remember limbo being dismissed as a concept - I'd better look that up.
Ok, more than you wanted to know:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limbo

I know what the religious concept of limbo is. I was just playing at the notion of it being the spiritual middle class.

A
R
T

There can be no doubt that religious belief has been, in all cultures, an advantage. To contradict the assertion it is necessary to believe that mankind is stupid which is, of course, a rather easy thing to do and with the additional advantage that such an invidious distinction implies the superior intelligence of those who maintain such a fatuous position.

Such an advantage has been particulary evident in the Christian culture. Those cultures which have declined or vanished may be said to have flawed religions if no other cause of their ennervation can be found: which is unlikely, although those cultures practicing human sacrifice on a large scale probably fell victim to their beliefs as Paganism is said to have fallen victim to the confusion of 50,000 different gods.

It is evident also that atheism has never been employed to the advantage of a culture. There are no examples despite it being plain that the choice was available.

The 20th century atheistic cultures are too short-lived to draw any safe conclusions on the matter and there is some evidence that religious belief is returning within them. In the case of the Soviet Union belief may never have been absent but was merely asserted to be by the ruling party and its spokepersons combined with repression of contrary publicly expressed viewpoints. Mr Putin was present at the ceremony to inaugurate the latest leader of Russian orthodoxy. Christian churches are now permitted, if somewhat tardily, in China.

If there is no value in the distinction between belief and unbelief what does the atheist suffer in the situation which he has chosen? There are no penalties. That there was once penalties only signifies that the belief system at that time felt insecure and reacted to challenges to its authority in the normal manner of insecure institutions and such considerations do not answer to the present case. They are irrelevant now.

If there is a distinction of value the promoter of atheism needs to prove that it is an advantage for society to throw off belief and embrace unbelief totally. Casting aspersions on belief doesn't even begin to do that and is a waste of time and effort from a cultural point of view. It is a mere emotional response to try to cover up the absence of proof that atheism will be an advantage.

The idea that belief is holding back science is self-evidently ridiculous and that it is holding back education is merely an evasion of other factors which might be doing so. The relatively low salaries of teachers is far more likely to be the cause. And there are other factors such as national priorities, the interference of unqualified parents and other counter-jumpers and the idea that education has only one function.

If there is a value of belief to a culture, as history scientifically proves, then belief ought to be maintained. The undermining of the belief, without any demonstration of the cultural value of the end of belief, is a gratuitous attack on the culture itself. When such attacks are indulged those who make them know, or should know, that given enough time, their view will become accepted as if it does not undermine the culture and the moreso because the view cannot do other than get rid of religious discipline which is always and everywhere a check on individual freedom and inordinate caprice and, as such, a great temptation to resist to those who place their personal self-interest above the interest of the culture. Such a view needs to show that the self-discipline religion brings with it is un-necessary or to find secular methods of imposing it from authority. Failure to do one or the other is simply irresponsible.

If the sacrifice of the general advantage to personal feeling becomes predominant, or universal, there will either be anarchy or the general advantage of the inhibition of caprice will be maintained by laws. And caprice being what it is in certain areas, laws rigorously enforced.

In my view the light touch of the Pope is to be preferred to that of the Political Commisar who will be empowered to treat the sort of attacks on his office as are aimed at the Pope with impunity with a degree of severity which will be proportionate to the threat perceived by his or her superiors who will delegate him or her to exercise such powers as he thinks fit.

The above post is not, and cannot be construed to be, an answer to atheism or to the atheist. It is directed at the promotion of atheism and at nothing else. They are entirely different things.

A person cannot help being unable to believe. But they can help promoting unbelief and, before doing so, they need to offer arguments of its value to society so that such arguments might be scrutinised, subjected to objective critical analysis, in the name of which they often speak, and to some good, old-fashioned peer-reviewing under the severe requirements of the scientific method.

spendi, Even before I finished reading your first paragraph, I knew what followed were rationalizations about religion that is not supported by history.

In the first place, humans are not rational animals. When most humans can believe in something that has never proven to exist is not only irrational, but stupid.

That's not to say humans do not require the belief in gods, because there are plenty of evidence for that.

The mysteries of life are many, including how life forms were first born on this planet. Whether that question will ever be answered is not a panacea for belief in gods. Most humans require some form of real evidence before we believe in something/anything.

The closest we ever come to rational thinking comes from science; it must show proof that something is true.

Nobody has ever proven any of their god exists; it's a pipe dream with no redeeming value.

It's awfully kind of you to allow atheists to have their beliefs. So generous of you, spendi.

"Unbelief" does not require promoting though.

A
R
T

Not to mention that "unbelief" is not a belief at all.

When was the last time anyone saw atheists going door to door? A show of hands?