# IQ & Religion are religious people stupid



## Pablo

The red one is the USA

Country / Percent who say religion is very important / IQ

Angola 80 69
Argentina 39 96
Bangladesh 88 81
Bolivia 66 85
Brazil 77 87
Bulgaria 13 93
Canada 30 97
Czech Republic 11 97
France 11 98
Germany 21 102
Ghana 84 71
Great Britain 33 100
Guatemala 80 79
Honduras 72 84
India 92 81
Indonesia 95 89
Italy 27 102
Ivory Coast 91 71
Japan 12 105
Kenya 85 72
Mali 90 68
Mexico 57 87
Nigeria 92 67
Pakistan 91 81
Peru 69 90
Philipines 88 86
Poland 36 99
Russia 14 96
Senegal 97 64
Slovakia 29 95
South Africa 87 72
South Korea 25 106
Tanzania 83 72
Turkey 65 90
United States 59 98
Uganda 85 73
Ukraine 35 96
Uzbekistan 35 87
Venezuela 61 88
Vietnam 24 96

According to these stats religious people are either stupid or American, make of that what you will.


----------



## suz

Haha, interesting stuff. Where did you come across this?


----------



## Guest

Makes sense to me.


----------



## CECIL

I notice Australia didn't fit on that graph since the average IQ is well over 110 

It makes sense though, the smarter you are the less you need people to tell you what to do. Or at least you subject yourself to other forms of brainwashing which are slightly more believable >_<


----------



## Pablo

I got the info from here http://paulsen.home.netcom.com/iq_vs_religiosity.htm , to be honest I dont usually pay much attention to stats but this one made me laugh, I suppose the higher your IQ the more you question things and the more questioning the less religion can stand up as a valid concept, its interesting America bucks the trend though. Im not sure why Australia is not on there, maybe they have a policy of not including criminals in their stats


----------



## sebastian

I find this graph dubious at best, and certainly not a valid indicator of the intelligence of so-called "religious people." One would automatically infer from this data that low IQ=religious outlook, but there are a myriad of extraneous variables which are so conspicuously absent from the data.

First of all, the IQ test is obviously biased as I find it hard to believe that several African countries have average IQs far below that of the western countries (where the test was undoubtedly designed and therefore biased in favour of). Remember, IQ tests measure intelligence, not education...but even if it was a graph relating education to the importance of religion in one's life, I would still refer you to my following two points:

1. If you have nothing...if you're in a desperate situation, like a great deal of the population in several of these African countries, you have little else to do other than search for food and work and visit the local church, which is probably helping out in some way in that community as well. Therefore, more exposure to religion but little exposure to education...ergo, more inclined to be religious.

2. Western society is consumed by...well, consumerism. There is so much going on in the world in terms of technology, multimedia, globalization, etc, etc. that there is a tendency (possibly to the overall detriment of mankind) to simply "not have time" for a serious assessment of one's own relationship with God...or even themselves. It's simply easier to just ignore religion until they get old and desperate.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that it isn't so much that religious people are stupid, but that there are more poor people in the world than there are rich people. Those poor people don't have the same access to schools but they would have access to religious material (ie. churches, bibles, etc.). And these poor people, being more plentiful, naturally bring down the average.

I'd be interested in seeing a similar graph showing IQ again but with the question being: "Do you believe in God?" I'd be willing to bet that the chart would reflect a relation inverse to what we see displayed here. Or better yet, take a sample of say, 1,000 people of similar educational background but across a cultural divide and pose the same question. I know that amongst my friends and colleagues, there are probably as many people who believe in God as don't. And we're mostly university educated and quite quick on our toes intellectually.

In my opinion, true faith is a personal and spiritual thing that has nothing to do with intelligence.

s.

p.s. I was having a conversation with someone today about James Woods and how his IQ is supposedly like 182 or something. Apparently, he also has an enormous penis, but that's quite beside the point.


----------



## Anla

Hi,

I suffer from dp because of extreme mistreatment by an employer. For several years, I lived in a fog. Presently, I am able to "act as if" normal, have a job, etc. My biggest complaint is faded out emotions, which keep life and relationships from being fun anymore.

One of the best books I ever read was written by a person who died, went to be with God, was revived (she had died in the hospital after an operation), lived many years after, and before she finally died of old age, wrote a book about her experiences.

The idea of the book was this: God creates us, we choose our mission on Earth, and come here for that purpose. We attempt to fulfill our mission as long as we are here.

Anla


----------



## Guest

Self propelled mission? So many choices? so little time? feel as if my steering mechanism has broken and I find myself going round in circles.


----------



## Pablo

Darren said:


> Self propelled mission? So many choices? so little time? feel as if my steering mechanism has broken and I find myself going round in circles.


huh?


----------



## Guest

Sorry that was me typing bull shite... doesn't happen often :roll: :lol:


----------



## Rozanne

Anla said:


> The idea of the book was this: God creates us, we choose our mission on Earth, and come here for that purpose. We attempt to fulfill our mission as long as we are here.
> 
> Anla


You've just reminded me that my purpose in life is like my degree....you can only study one thing at university, my life degree has been chosen. Now I need to work out what it was that I chose to do. Blast. Now this is going to take some working out. Isn't that a trick. Turning up to the university of life knowing that you are doing something, but forgetting which course you are subscribed to.


----------



## Guest

piRsq. said:


> You've just reminded me that my purpose in life is like my degree....you can only study one thing at university, my life degree has been chosen. Now I need to work out what it was that I chose to do. Blast. Now this is going to take some working out. Isn't that a trick. Turning up to the university of life knowing that you are doing something, but forgetting which course you are subscribed to.


Hmmm....Yes, its quite the conundrum ........... :shock: *Realizes he has no clue as to what he is doing here and quickly subscribes to various courses*....  :wink:


----------



## CECIL

piRsq. said:


> Turning up to the university of life knowing that you are doing something, but forgetting which course you are subscribed to.


Don't worry, most of us a pretty clueless when we first enroll 

Have you heard of the Return of Saturn?

Spiritually speaking, it is supposed to represent the time in your life where "Saturn comes back around" and sets you on the right path. i.e. If you were not currently on the right path, then shit goes wrong in your life to set you back again. If you are already on the right path, its smooth sailing, otherwise its a hell of a time.

I'm turning 25 this year, so I figure I should get my shit together now  But if I don't, then in a few years time I'll know I'm not where I should be.

Also, I still don't think its a co-incidence that I'll turn 30 merely weeks before the supposed end of time, in 2012


----------



## Fant?me

CECIL said:


> I notice Australia didn't fit on that graph since the average IQ is well over 110
> 
> It makes sense though, the smarter you are the less you need people to tell you what to do. Or at least you subject yourself to other forms of brainwashing which are slightly more believable >_<


Yeah right. Australia smarter than Japan?


----------



## Dreamer

*:shock: What a horrible statement and misleading graph. And then humor, mocking of people that you don't know or understand.*

OMG, I have been avoiding posting for a while, trying to take a break, but this subject heading made me fume.

*"IQ & Religion are religious people stupid". I have never heard of such a crass thing in my life ... IMHO. Well, there's other coarse language and whatnot on the board which is truly irritating to me, but good grief. What an arrogant and ill-informed statement.*

Sebastian responded thoughtfully on this:



sebastian said:


> In my opinion, true faith is a personal and spiritual thing that has nothing to do with intelligence.


And agreed, *Pablo* the statistical chart you displayed includes countries where lack of education ON ANY TOPIC, the need to simply survive, or governments that persecute religious freedom. The list ... and I don't recall all that's on it, includes mainly developing countries, and "stupid" in the case, reads (FOR ME, IMHO) as a racist statement as well -- and you find this HUMOROUS. You obviously have NO CLUE about the living conditions in these countries.

It would seem Westerners are not "stupid" in this manner, and yet again the number of intelligent people in this world are not all anti-religion or athiesits!

Oh, and we forgot that the U.S. is disgustingly religious aren't we? I know plenty of intelligent people who have faith and who don't. And that includes doctors, lawyers, scientists, writers, actors, musicians, etc., etc., etc. Do you know that Bono is Catholic or definitely Christian I believe. U2 is actually a "Christian Rock Band" in disguise. I don't find Bono an idiot. Kinda like the guy.

I again bring out my trusty pie chart and refer you to

http://www.adherents.com (I hope that's correct). You will find list upon list of "intelligent" people who have Faith, and that would include people from other countries on Earth. The UK, Australia, Canada, and the US and Europe are not the only countries on Earth!









*This would note all the "idiots" worldwide.*

So this entire group of people are "idiots"? And again, look at the site, there are a myriad of intelligent, educated individuals who have some form of Faith or religion.

I agree w/Sebastian that if the question were "Do you believe in God?" the statistics would be different, but also that chart is purposely skewed to nations who are in the claws of death -- wars, famine, despotic leaders, disintegrated governments, etc.

