Atheists... Your life is pointless

I think I understand where you are going with this...

Do you think this is a good thing or bad thing? And why do you think it is?

Not sure I was going anywhere with it, really. Just thought I'd mention it. But now that you ask, the current (outgoing) prez is a hard-core Protestant, and he's very underhandedly used his powers to give Catholics and Buddhists a hard time. For example, the government put up signs for tourists to show the way to landmark churches, but conveniently "forgot" to put up signs for temples and Catholic cathedrals. The woman who's leading the race, Park Geun-hye, has already met with the leaders of every major religious group here, so I think she'll at least be more fair and maybe even active in promoting peaceful relations among them.

Sorry mate...I had percieved that you thought it was a good thing, because it was a nice change?

You are happy this may happen?

I just think people in power shouldn't abuse their power by imposing their religious biases on the public. That's about it. Fair and impartial government for everybody, regardless of religious affiliation or lack of it. The current administration failed miserably at that.

I agree with you...I don't think that a religious affliation should decide how you would act with this power...Because then you may be forced to do something you may not even think is correct...yourself...And it is deceptive...Because those things should not have any effect on the job the leader is doing...itself...And if they are elected in by people because of those things...It doesn't say much for the country or nation...To elect someone in because of those things...Then they are not even doing a good job as a leader...Because these self descriptions, or things they abide by, or conform too...but may not represent them, are hindering them...And do not help in any sort of way...So there really is no reason for them to self promote those types of things...Because it then creates biases from both sides, people who agree, and do not...before they even are in power...And makes things much harder to succeed...And demonstrate etc...

However, I guess one could argue that if you were able to do this, and succeed it was that much stronger...And real...But I do not like to work against the grain myself...

And like to take the path of least resistance myself...most of the time...

My next question would be do you think there is a fair and impartial goverment to believers if the president is an atheist?

I don't see why not. An atheist would have to appeal to all the constituency, not just his/her favored group(s). Half the country is religious, the other half not. She couldn't afford to piss off half her voting base. And anyway, there's no sign that she's actually anti-religion. She just doesn't have one of her own. I remember reading something about some of her close relatives being Christians and the others being Buddhists. That's not uncommon over here. Really, for the most part, people over here don't see religion as a topic to be argued about. There are a few exceptions, of course. There are a few evangelical Christian groups who have burned some Buddhist temples over the past few years.

I did not mean to perport that you think the same ways that I do...But I agree with your premise...

I am sorry if it felt like I was saying that I agree with you, because we both see it that way...

I too, am trying to root my misunderstandings...

In the interest of balance and orderly thinking there are a lot of Buddhists who are ethnically cleansing Islam from parts of Burma and burning villages. I saw a Buddhist monk interviewed on a news programme justifying the action.

I think Christians have been persecuted in China and the Soviet Union by atheists and Christians are persecuted by Islam in Africa.

Do you think you have any bias against Christians because of these evil actions?, Because you were once a Buddhist? Even though I would say that evil is evil anyway you try to break it down...

Just trying to see if I understand you correctly...

This is a good point...Can you explain to me how you think that atheism is not an anti-religion? And is actually a lack of belief? Or none?

I have a general bias against people hurting other people. but I do try to distinguish between the behavior and the people. I'm against the behavior, not the people.

I do consider spreading ignorance and superstition to be ultimately hurtful behavior, though not intentionally hurtful. And as for those fundies who occasionally burn Buddhist temples, well, I don't have much affinity for Mahayana Buddhism in the first place. I was ordained in the Theravadin tradition in Thailand. Mahayana has superstition built into its official doctrine, but in Theravada people are free to be as superstitious or as skeptical as they see fit.

As for what it means to be an atheist, you just have to ask each person what they mean by it. Some are militant anti-theists, others are pretty much apathetic about religious beliefs, and that makes them atheists. Some take it to mean that they have no beliefs about it at all, while others are more active in asserting that there is no god. Atheists debate about this among themselves, even.

I assume they do that to avoid debating rules for behaviour so that they can pretend to be engaging in significant discussions when all they are actually doing is flapping their tongues at the air.

Thank you for that understanding...I agree that people hurting people is wrong...Doesn't matter who they are, or what they believe...

Second part...Do you think you have bias that it may have not been such an evil thing because you were not apart of that type of Buddhism? But were a believer, or lack of believer for the other side?...(Theravadin) not (Mahayana) I am sorry mate...But I do not know how I would fully explain that...But I am trying my best...And am trying to word it in a way that I understand you, and you will understand me...I do apologize...please tell me if you did not understand that...

Last part...I appreciate that incite you gave...And I have to say you seem to have given the best explanation any atheist has ever given me when I have asked them that question...

But I have to be honest about it...I still think that atheism is ultimately a belief against Gods...And not a rejection...

And still don't understand how some say they don't have any...Because I can't seem to understand how if some say they have none...How they do not realize they would be unsure about Gods?

Basically I am saying that (in my opinion) if someone believes none exist...Or does not believe any exist...they still have a belief that none are there...As a lack, would imply they do not know or are unsure about their opinions of Gods...themselves...But I do think that some people honestly think that they don't have any...And do not express their dispositions against any living God...

But that is just the way I see things...And I could be wrong...

I agree with what you are saying, in some ways...If they did not have a belief, or believe in the morality they say is harmful...Or religious practice...

Then there really is no reason to debate theism's or atheism...itself...and I agree with you...It is just wasted energy...

Why would someone want to become an intellectual about something they don't think exists? Or have no beliefs about? I can't seem to find a reason why they would want too do it...

It is to get the Church's sexual regulations off their backs. Obviously. Dawkins is on his third "wife".

I am not so sure that it is just because of sexually related things like you think...Spendius...That is why I said I agree with somethings you say...but not all...

I can't really say that I agree that it is because they want to be able to sexually fornicate (according to Christainity)

Or that is the reason why Dawkins had 3 wives....

But I would have to say that I agree that they seem to want this morality...And have luxeries because of it...

But claim it is wrong...And some say that believers are evil, or are distorted...And some say this God is evil...

And I think it is a denial thing personally...

And an ego thing...

And a lack of submission...Cause it is demeaning or something...

Not fully sure...

I need more time to process why I think they actually do this...

But you certainly could be correct about what you claim they do it for...

As opposed to praying?

Hmm. You used that word "evil" in a couple of questions to me. That word does not compute with me. I don't think there's a molecule in the universe that isn't where it "should" be (by that, I only mean that everything obeys natural, not supernatural or metaphysical, laws). That said, some things are healthy to humans and other things are unhealthy. If Buddhists had burned churches, I would feel just as strongly that it was unhealthy, unskilled and counter-productive behavior. But not "evil."

Two wrongs don't make a right? If they are intellectuals, and understand that they think praying does nothing...Why do something, or be interested in learning about it? If it is for nothing? What is the point?

Man, there's just no way I could represent all atheists' views on this question. There's just way too much diversity of opinion. Sorry.