Atheism

amen.

No, Thomas. I don't care what you call Abraham's behavior. It's if you called me names for whatever I believe about Abraham or anything else that I would have issue with.

And I don't think the religious decide what's discourteous, as you describe. I think some things are self-evident - as for instance, when one person is being purposefully insulting toward another.

But Thomas does have a point that many religious people do like to claim that their belief set is exempt from the harsh criticisms which can and commonly are leveled against, for example, political beliefs. Maybe that's no you, Snood, but there are a lot of people like that out there, demanding what Thomas very appopriately describes as a get-out-of-jail-free card.

That may be true, in some cases. It does not, however, make them right. As you know, I am far from an atheist. However, that does not make my point of view any more tangible than that of an atheist. We hold to our own views and since nobody can provide absolute proof of either being right or wrong, each should simply respect the other persons right to their believe and move ahead.

I agree with much of what Snood has written as well.

Today, I worked inside the home of a woman, whom I have known for, perhaps, five years. She asked me questions about alternative healing, which I readily answered. Truthfully, I did not know much to help her condition. But, mention of how medicare does not cover any alternative solutions led to mention of the fact that there will be no rise in payment amounts in 2011. That is where she interjected her hatred of Obama and what liberal America has done and is doing to destroy America. When she reaches that point in our conversations, I revert to noncommittal replies, but essentially allow for her to get it out of her system once again. As I completed the job and prepared to leave, she produced a several page manuscript. She asked me to read it. Well, I told her I did not have time to do it just now. I was working. She sent it with me, after letting me know she intended to send a copy to Glenn Beck - It is Glenn, isn't it? So, I read it a little while ago.
She tells her opinion of how the "America haters" - who are liberals, atheists and the like - are merrily wreaking the destruction of our nation. She is short on all solutions, but one: Restore this nation to its Christian foundation of ideals and prayer. She decries the "lie" of separation of church and state, claiming we were intended by the founders and succeeding generations to be Christian in all phases of government.
You get the picture. The manuscript is intelligently prepared, too. After praising Beck and Fox, she winds down to a prayerful end.

I like this woman and I have no intention of attempting to correct her. I would not do it, even if I were not an employee of the apartment complex. I would be a pariah to her if I made my sentiments known. Such is another day in a life in which a person often feels the need to compromise, even at the expense of his own liberty.

Wow Edgar, should ascend out of here any day now....

I couldn't like a person who was so warped. Sorry 'like' is the wrong word. Respect is what I mean.

adendum to my story:
A bit later, she showed me a paper related to her health problem and I introduced her to the man who supplies my colloidal silver.

That seems fair. Now, just so I understand your position: how about other people? I have heard many pastors idolize Abraham's conduct as a moral example that believers worldwide ought to emulate. Yet according to the Biblical account of the facts, Abraham's conduct towards his son Isaac constituted a mock-execution and attempted murder. Would you therefore object if I called people unflattering names for praising Abraham as a role model for moral excellence?

Look, Thomas. Don't get it too twisted My very simple point in my initial post in this thread was that to my experience, the non-believer in a discussion about god or religion with the believer seemed to generally be the first to hit below the belt, and I wondered why that was.

I have received answers that are reasonable and acceptable to me - that its probably because that non-believer has had it up to here with having to live in a world that he sees as dominated by religious nonsense and oppression.

If you insist on an answer, I'll just say that cyberspace is a strange place where genral rules that govern civility in public don't always apply. It's probably more than acceptable here for you to call anyone anything you'd like for thinking Abraham was a moral champion. But (if you insist on an answer) I guess it'd bother me to see you call someone names for believing that way. So?

There is no way to defend religion, because nobody can produce any evidence for any god(s). It's based on mythology and hype, and nothing more. When nobody is able to prove something people believe in, that doesn't make what is believed to be true.

There is no way to accept both science and religion, because science is based on provable evidence. There is no evidence for religion. The two are not compatible.

I've found just the opposite. Living here in the Bible Belt I find about 90% percent of the population is Christian or believe in God. Such overwhelming numbers make them comfortable and rather smug in saying the most preposterous things.



When 14 kids were arrested for selling drugs at the local high school last week, the pastor explained that Satan was taking the kids from the community. He urged the congregation to petition the principal to start a prayer group in the school.

I agree that the kids are growing up without a moral compass, but I don't think it has anything to do with the separation of church and state.

In a computer forum, atheists are often seemingly aggressive. But, as panz points out, in off screen situations it's usually the religious, in my personal experience also. I try to let bygones be bygones, but they can't let it rest. But it's the fundamentalist types who are like that, for the most part. Many other religious folks don't take offense.

Do we even know the religious beliefs of these kids? Just sayin'. I mean, it seems like a irresponsible slur by the preacher to associate lawlessness with godlessness.

A
R
T

Hasn't that connection always been there? I mean, except in D.C.

I think the pre-emptive dislike from non-believers stems from the fact that the Christian fully believes the non-believer is going to hell and they're ok with that. Give them half a chance and they'll TELL you you are.

In Denmark most of us are atheist only a minority are christians or of other religious observation. We scorn christianity for it's blatant selfcontradictive ways and we consider belivers to be simple minded, naive, desperate and stupid.

There's a bit of that going around in my country as well.

are you thinking of me?

Most of us are just rolling eyes at non understanding.

snood - I can't say without bias who does the most preemptive below the belt striking. I can say that in my experience, people often respond personally to their beliefs being criticized. If an atheist is critical of a particular religious doctrine, I don't think that the believer has to take it personally. Atheism has no doctrine, so it's hard not to take it personal.

A
R
T

This Christian does not agree with that. It may be true for some, but you can't lump everybody into the same stew pot.