Do you see the pie chart? Does everyone here really think that there is only "the West?" living in the world? And other intelligent people in other countries have "religion and Faith?" What an absolutely, ignorant comment, IMHO, IMHO. But really.

*And also, IQ serves basically one important purpose, it is important only in terms of the lowest and highest end of the scale. It is best used in assessing the potential of a young child. If a child has an extremely low IQ rating ... one must be concerned about how to deal with that child's future ... what that child is capable of accomplishing, and how that child can be educated to fend for him/her self if possible.

On the other hand, a child with an extraordinary IQ -- and I doubt anyone here fits that -- well this would be a child who could graduate medical school at age 15. The question would be how does said young person fit into the world socially, etc.*

How arrogant as well for people to mention their alleged "IQs" here. What do these numbers mean. Even those with less education or indeed lower intelligence contribute greatly to the lifestyle you enjoy.

*IQ is only one measure of POTENTIAL, and is neither a guarantee of success in any field, and is separate from education, nurturing by a family, etc., etc., etc.*

OMG, I'm sickened by this. Had to post. I wish there were a smiley that indicated "fuming mad".

Stunned :shock:
Dreamer......

Who is not a person of Faith per se, not believing in a God, but who doesn't and can't understand the nature of the universe. I wish I could find Einstein's quotation about his POV on faith, etc.

And perhaps there is something to be said for age and wisdom. Education and wisdom is more important than IQ. These come from experience, education, interaction with other people, even travel to other countries. And even then very few are truly Wise.


----------



## Dreamer

Story about Albert Einstein and Faith.

I have this in an old journal I dragged around in University! I clipped this out of something, a magazine of some sort.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Accustomed to attacks by shortsighted theologians, Einstein took the occasion of a letter from a New York City sixth grader in 1936 to set the record straight. The child wanted to know if scientists pray. Einstein's answer:

-----------------------------------
'Scientific research is based on the idea that everything that takes place is determinted by the laws of nature, and therefore this holds for the actions of people. For this reason a research scientist will hardly be inclined to believe that events could be influenced by prayer ...

*[But] everyone who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe -- a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.' "*

- Albert Einstein -
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would say, at mininum though you cannot say Albert Einstein was a man of Faith, he was a wise man. (Excuse me he was Jewish per a list below) - Judaism is more focused on living now, in the present, than looking to Heaven, etc. But it has many rituals that bond people together) This is how I would state my feelings about the nature of science and religion/spirituality, why I call myself A-Deist, and agnostic. And I am all for religious freedom.

Religion can be both constructive and destructive in society. And Faith based religion isn't our only problem. It is when it becomes fundamentalist, as any form of political (or other system) can as well. And in the case of Islam right now where many governments in the middle east are Theocratic, true. There is no separation of Mosque/Government.

But now we are shaking in our boots over Russia again. Is Putin a man of Faith? I honestly don't know. I don't think so. But this isn't the reason he poses a danger to *Europe* in particular at this time -- he could easlily bomb the Hell out of Europe, and would it matter if he were a man of Faith or not? If he were a secular man or a religious man.

Putin is angry with us again that we want to beef up DEFENSE, not OFFENSE. And part of that DEFENSE is to protect Europe.

His motives are not religious (as are those of Fundamentalist Muslims who are disgusted by Western consumerism.) I don't know enough about Putin, but he is moving back towards his true religion of Communism as I see it.


----------



## Dreamer

*Just for the Hell of it .... a list of idiots, lol*

From http://www.adherents.com

*NOBLE LAUREATES in Science, 20-21st Century*

Albert Einstein____Nobel Laureate in Physics____Jewish

Max Planck_______Nobel Laureate in Physics____Protestant

Erwin Schrodinger_Nobel Laureate in Physics_____Catholic

Werner Heisenberg_Nobel Laureate in Physics____Lutheran

Robert Millikan____Nobel Laureate in Physics__probably Congregationalist

Charles Hard Townes__Nobel Laureate in Physics___United Church of Christ (raised Baptist)

Arthur Schawlow___Nobel Laureate in Physics____Methodist

William D. Phillips___Nobel Laureate in Physics____Methodist

William H. Bragg____Nobel Laureate in Physics____Anglican

Guglielmo Marconi___Nobel Laureate in Physics__Catholic and Anglican

Arthur Compton_____Nobel Laureate in Physics___Presbyterian

Arno Penzias____Nobel Laureate in Physics_____Jewish

Nevill Mott______Nobel Laureate in Physics______Anglican

Isidor Isaac Rabi__Nobel Laureate in Physics_____Jewish

Abdus Salam____Nobel Laureate in Physics_______Muslim

Antony Hewish	Nobel Laureate in Physics	Christian (denomination?)

Joseph H. Taylor, Jr.	Nobel Laureate in Physics	Quaker

Alexis Carrel	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Catholic

John Eccles	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Catholic

Joseph Murray	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Catholic

Ernst Chain	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Jewish

George Wald	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Jewish

Ronald Ross	Nobel Laureate in Medicine and Physiology	Christian (denomination?)

Derek Barton	Nobel Laureate in Chemistry	Christian (denomination?)

Christian Anfinsen	Nobel Laureate in Chemistry	Jewish

Walter Kohn	Nobel Laureate in Chemistry	Jewish

Richard Smalley	Nobel Laureate in Chemistry	Christian (denomination?)

Too many to fix the chart.


----------



## Pablo

Dreamer said:


> *:shock: What a horrible statement and misleading graph. And then humor, mocking of people that you don't know or understand.*
> 
> OMG, I have been avoiding posting for a while, trying to take a break, but this subject heading made me fume.
> 
> *"IQ & Religion are religious people stupid". I have never heard of such a crass thing in my life ... IMHO. Well, there's other coarse language and whatnot on the board which is truly irritating to me, but good grief. What an arrogant and ill-informed statement.*


Hey chill out, it is obvious that nobody has taken the graph or this post totally seriously, "There are lies, damn lies and statistics" I know that religious people arent stupid and it was posed as a question rather than a statement so I dont really know why you are calling a question designed to create a debate as arrogant? how can a question be arrogant? If you are referring to what I said to Cecil about Australians as coarse language then you dont understand the banter which goes on between the English and the Aussies because im sure Cecil was not bothered by it and if he was then im sure he would have let me know or given as good as he got.



> And agreed, *Pablo* the statistical chart you displayed includes countries where lack of education ON ANY TOPIC, the need to simply survive, or governments that persecute religious freedom. The list ... and I don't recall all that's on it, includes mainly developing countries, and "stupid" in the case, reads (FOR ME, IMHO) as a racist statement as well -- and you find this HUMOROUS. You obviously have NO CLUE about the living conditions in these countries.


I say that people with low IQ are stupid (which I know is provocative) and you turn that around and twist it so that it is suddenly a racist statement: GET A LIFE!!! , I was expecting to get torn to shreads on this thread, but you and I both know it was not meant as racist.


----------



## Dreamer

*Pablo, how in the world is anyone supposed to take that subject heading? Really now. :roll: You aren't stupid are you?*

Also, other threads here state things like:



> [religious people....] are for the most part totally insane.


Lovely -- that was someone else, but the subject heading itself wasn't provocative from the get-go. It starts with "religious people...."



Pablo said:


> I was expecting to get torn to shreads on this thread, but *you and I both know it was not meant as racist.*


OK, racist again was the wrong word ...see my comment re: racist below. It struck me as racist. That is the wrong word. But how do I know what YOU think? I already have figured you for a bully. I may be right/I may be wrong, but I don't know you from Adam and you don't know ME.

You said it. You expected or wanted this to be provacative. I responded with anger at the way you presented this concept.

Sebastian was more calm about the whole thing, but he was correct. Yes, I fly off the handle now and again.

And calling others "stupid", I'm assuming you are not religious or of some Faith, and have a "high IQ" ... this isn't arrogant, or somehow bullying in some way? You are like a provocative child on a playground. I'm merely stating my POV. I was truly astounded by that subject heading. Your comment wasn't even in the body of the post.

*I don't care about what you believe in or what you wish to debate, it's the way you STATE something, not the concept behind it. And you give crappy statistics, without an understanding of their meaning to back up your statement.*

You could have posted, "Is there a correlation between intelligence and Faith?" The word stupid is completely unnecessary and really means, nothing except as an insult.

Racist, I've used that before in the wrong context. Racists isn't really the correct word, but it is insulting/insesitive. I'll take back racist, but found the countries of course non-Western ... and of course... aside from the US ... that would mean these are people of "less value?" People to laugh at. As people here have. Have a little respect.

No, you aren't capable of it, or you wouldn't have posted this.

*


Pablo said:



I say that people with low IQ are stupid

Click to expand...

.

So.... you must be right! Do you go into an Alzheimer's ward and yell, "You people are all stupid!"

Brilliant and empathetic statement! You are equating functioning/productive potential with a word that isn't used to measure anything in sociology/education, etc. "Stupid" is meremly a pejorative term. You then equate low IQ and stupidity with those who are religious. Tremendously scientific of you!*

And I am NOT referring to anything/anyone in this thread as being coarse, or any particular person. I merely stated that on this board there are individuals who come off equally insulting, puerile, and irritating, and they don't bother me as much as this particular statement at this moment.

You provoke, then tell me to "chill out." You got what you wanted. Or are you stupid? Low IQ? Religious?

*All I'm thinking of, in my mind, is a little boy on a playground throwing dirt at other kids and yelling insults at them. He then gets kicked in the head and says he didn't do anything.*

Nothing I can do about it. So why the HELL did I post.
Idiot that I am.
Somethings just get MY goat. *YOU chill out and live with it, you wanted to get a rise out of some idiot.*

Some people here simply irritate the Hell out of me. I don't understand you. Other people here, are .... human beings.
D


----------



## Guest

You're both right and wrong... which means you're gonna get into a loop argument.

All I gotta say is... "Never eat yellow snow"... *Shrugs*.


----------



## Dreamer

I'm ending it here, but how in the world are we both right and wrong Darren? About what? :?


----------



## Pablo

Well if you actually read what I wrote I said: "*According to these stats* religious people are stupid" , I was simply summarising what a large proportion of people would conclude from looking at the graph, I was taking a viewpoint and expecting a debate, I more or less just presented the info without much interpretation from me. I didnt say "this is proof that religious people are stupid" and now you are trying to twist it again and saying that I am trying to be a bully :roll: anything else you want to accuse me of while we are here.

You patronize me and call me a child but if you think that accusing me of being a racist and a bully without anything to back it up is a more mature way of dealing with things then maybe you should take a look at yourself as you are the one throwing the personal insults not me.

Anyway I feel bad arguing with you Dreamer because I like your posts so I am sorry if I offended you.


----------



## Guest

You're both human... and so you're both right and wrong in the sense that you both make mistakes while trying to prove your points.

*Meow*.



Dreamer said:


> but how in the world are we both right and wrong Darren? About what? :?


----------



## CECIL

Fant?me said:


> Yeah right. Australia smarter than Japan?


Yeah you're right there. I've really gotta give it to Japan - after reluctantly surrendering in WWII and having sanctions imposed on their military, they simply decided to take over the world in another way. Now they are one of the forerunners as far as technology goes and they are making a killing. Very good move IMO.



> Maybe they have a policy of not including criminals in their stats


Whoops I missed that one Pablo. Good call and no I don't take offence


----------



## brandon is not taken

sorry to revive a dead thread, but i just read it now. three points i want to make.

First of all, the average human IQ is 100 by the very definition of IQ. That graph seems to suggest an average IQ much below that. What is that about???

Second, I do feel that education and intelligence are inversely related to religous beliefs. Flame away, but i am standing by this.
Look at the history of humans. We used to have a god to explain every thing we couldnt understand. A god to control the sun, a different one to make the wind blow, etc etc. As science progressed and found the *real* cause of these things, the need for religion diminished. We use "God" to explain what we are too stupid to understand.

Third, I strongly believe that IQ has a direct relationship with penis size. (ok just kidding about this one)


----------



## Rozanne

Thankyou Dreamer...even for the trusty pie-chart. I am going to read all of your posts later because this is such an ignorant thread itself.

IQ is a different function to religious experience.


----------



## Martinelv

I was going to ignore this thread too, until I read dreamers 'appeal to authority' arugment - i.e, just because a few noble prizes winners are religious...then..........GOD MUST EXIST!!!!!!!!

Also - you misquote Einstein outrageously. He did NOT believe in a personal god. NOT NOT NOT. He was Jewish by BIRTH, that's all. Which also, in a way, invalidates the pie chart. How many people are catagorised by their parents faith, and hencefore, forever more, amen -labelled 'christian', 'muslim', or whatever. And I wonder how many of them actually don't believe it ? If you actually ASKED the people concerned, I think you'd find that there are a lot less religious people than your pie-chart suggests.

But anyway, I also don't think IQ has anything to do with whether you believe in god or not. Some of the most outstanding thinkers are religious, and some of the most dribbling idiots are too.


----------



## brandon is not taken

Martinelv said:


> I was going to ignore this thread too, until I read dreamers 'appeal to authority' arugment - i.e, just because a few noble prizes winners are


ahh...taking me back to my old logic class. I wish i could remember all the different catagories of fallicious arguments (ie appeal to authority). It would be so useful when i am arguing with people.


----------



## Dreamer

Martinelv said:


> I was going to ignore this thread too, until I read dreamers 'appeal to authority' arugment - i.e, just because a few noble prizes winners are religious...then..........GOD MUST EXIST!!!!!!!!
> 
> Also - you misquote Einstein outrageously. He did NOT believe in a personal god. NOT NOT NOT. He was Jewish by BIRTH, that's all. Which also, in a way, invalidates the pie chart. How many people are catagorised by their parents faith, and hencefore, forever more, amen -labelled 'christian', 'muslim', or whatever. And I wonder how many of them actually don't believe it ? If you actually ASKED the people concerned, I think you'd find that there are a lot less religious people than your pie-chart suggests.
> 
> But anyway, I also don't think IQ has anything to do with whether you believe in god or not. Some of the most outstanding thinkers are religious, and some of the most dribbling idiots are too.


That was NOT my argument. My argument was that if people who believe in God are stupid (I HATE that word) than a great deal of the world is "stupid" including extremely scientific and intelligent people.

And I NEVER said Einstein believed in a personal God. He said he didn't pray. He was not a man of Faith but he saw amazing things in the complexity of science. You missed the point!

I am simply saying a statement that says "All people who believe in religion are stupid" is not true. And those who don't believe are evil and unproductive. That isn't true either! It's a broad simplification!

The statement makes no sense!

Misinterpreted again. Sigh. :roll:


----------



## Dreamer

Make a gross generalization such as this and you get my porcupine spines up. :?

Those of faith, ALL of them are not stupid.
Athiests, ALL of them are not evil.

FUNDAMENTALISTS of any ilk are the people to worry about, and people who don't think about the nuances of things, who make gross generalizations and don't see things are extremely complex. You can't put people in boxes!

This is like saying, "No woman is capable of holding an executive position" and "No man is capable of taking care of a child."

Absurd over-generalizations. Approaches to everything in life are UNIQUE.

We are UNIQUE, we are not all wrapped into one ball. OMG, I hate misscommunication like this. :?


----------



## Dreamer

"Stupid" is not a word used in debate. It is meaningless. I made my point earlier.

And I believe after studying this recently that I am an atheist -- someone who simply doesn't believe in a God or Gods. That is ALL it means. Nothing more or less. It doesn't mean (like Einstein) that I don't believe in the grandness of Nature/Science and how small we are in relation to all of the galaxy.


----------



## Dreamer

Pablo said:


> Anyway I feel bad arguing with you Dreamer because I like your posts so I am sorry if I offended you.


Thank you. I've said what I wanted to say. And Roz, yes, appreciate your comment.

Damnit, Martin, you misinterpreted what I said!

We can't "talk" on a forum. It's impossible.

ARRRGGGGGGHHHHHH.


----------



## brandon is not taken

Dreamer said:


> I am simply saying a statement that says "All people who believe in religion are stupid" is not true. And those who don't believe are evil and unproductive. That isn't true either! It's a broad simplification!


I don't believe anyone ever made this statement. The study in question took averages throughout a population. This is the nature of how statistics work. It doesn't claim to apply to every single person.

For example, we could take a scatter plot of poverty and drug use, find a relationship, and then superimpose a regression line. The line would show that drug use correlates to poverty. Does that mean every poor person is a drug addict? No, far from it.

Now how valid this data pablo posted is another question. It depends on how the survey was conducted really.


----------



## Dreamer

obsessivebrandon said:


> Dreamer said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am simply saying a statement that says "All people who believe in religion are stupid" is not true. And those who don't believe are evil and unproductive. That isn't true either! It's a broad simplification!
> 
> 
> 
> I don't believe anyone ever made this statement. The study in question took averages throughout a population. This is the nature of how statistics work. It doesn't claim to apply to every single person.
> 
> For example, we could take a scatter plot of poverty and drug use, find a relationship, and then superimpose a regression line. The line would show that drug use correlates to poverty. Does that mean every poor person is a drug addict? No, far from it.
> 
> Now how valid this data pablo posted is another question. It depends on how the survey was conducted really.
Click to expand...

*Agreed, I'm sus about the information, but my original reaction to this post was that statement ... IQ and Religion, are "stupid" people or "idiots" more religious?*

I was trying to indicate in some of my statististics and informatio that the whole concept of that is absurd, regardless of the data that was provided.

IQ has nothing to do with it. I noted the purpose of IQ which measures _potential._

*I also noted that if people with religion or faith are "stupid" -- not just referring to that original graph -- that would mean that most of the world is full of "idiots".*

I don't know the statistics on THAT. I can say that a great deal of people in this world are not well *educated. But to counter that, I noted that there are educated, intelligent/highly educated people who DO believe in God, or at least have philosophical discussions about it, or respect Nature as a "greater power", a "mystery" to one degree or another., etc.*

That was my point from the beginning.

I see how that got turned around. I was just stunned by the subject heading which seemed so ... uninformed, and a generalization. This is all far more complex than that.

*And again, spirituality, the need for that in people's lives is important, and not always corrupt and destructive. The same is to be said for non-believers; many who do not believe in God can contribute very positive things to society.

I just hate the word "idiot" or "stupid" I guess. And the graph refers to countries that are in serious trouble socially, economically, etc.*

What stunned me is I read today in the news that we, here in the US, OUTSOURCE tutoring; home tutoring for kids in math, reading is expensive and the public school system stinks. Kids are getting tutored, through computers by teachers in INDIA who have M.A.s and Ph.D.'s.

Astonishing. That doesn't mean that all people in India are brilliant, and it doesn't mean that all children in the US are lacking in intelligence. In the US students are lacking in parental involvement, enthusiastic teachers, and have no respect for authority -- a social ill we have to address.

OK, this is really fascinating to me at the mo. Religion, Faith, etc. I am currently reading a book of essays on Atheism which has given me an understanding on the subject which is far more in depth that a simple generalization. But again, this is the limitation of the internet. This should be a discussion -- in person. This would be a graduate school class.

*No offense to anyone. As I said I go porcupine now and then. But again, the word stupid or idiot would never be used in a constructive debate; I felt offended by that subject line. Pablo knows my stand on that. And I have no hard feelings, but I still disagre with that .... word!*
Forgive,
D


----------



## Dreamer

*Re: Einstein. I did not take his quote re: prayer out of context. And I found a fantastic new book. I swear I want a degree in philosophy - but what would I do with it? No money. So I'll find discussion groups. I really enjoy this stuff! Saving this for another writing project.*

At any rate:

*Einstein: His Life and Universe*
Walter Isaacson
2007

Chapter Seventeen
Einstein's God
Pages 384-393

General info: As a child in a secular Jewish household who later attended a small Christian school he became religiously fervent. He adhered to all Jewish rituals and rules -- shabbat, Jewish holidays, no pork, etc.

He subsequently rejected his religious fervor until over the years he became more amazed with the workings of the universe.

He has been considered a "Deist" -- Martin don't laugh -- that there was something that set the universe in motion but does not judge us as good and evil, interfere in human affairs, however ever he calls himself a Determinist, and doesn't believe in free will, which is what Jews believe in.

Again, I am more Jewish, more occupied with the "now", not the afterlife. And this illustrates, as you note, that not every person born into a religion is a believer in God. Some attend Synagogue without a believe in God as a "fatherlike" figure. However the research conducted has been followed up by other studies.

**Also, side note, Einstein never failed math as a child. That is an urban myth or legend.* - I believed that myself. Einstein found that rather amusing as he had made it into Ripley's Believe it Or Not for that, lol.
*
----------------------------------------------------------------
*Questions posed [by George Vierek - descendant of Nazi sympathizers!] and Einstein's answers:*

Q: "To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?"
A: "As a child I received instruction in both the Bible and the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene."

Q: "You accept the historical existence of Jesus?"
A: "Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life."

Q: "Do you believe in God?"
A: "I am not an atheist. The problem is too vast for our limited minds ... We see the universe marvelously arranged and obeying certain laws but only dimly understand these laws."

Q: "Is this the Jewish concept of God?"
A: "I am a determinist. I don't believe in free will. Jews believe in free will. They believe that man shapes his own life. I reject that doctrine. In that respect I am not a Jew."

-------------------------

"Throughout his life, he was consistent in deflecting the charge that he was an atheist; 'There are people who say there is no God ... but what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views.'"
---------------------------
*Einstein - in a letter to a friend:*
"The fanatical atheists are like slaves who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who - in their grudge against traditional religion as the 'opium of the masses' - cannot hear the music of the spheres."

-------------------------------------------------------------------
His belief in a God who is a father-like figure was the result of "childish
analogies"

A: [To a long question, lol] *"You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional athiest whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination in youth ... I prefer the attitude of humility corresponding to the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and our own being."*

-----------------------------------------

*Einstein*
"Science can be created only by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding ... This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion."

*"The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."*

[I love that quotation! -- I think someone else used it as a signature here.]
-------------------------------

Q: "Do you believe ... that humans are free spirits?
A: *"No I am a determinist. Everything is determined, the beginning as well as the end, by forces over which we have no control ... human beings ... [he lists everything from insects to stars] ... we all dance to a mysterious tune, intoned in the distance by an invisible player." *


*Einstein:*
"The most important human endeavor is the striving for morality in our actions ... [in a letter to a minister] ... Our inner balance and even our existence depend on it. Only morality in our actions can give beauty and dignity to life."


----------



## JaoDP123

When will atheists stop pretending to be the 'enlightened ones'? Nearly every great thinker has believed that some supernatural power is behind the universe (einstein, newton, plato, socrates). Modern science has deemed the conditions of earth to have transpired from conditions so exceedingly unlikely that many scientist are at least deists. The OP's graph simply illustrates that when a nation becomes more educated (an IQ test is not an objective tool to measure this) it is less likely to believe in a god. If a graph were to link people with high IQs to enormous cheese ownership, would it be right to own a lot of cheese?


----------



## Dreamer

> If a graph were to link people with high IQs to enormous cheese ownership, would it be right to own a lot of cheese?


LOL.
Yes JAO, you said what I'm trying to say, but with far less rambling -- I am the renowned sp? rambler.

Info and statistics (even my religious pie chart) is meaningless out of a greater context. In reading more on this further, you come upon incredible complexity and conflict of opinions among extremely intelligent people.

There are many "types of athesim" for instance from "hard line to weak". And as we all know the variations within any religion are multifold. Catholic, Protestant, Unitarian, Methodist, etc. and in the Jewish faith, Hassidic, Orthodox, Reconstructionist, etc.

I find this fascinating. Damnit, I wish I were young enough to go back to university. Also wish it were easier to read and concentrate.

No actually, the only wish I have is to get rid of this chronic DP/DR. All I want. And to have some love in my life.


----------



## Martinelv

> When will atheists stop pretending to be the 'enlightened ones'? Nearly every great thinker has believed that some supernatural power is behind the universe (einstein, newton, plato, socrates). Modern science has deemed the conditions of earth to have transpired from conditions so exceedingly unlikely that many scientist are at least deists


Without trying to offend, that is one of the most utterly wrong statements I have read recently? Atheists are 'enlightened'? How so? Do you know what Atheist actually means? It's about as far from enlightenment than Sydeny is from London. Do you know what Atheism is? I very much doubt it. Jesus H Christ on a bike.....no.......this is ridiculous...I'm not going to bother. Not actually I will, but this is so uttertly, utterly wrong. Does it surpsise you that Newton, Plato and Socrates where religious? All those hunderds/ thousands of years ago. They were steeped in religious dogma as was everyone else at the time, and especially much more recent philosophers such as Kant - who was a Deist, at BEST! He was just loyal to his 'tribe' his church. But he considered the core of religious belief as bunkum. And you really, really think that most contemporary scientists are deists? :lol: I'lm gong to come back this afternoon to prove you otherwise. Off the top of my head, there was an exhaustive study recently of emminent scientists, and they were asked certain questions about whether they have faith, to what extent.....and, again, off the top of my head, about three of them; Pinkerton was one of them, and the Physicist Abraham Pais.

Dreamer, when I get the time - probably this afternoon, I am going to rebut every single one of the quotations you wrote about Einstien. And it still intrigues me, as you describe yourself as a agnostic/atheist...why you do this, and defend the religous crazies? Is it because you just want a fair and balanced discussion? If so, why do you only take the side of the religious? Or you just want us to get our facts straight?


----------



## Dreamer

:lol:

Martin, you are a devil, but I do agree with your dissatisfaction, 8) ? can't find the correct word, with JAO's comment. In my current reading, and damnit, I'm at the library right now and this computer keyboard is horrible at best ...

with JAO's comment that "atheists think they are enlightened" .... I think he was unhappy, gathering again that those who wish to assume full knowledge of the universe fancy themselves to be "100% correct" in their views.

In that sense I again agree JAO is perhaps referring to the FUNDAMENTALIST who says, "atheism and the abolishment of all religions will solve all the worlds' problems" I disagree with that. Also I believe an atheist has every right to express that this is his her belief. But for me it only defines me in terms of a philosophy of life, or a belief. I do not have a "religion" of atheism. A religion of atheism would be like Mary Stanton ? forgot her name, who dedicated her life to spreading the word of atheism -- that is a RELIGION, almost evangelical.

I digress... I have to press so hard on these keys I'm tired, LOL....

OK, AGAIN:

From my wonderful book of essays on Atheism ...

No scholar ancient or otherwise (and I agree) has NOT debated this and attempted to prove a theory of the existence of some "higher power" or disprove it in some way.

Bottom line with Einstein, from reading the Einstein biography (so far, it's 8 million pages long) which uses HIS OWN WRITINGS or lectures, or interviews, his POV is he is a determinist, and for the love of God "on a bike", I can't articulate it 100%, but he truly believes there is no FREE WILL, hence there is something of a PLAN in the universe. A PLAN, a determining force, would indicate something greater than ourselves.

Also, I've decided to call myself both atheist and agnostic for the following:

1. ATHEIST, no GOD, means ONE THING ONLY -- it means someone doesn't believe in an anthropomorphized God such as Jesus, Allah, Zeus, whatever. I do not believe in such a thing. I've determined I'm very clear on that. And that would also imply I do not believe said God has any business in our affairs.

To the best of my understanding, from reading the philosophy of atheism, and Einstein's thoughts recently, Einstein likewise did not consider himself an atheist. The definition THERE is differeint and I think incorrect. He was fighting the STIGMA of not having faith in a traditional God. And I mean a God as delineated by the Great organized religions. He was always defending himself against being called an atheist, and defending himself against antisemitism.

2. AGNOSTIC - means one does not know the answers to the complexity of the universe. As it is impossible to PROVE the existence of "some higher power", it is likewise impossible to PROVE the NON existence of a "higher power."

In this statement, I do NOT define "higher power" as a DEITY of any sort. I could say, I might have a sense of something "greater" than we can comprehend. What it is I don't know. I don't know if "it" created the universe, I don't know if (and doubt it has any affect on the choices we make - hence I disagree with Einstein. I believe we have FREE WILL. He does not. I believe however that humans are hard-wired by evolution so that I could even debate that with MYSELF.

If we are indeed hard-wired in many ways -- how can we have FREE WILL?

Also I don't believe in the Devil (which would reflect my atheism), and "good" and "evil" being influenced by this "higher power."

3. RELIGIOUS - means only ONE THING. It means having a set of rituals and ways of living. It

OMG, I have to take a break.

It means for instance, and Judaism is a better example, that one can go to Synagogue, have respect for the ritual (as a good number of my friends do) and STILL not take it to another level wherein it is clear that there is a GOD, Yaweh, etc.

The ritual of the Synagogue or the CHurch is a way of giving one some sense of order/community/philosophy of life.

In this sense, and I SWEAR THIS, a political world view is also a "religion". There is such a thing as "Hitlerism" -- a world view, and Hitler also called himslef a "Neo Paganist" whatever the Hell that is.

And you will fight me the death on this, but one could especially say that someone who lives one's life completely dedicated to saving the environment --that is his/her religion. And it may include a near spritual reverance of the Earth or Nature -- sort of Native American Indian (though I don't know a lot of that culture and I should) -- but the RELIGION is RITUAL (not the SPIRITUAL part of things).

Ritual would be being 100% vegan, growing one's own food, having a solar home, walking to work, not owning a car, recycling, composting, doing everything possible to avoid polluting the earth.... RELIGIOUSLY. That is a valid expression.

"They religiously recycle every can, bottle and bag in their home."

BUDDHISM which is ATHEISTIC (Buddha is NOT A GOD) still is full of ritual. It is a religion.

It involves meditation, mindfulness, a mindset. Perhaps the practice of yoga on a DAILY basis. Going to a Zen meeting group on a regular basis, etc.

OK, I'm done with this, my hands are breaking and the screen is too small to see what I'm doing.

I'm just saying, I am only beginning to understand these things.

But for instance I don't believe in an afterlife. Idon't believe in reincarnation. But I don't know what the Hell we're here for. Maybe there is meaning, maybe there is not. I need some sense of the spiritual ... see the TLE thread, which may be hardwired. It is a comfort. BUt I am not looking to Jesus for that, I am looking at the mytery of Nature, the Universe... and even if we aren't alone on this planet.

And then on the other side, I think we probably do die and that is the end. I don't WISH to believe this. This is TOO hard line for me.

And again personal Spiritual belief is everyone's right, as is the complete rejection of Spiritual ANYTHING in one's life.

I don't believe it makes anyone better or worse, only the EXTREMES which occur really out of political climates as I see it.

Really, I don't have all the answers on this. And still have more research.

OY, this keyboard, LOL.
L,
D


----------



## Dreamer

A religion merely means "a philosophy of life", how one lives one's life following a set of beliefs that one doesn't stray far from. This is daily ritual. It has NO connection to a God or Spiritual Faith.

I guess I don't have a religion either, particularly since my life is not at all what I'd planned it to be. But I believe in continuing my education until I die. To learn new things. To be a decent human being. And to try to help educate people about mental illness.

I am also rebelling, as I have said many times, against my mother's sheer misanthropy, her hatred of humanity, her patients, herself as well, her weaknesses -- HER atheism which she spoke of at dinner parties and embarrassed those of Faith on PURPOSE, members of my family. She loved to note her superiority in this way as she was a physician who "knew everything". She even had a Devil worshipper party. I kid you not.

She thought the guy was bullshit but thought it was a great idea for a party. I wasn't allowed though to join in.

On my 13th birthday a witch, a real practicing witch, speak at my party to my girlfriends, read their future, etc. My mother did this for SHOCK value. And I think after that most of my girlfriends' parents (even those who had no Faith or particular beliefs) didn't allow my friends to stay over at my mother's house at MINIMUM.

She hated men, she hated weakness, she found Faith idiotic though she was raised a Lutheran. She rejected that after her confirmation, or perhaps far before that.

I cannot go to that extreme. I cannot be that arrogant. My father was a doctor, and when he was dying, he was frightened. I knew it, I saw it, and he had no specific Faith, though I'm not 100% sure on that. But he wasn't Chrisitan (didn't believe in the Bible, etc.). He wanted "comfort" and I couldn't give it to him.

They were both scientists and both miserable people.


----------



## Fant?me

Well obviously a scientist is more likely to be depressed. They're realists who aren't living in a fantasy world with magical bearded men who watch over them. Ignorance is bliss bla bla, but its also weak and selfish.


----------



## Dreamer

Fant?me said:


> Well obviously a scientist is more likely to be depressed. They're realists who aren't living in a fantasy world with magical bearded men who watch over them. Ignorance is bliss bla bla, but its also weak and selfish.


Fantome, you haven't read any of the posts in this thread. That is NOT the case.

I know plenty of doctors (too many), and a few scientistst, and have read about more who are very happy people and many are spiritual.

Again, you are making a HUGE generalization. You aren't even considering Muslims who are scholars, Indians (from India, lol) who are scholars/scientists. I'm not just talking about Christianity or the West.

Key problem with my parents is they were both mentally ill. My father was depressed, OCD hoarder-clutterer, anxious. My mother was ... no one knows -- paranoid, narcissistic, she had no friends only colleagues.

Again, there are many of my parents' friends/collegues who had Faith in God.

Well, you haven't read the thread. And Faith and SPirituallity fall into so many different categories. But these people see the miracle of life, the complexity of illness, the success of saving a life -- doctors are indeed (not all) facing questions of life and death daily -- my father especially as a surgeon.

And all people can have mental illness. It is equal opportunity. It is all over the world -- the impoverished and the wealthy, the educated and the uneducated, etc., etc.

Your statement again, IMHO, is simply too simplistic, and you ignore the uniqueness of each of us.

Well, you didn't read the thread. At minimum.


----------



## Fant?me

I didn't read the thread because I wasn't commenting on the whole thread but one of your points. Hrm well obviously Hindus don't believe in a Christian god. Should I have mentioned Vishnu, Shiva, Allah, etc or should I have generalized all of these deities into the symbolic _beardy floaty man_? I fail to see how any of that matters.

Whether or not religion instills a sense of security and happiness is not my point. My point is that it is based on myths and not fact. SO SORRY if thats redundant and doesn't fit into this already generic conversation.

Maybe i'll read the whole thread if you care to be a bit more concise.


----------



## Guest

I fail to see why Fant?me was banned in the past. :roll:


----------



## Dreamer

fantome said:


> Well obviously a scientist is more likely to be depressed. They're realists who aren't living in a fantasy world with magical bearded men who watch over them. Ignorance is bliss bla bla, but its also weak and selfish.


I'm not attacking Fantome, I'm saying again, the whole point is missed. I mentioned my parents who were doctors who were miserable, but that doesn't mean that all doctors are miserable, that all scientists are miserable and that all scientists see reality and aren't Spiritual.

It just seems like we went back to square one. The whole discussion had covered these issues.

I wasn't attacking. But again, there are scientists who are also Spritual, who believe in God, so that theory doesn't fit.

Sigh, I think I give up though I want to hear Martin's response.

Forgive.
D


----------



## Fant?me

My father is a doctor and my mother an RN. My mother is on the outskirts of Christianity, born Catholic, and my father a deist. They're not particularly happy but not necessarily unbalanced or depressed. I don't necessarily think thats the point. One can die with questions and I think they should. Any _answer_ just forfeits the right response. The right answer being that that there is none. I know its a paradox but its the only one I respect at the moment. Sorry for not reading the entire thread but I really don't have the time. I'm an angry person so don't take make take on the debate personally.


----------



## JaoDP123

Martinelv said:


> Without trying to offend, that is one of the most utterly wrong statements I have read recently? Atheists are 'enlightened'? How so? Do you know what Atheist actually means?


Athiest aren't enlightened: it is how they wish to be seen. Don't be idiotic by asking me if I know what Atheist means. Let me tell you what enlightened mean because it's obvious you don't understand.

enlightened - wise through knowledge; free from prejudice

Athiests often fancy themselves as intelligent rationalists, an enlightened group above of the 'religious sheep'. It is strange to me that you have never seen enlightened used to describe atheists. Anyway, I guess my point is that Atheists insist they are intellectually superior to believers, hence the subject of this thread.



Martinelv said:


> It's about as far from enlightenment than Sydeny is from London. Do you know what Atheism is? I very much doubt it. Jesus H Christ on a bike.....no.......this is ridiculous...I'm not going to bother. Not actually I will, but this is so uttertly, utterly wrong.


What is this crap. Why are you typing out your shitty mental dialogue? However, I am pleased that you ultimately decided to take the time to share your wisdom with a nitwit like me who has no clue what Atheism is. Thank you, I hope I can learn something from you.



Martinelv said:


> Does it surpsise you that Newton, Plato and Socrates where religious? All those hunderds/ thousands of years ago. They were steeped in religious dogma as was everyone else at the time, and especially much more recent philosophers such as Kant - who was a Deist, at BEST! He was just loyal to his 'tribe' his church.


It is funny that you admit that Newton, Plato and Socrates where geniuses yet you feel that they lacked the competence to challenge dogmas. You are free of religious dogma, yet have nothing in terms of intelligence compared to the names above. It is silly to believe that they did not examine the beliefs of the time and hold to what they found true.



Martinelv said:


> And you really, really think that most contemporary scientists are deists? :lol: I'lm gong to come back this afternoon to prove you otherwise.


I don't like how you misrepresented my argument. I said that many scientists are at least deists. You are a rat for doing that.



Martinelv said:


> Off the top of my head, there was an exhaustive study recently of emminent scientists, and they were asked certain questions about whether they have faith, to what extent.....and, again, off the top of my head, about three of them; Pinkerton was one of them, and the Physicist Abraham Pais.


There are many renowned scientist who are agnostics/atheists. They believe that the world will explain itself if they continue to uncover natural laws. They are mistaken in that they hope to follow the chain of cause and effect back to a state of the universe which required no cause. Unfortunetly, this is inconceivable. For every answer science yields ten more questions are raised. If you would take the time to read some books on cosmology you will begin to understand why Hawkings and Einstein are deists, as well as many other cosmologists.

On top of that there is always the argument "why is there something rather than nothing?"

I have hundreds of arguments for the existence of god and if you would to continue please do respond.

btw Einstein was a deist. I really would like to see your evidence proving otherwise.


----------



## Martinelv

This is absolutely awesome. Awesome. Although I warn you my friend, by forgetting your christian charity and being personally abusive, you run the very real of getting this thread locked, which I really don't want to, because apart from your 'attempts' (another reason why I don't feel like locking it!) at patronishing me, it's a very interesting thread. That's not a threat from me, the atheist who you despise, it's a standard creed of this forum.



> Athiest aren't enlightened: it is how they wish to be seen.


Really? Really? You, I guess, mean atheists who are outspoken in their beliefs, like Dawkins. Those athiest who dare to come out of their foxholes are say something the religious don't like to hear. Or perhaps you think that ALL atheists like to be seen as enlightened. How wrong you are. Shall I psychoanalyse you, just for fun? Your whole response drips with condescention and, above all, fear. Because fear (not to mention ignorance) is at the core, the very root of all religious belief. Fear that the increasing amounts of athiest who dare to criticise your precious religion may upset your religious status quo. And where would that leave you? Actually, probably no different. Because I forget...the religious are utterly unable to change their minds. Unlike atheists (as atheism should be read - A-Theism = Lack of Faith, nothing more), who only assert that there is almost definately no god. We can't say there isn't, because you can never disprove any 'hypothisis', however improbable.



> Don't be idiotic by asking me if I know what Atheist means.


Go on, tell me what you think it means.



> enlightened - wise through knowledge; free from prejudice


Isn't that what scientists are? Or, in fact, most sensible human beings? It's quite laughable actually...that coming from a religous person. Free from prejudice!! :lol: :lol: :lol: I bet the religious aren't prejudiced against homosexuals, or the million and one other prejudices that the bible teaches you. LOL



> Athiests often fancy themselves as intelligent rationalists


Wrong again my friend. Athiests are rationlists. They don't have to be intelligent. Even the most simple minded fool can be an atheist. This is too funny. Where does your hatred come from? Can't you even see the flip side of the coin? Try it, it might calm you down. The religious are so, so, so very sure of their beliefs, that they can't even contemplate anything else. Astounding.



> What is this crap. Why are you typing out your shitty mental dialogue? However, I am pleased that you ultimately decided to take the time to share your wisdom with a nitwit like me who has no clue what Atheism is. Thank you, I hope I can learn something from you


Shitty mental dialouge? What's that meant to mean? LOL. Although, I appreciate your 'attempts' at sarcasm, although it betrays a rather mean dislike of someone who you believe (wrongly) is more intelligent than you. Oh boy, it shines through like ambrosia from heaven.



> It is funny that you admit that Newton, Plato and Socrates where geniuses yet you feel that they lacked the competence to challenge dogmas.


I'll take a wild guess, but I'd wager that you aren't a student of medieval or classical history? No, okay - I'll enlighten you. The reason that these people are thought not to have challenged religous dogma is...for heaven's sake, because in those times, if you didn't profess some belief in god/s, then you were, at best, placed under house arrest, or at worst, burnt at the stake. I'd say I believed in god/s if there was a gun to my head. It has nothing to do with intellectual competence. Kant himself discared the The Ontological Argument, and he also rejected versions of The Cosmological Argument and The Teleological, or The Design Argument. Many, many theists secrely acknowlege that Kant was, at worst, a pantheist, or most probably an agnostic.

Also, a quote from Einstien:

"It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me - and seems even naive"

Get it?



> There are many renowned scientist who are agnostics/atheists. They believe that the world will explain itself if they continue to uncover natural laws.


No, not many, an overwealming majority. I read a paper (The Royal Society - 2005 - FRS- Fellows of the Royal Society - which includes the Astronomer Royal, Poet Lauerate....etc) that 88.5% of scientists regard themselves as atheists, 3% believe in a personal god, and the rest didn't bother to reply. I'd say that your many = most. Does that mean that you think all scientists, whatever their creed, are intellectually pompus? Perhaps you'd rather like them all to read a 2000 year old book instead for their guidance and morality (I have another stab that you don't actually believe the stuff in the bible - literally?)



> Unfortunetly, this is inconceivable. For every answer science yields ten more questions are raised. If you would take the time to read some books on cosmology you will begin to understand why Hawkings and Einstein are deists, as well as many other cosmologists.


Wrong on every point. Regarding Einstien, please see above. This also applies to Hawkins.

"Whenever someone says to me: "But you mention god in your book! (A Brief History of Time')" I stand back with a certain amused detachment. Of course, I didn't mean a personal god in the sense of theism, I meant in the same vein as Einstien when he said...(he quotes Einstien)

You see.......if you really want to stretch the point, Hawkings and Einstien were quasi-panthesits. Patheism is slightly sexed-up atheism.



> I said that many scientists are at least deists.


Did you write that with your back up against the wall? Isn't that the same, clouded in semantics, as saying that most scientists are atheists. As in many = most?



> For every answer science yields ten more questions are raised


I don't expect you to understand, but that is the essence of science!!! The beauty of discovery!!!! Which is the complete opposite to religion, which, apparently, has the answers to everything, and won't budge an inch! A bit like a stale baguette.



> If you would take the time to read some books on cosmology you will begin to understand why Hawkings and Einstein are deists, as well as many other cosmologists.


If you'd take a moment away from 'attempting' to patronise me for a second, I've been very interested in Astronomy, Cosmoloy and theoretical physics (although the mathematics behind it goes way over my head because I'm not enlightened or particually intelligent), for a very long time. My especial favourites are Richard Feynmann and Murry Gell-man. Heard of them?



> On top of that there is always the argument "why is there something rather than nothing?"


Oh good lord. Why did you even bother writing that? That kind of idea died out as soon as the monkeys left the trees. Although you say you have a deep understanding of cosmology - have you heard of Quantum Physics? No? Yes? Maybe? Well, either way I'll tell you. We are here because we are. If we wasn't, then we wouldn't be on this planet, this forum, arguing about it. There is a 'theory' called Quantum Genesis (which I'm sure you are familiar with), which states the universe came about because of a fluctuation in because of a 'virtual' particle in a sea of virtual particals (they are called 'virtual' because they don't exist until they do - it's all there, if you care to read about Q/Physics - the same physics that gave you your TV), a virtual particle that didn't exist until.....it did! And hey presto - the big bang. So do you see, there was no 'first cause', no before. We just 'happened'. I know you can't, or won't, accept this...but it's a simple fact. There was no 'before'! No god, no 'prime mover or first cause. We....just...are.



> I have hundreds of arguments for the existence of god and if you would to continue please do respond


I'd love it! Love it. As long as it doesn't include the long rebutted: Ontological Argument, The Cosmological Argument or the Teleological, or The Design Argument. Actually, there are literally thousands of arguments for your god/s.....like these:

ARGUMENT FROM BEAUTY, a.k.a. DESIGN/TELEOLOGICAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) Isn't that baby/sunset/flower/tree beautiful?
(2) Only God could have made them so beautiful.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MIRACLES (I)
(1) My aunt had cancer.
(2) The doctors gave her all these horrible treatments.
(3) My aunt prayed to God and now she doesn't have cancer.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (I)
(1) Person X, a well-known Atheist, was morally inferior to the rest of us.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MORAL ARGUMENT (II)
(1) In my younger days I was a cursing, drinking, smoking, gambling, child-molesting, thieving, murdering, bed-wetting bastard.
(2) That all changed once I became religious.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FEAR
(1) If there is no God then we're all going to not exist after we die.
(2) I'm afraid of that. (3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM THE BIBLE
(1) [arbitrary passage from OT]
(2) [arbitrary passage from NT]
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTELLIGENCE
(1) Look, there's really no point in me trying to explain the whole thing to you stupid Atheists ? it's too complicated for you to understand. God exists whether you like it or not.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM UNINTELLIGENCE
(1) Okay, I don't pretend to be as intelligent as you guys ? you're obviously very well read. But I read the Bible, and nothing you say can convince me that God does not exist. I feel him in my heart, and you can feel him too, if you'll just ask him into your life. "For God so loved the world that he sent his only begotten son into the world, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish from the earth." John 3:16.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BELIEF
(1) If God exists, then I should believe in Him.
(2) I believe in God.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTIMIDATION
(1) See this bonfire?
(2) Therefore, God exists.

PARENTAL ARGUMENT
(1) My mommy and daddy told me that God exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NUMBERS
(1) Millions and millions of people believe in God.
(2) They can't all be wrong, can they?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ABSURDITY
(1) Maranathra!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM ECONOMY
(1) God exists, you bastards!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

BOATWRIGHT'S ARGUMENT
(1) Ha ha ha.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

DORE'S ARGUMENT
(1) I forgot to take my meds.
(2) Therefore, I AM CHRIST!!
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
(1) Eric Clapton is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INTERNET AUTHORITY
(1) There is a website that successfully argues for the existence of God.
(2) Here is the URL.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM AMERICAN EVANGELISM
(1) Telling people that God exists makes me filthy rich.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

MITCHELL'S ARGUMENT
(1) The Christian God exists.
(2) Therefore, all worldviews which don't assume the Christian God's existence are false and incomprehensible.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (I)
(1) Atheists are spiritually blind.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)
(1) God is love.
(2) Love is blind.
(3) Stevie Wonder is blind.
(4) Therefore, Stevie Wonder is God.
(5) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM FALLIBILITY
(1) Human reasoning is inherently flawed.
(2) Therefore, there is no reasonable way to challenge a proposition.
(3) I propose that God exists.
(4) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SMUGNESS
(1) God exists.
(2) I don't give a crap whether you believe it or not; I have better things to do than to try to convince you morons.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM META-SMUGNESS
(1) ---- you.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM MANIFESTATIONS
(1) If you turn your head sideways and squint a little, you can see an image of a bearded face in that tortilla.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

SLATHER'S ARGUMENT
(1) My toaster is God.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPLETE DEVASTATION
(1) A plane crashed killing 143 passengers and crew.
(2) But one child survived with only third-degree burns.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM POSSIBLE WORLDS
(1) If things had been different, then things would be different.
(2) That would be bad.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SHEER WILL
(1) I DO believe in God! I DO believe in God! I do I do I do I DO believe in God!
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM NONBELIEF
(1) The majority of the world's population are nonbelievers in Christianity.
(2) This is just what Satan intended.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM POST-DEATH EXPERIENCE
(1) Person X died an Atheist.
(2) He now realizes his mistake.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM EMOTIONAL BLACKMAIL
(1) God loves you.
(2) How could you be so heartless to not believe in him?
(3) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM SACRIFICIAL BLACKMAIL
(1) Jesus died for your sins.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

ARGUMENT FROM INCOHERENT BABBLE
(1) See that person spazzing on the church floor babbling incoherently?
(2) That's how infinite wisdom reveals itself.
(3) Therefore, God exists.

OPRAH'S ARGUMENT (I)
(1) The human spirit exists.
(2) Therefore, God exists.

No my friend, the only argument that god exists is: That nobody cannot prove he doesn't. Just like nobody can disprove that there is an invisible unicorn hiding under my bed.


----------



## suz

I like 'ARGUMENT FROM BLINDNESS (II)'.

My faith is restored.


----------



## Guest

Such a crock of shit...


----------



## PPPP

Martinelv said:


> ARGUMENT FROM GUITAR MASTERY
> (1) Eric Clapton is God.
> (2) Therefore, God exists.


 :lol: :lol: :lol:


----------



## Martinelv

Please elucidate Mr Puppet.


----------



## Guest

If your going to defend a all loving God and fair God you have to go with reincarnation and karma, there is no other way around it. 
Or is God just a a sick perverted person in the sky who loves to see people born in war zones and see people born disabiled? 
What makes you, born in a rich life in US more right to have that life than a kid born in a poor country?
Makes no sense does it? So if its a God, theres reincarnation and karma, otherwise God is pretty cruel.
Better all together drop the whole delusion and deal with life as it is.
All medicine = science, all healing = science/nature, all love = comes from persons.
http://www.godisimaginary.com watch the movies on there and if you can still make up arguements for christianity Ill listen
Saying "Oh nature is beautiful, Only God could create that" well when did God say that? Do you know him persnally?

"Religion is the strangest business of all. There is no boss, but there are mediators, the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, the pope, the messiah, the whole hierarchy - and on top there is nobody.""

Osho Rajaneesh said this, and he published 650 books on spirituality and was enlightened so he would know


----------



## Pablo

MentallyIll said:


> "Religion is the strangest business of all. There is no boss, but there are mediators, the priest, the bishop, the cardinal, the pope, the messiah, the whole hierarchy - and on top there is nobody.""
> 
> Osho Rajaneesh said this, and he published 650 books on spirituality and was enlightened so he would know


Osho is the greatest! a controversial guy he was once the most hated man on earth because he spoke the truth. He is like Freud, Socrates and Buddha all rolled into one person who was also a comedian.


----------



## Dreamer

Wow this exploded overnight! Holy Moses!

I still insist that none of us have all the information here. We don't have the scholarly definitions, information. My God, I'm thinking of taking a college course in this. Being a perpetual student is all that keeps me remotely happy. On the other hand I have no memory. And secondly it takes me 65 times longer to read a book.

At any rate, I agree with one thing JAO said, sorry Martin. It was my sense of what he/she said earlier in this thread I think.

I speak here of FUNDAMENTALIST ANYONE. I interpreted JAO's INITIAL comments that "atheists think they're better" (not exact words) as indeed a frustration I have over ANYONE who thinks they have all the answers. I'm not saying all atheists think or even say they have all the answers. It's when it becomes a crusade -- in the SAME WAY as when someone starts EVANGELIZING or pushing his/her religious views on me.

For instance, here on the Board, the use of medication. I've been called a junkie for using medication by others who don't understand my full story. They "preach" to me how stupid I am. (The one infamous individual who called me "The Drug Queen" or whatever is no longer here, but I digress, lol).

There are an infinite number of such debates. Should abortion be legal, should we not wear real fur?, should drugs be legalized like alcohol?, should chimps be experimented upon?, should women be in the military? (not a great selection but you get my point.)

I agree, some need to fight for their point to get across, to end a war, etc. To fight crime, but for instance should someone shoot a person who wears fur? Etc. This is a horrible analogy.

At any rate, now I'm looking up, "atheist scientists" as a bit of balance here.

Article is 10 years old, but I want some better statsitics.

I KNOW, I have certain beliefs in things, I am uncertain about other things, and am greatly ill-informed on others. The debate here now seems on the defensive again ... not quite sure what's going on.

Also *Darren* could you please explain your comments? It is difficult to tell if you're being sarcastic and to whom you're referring a certain comment. Just curious what you're saying. Reason I PMd you before.

Article on scientists and atheism ....

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature ... slack.html

*When Science and Religion Collide or Why Einstein Wasn't an Atheist
News: Scientists talk about why they believe in God.

By Gordy Slack
November/December 1997 Issue*

*How has religion held up under the scrutiny of modern science? Not well, according to evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins, who believes the only reason religion is still with us at all is not because it has inherent worth but because it's as catching and incurable as any virus (see "Religion Is a Virus"). Others beg to differ.*

In his day, Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." *More recently, a Nature survey of American scientists found about 40 percent of them to be religious. How do these scientists reconcile their understanding of the physical world -- of evolution, for example -- with their religious beliefs?* To explore these and other questions, the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences sponsored interviews with more than 30 top scientists from a variety of fields. Here are a few of their responses:

Francisco J. Ayala, a professor of genetics and evolutionary biology at the University of California at Irvine, was ordained a Catholic priest at just about the time he began studying genetics. Since then, his career has been primarily occupied by science.

Ayala says he is a materialist insofar as he holds that "nothing in the natural world is left out" of science's powers of description. But, he adds, in the same way that a complete physical description of Picasso's Guernica would not begin to convey what the painting says about man's inhumanity, a scientific description of the world does not begin to explain life's meaning.

"In terms of fulfilling the human spirit, there is a lot to be said about the world, whether it is the physical world or the living world, that is completely outside the realm of science," Ayala says.* "Science and religion are dealing with different dimensions of reality, different levels of experience. Anybody who thinks that everything in the world can be explained in a reductionistic, materialistic way is just naive."**

Applying the criteria of scientific truth to religious claims is to make what philosophers call a categorical mistake, says Ayala. "In a sonnet Shakespeare may refer to his beloved as a rose. A scientist could say, 'This guy is an idiot. A woman is not a rose.' Of course the idiot would be the one who made that comment. Shakespeare knows she is not a rose! But that doesn't mean that describing his beloved as a rose is not telling the world a lot about what he thinks about her, and what she is like, and what love is like."

Kenneth S. Kendler, a professor of psychiatry and human genetics at the Medical College of Virginia, also struggles not to mix up his religion (Judaism) and his science. Like knowledge and wisdom, he says, they have different foundations. "The two don't use similar methods, don't have similar goals, and in some substantial ways don't conform to one another," he says. "Maybe the best way to put it is to say that they complement one another. They really don't conflict, but they don't entirely exist on the same plane. Knowledge is something that is ultimately testable -- wisdom comes in many varieties."

Arno Penzias, who won the Nobel Prize for physics in 1978 for his part in the discovery of the background radiation that constituted the first material evidence for the big-bang theory, does not look for direct evidence of God's existence in the world. To the contrary: "If God created the universe," says Penzias, who is Jewish, "he would have done it elegantly. The absence of any imprint of intervention upon creation is what we would expect from a truly all-powerful Creator. You don't need somebody diddling around like Frank Morgan in The Wizard of Oz to keep the universe going. Instead, what you have is half a page of mathematics that describes everything. In some sense, the power of the creation lies in its underlying simplicity."

*But for Carl Feit, an Orthodox Jew and professor of biology at Yeshiva University, science is itself a spiritual practice. Invoking Maimonides, the 12th-century Jewish philosopher, physician, scientist, and rabbi, Feit says that "the best way to develop a love and appreciation for God is by studying the works of his hand.* There are certain blessings that a religious Jew makes every day. Some of them have to do with the fact that the sun rises and sets regularly, that all of the stars travel in their right orbits, and that all of our physiological functions work appropriately. With my knowledge of human physiology, I have a very different, and I think enhanced, appreciation when I make that blessing in the morning."

Brian Cantwell Smith, a renegade computer scientist and philosopher who recently left Stanford for Indiana University, agrees that religion and science are not entirely separable. Smith (who says he "probably" doesn't believe in God) quotes his father, theologian Wilfred Cantwell Smith, who told him that to be religious is "to find the world significant."

The younger Smith explains: "It is not an etymological accident that 'significance,' in English, means 'importance.' From what I can tell from having studied intentional systems, 'truth' and other values cannot, in fact, be wholly pulled apart." The problem, he says, is that while science has always taken truth seriously, it has traditionally left values of beauty and goodness pretty much untouched. However, Smith sees the current work being done in mathematics, computer science, philosophy, and cognitive science as increasingly shedding light on the relationships between beauty, goodness, and truth in a way that may lead to a reintegration of these three values, thanks to a rigorous "study of significance."

Smith says: "One of my most basic metaphysical commitments is that truth, beauty, and goodness are not completely separable. Just as the physicists claim that gravity, charge, mass, etc., weren't separate in the first moments of the universe, I don't think God made the world with truth, beauty, and goodness fully separated out, either. In fact, I think the idea that they are independent is our idea -- and not necessarily the greatest idea, at that. You can see this in modern software design. Whether programs work well, whether they're beautiful, and whether they're right in practice -- these things aren't all that separable."

According to Lindon J. Eaves, a professor of human genetics and psychiatry at the Medical College of Virginia and an Anglican priest, "There's a large degree of identity between the love of God and the love of truth. And the same kind of rules and passions that we bring to the issue of loving God, the scientist embodies in his passion for truth.

"What keeps the scientist working long hours into the night?" asks Eaves. "Well, maybe there's a truth out there that will be beautiful when we find it."

Carl Feit concurs. "I think that fundamentally the impetus for the two quests is the same," says Feit. "Religion and science are two ways of looking at the world, and each helps guide our search for understanding. Profoundly religious people are asking the same questions as profound scientists: Who are we? And what are we? What's the purpose? What's the end? Where did we come from? And where are we going? We have this need, this desire, this drive, to understand ourselves and the world that we live in."

*Gordy Slack is the associate editor of California Wild, a natural history magazine.*

**I just realized. I don't like REDUCTIONISM as noted by Ayala. Nothing can be reduced to one answer, unless I go back to my reductionistic view -- and I can sometimes and it scares me -- that we are indeed just a bunch of grey matter. I have to separate my FEAR of that from my reasoning. I don't have an answer.*


----------



## Dreamer

Pablo I actually enjoyed that Osho clip, LOL. It's true!


----------



## Dreamer

One thought though.... again, are we indeed talking exclusively about Christianity in these debates? Or are we including all other organized religions, as that is a mistake as well, IMHO.

Gross generalizations. Also private spiritual belief vs. organized religion.

Sebastian said that a long time ago in another thread. It is a personal part of one's life. Who dictates the limits on it, say the troubles now w/security and fear of terrorism, should Muslims not be allowed to gather for worship as a group of more than say 20 as they may be a danger?

Not EVERY member of any group is necessarily a Fundamentalist, and that is a Reductionist POV.

I don't want ANYTHIING forced on me. I like to think things out if I can. I have my own opinions, but there are many things I cannot decide upon how I feel. I simply don't know. Many, not just my own spirituality.

*Men are capable of corrupting ANYTHING. Any cause. It is human beings who CAUSE the corruption of something. I don't believe in evil. I believe in personal responsibility. Certain individuals could be deemed evil - in my mind meaning inconceivably destructive - even beyond my comprehension.

But I think anyone who aspires to power, to leadership, has the potential to be corrupted. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely."*

I could also make a gross generalization that I believe in a sense is true. MEN are violent/agressive (it is in their nature), women are less so. But that doens't mean that agression is bad. It doesn't mean men should be eliminated from the face of the earth. It doesn't mean all women are perfect -- far from it!

One statement about anything, any generalization as I see it is flawed as it doesn't take in the complexity of any matter.


----------



## CECIL

MentallyIll said:


> If your going to defend a all loving God and fair God you have to go with reincarnation and karma, there is no other way around it.
> Or is God just a a sick perverted person in the sky who loves to see people born in war zones and see people born disabiled?
> What makes you, born in a rich life in US more right to have that life than a kid born in a poor country?
> Makes no sense does it? So if its a God, theres reincarnation and karma, otherwise God is pretty cruel.


There's another option, which is that God allows us the freedom to choose for ourselves. It does tie in with Reincarnation but not necessarily Karma. Basically that you choose how your life will be before you are born into it.

If you think about it this way, it actually empowers people a lot more. Its not about "You deserve to live a bad life because you were a bad person in your last life" (i.e. Karma), but "Wow, you are a very brave individual to have chosen this life. You will learn a lot of very valuable lessons. Is there any way I can help you?".


----------



## JaoDP123

Martinelv said:


> This is absolutely awesome. Awesome. Although I warn you my friend, by forgetting your christian charity and being personally abusive, you run the very real of getting this thread locked, which I really don't want to, because apart from your 'attempts' (another reason why I don't feel like locking it!) at patronishing me, it's a very interesting thread. That's not a threat from me, the atheist who you despise, it's a standard creed of this forum.


You have been far more patronizing at an earlier time in this discussion.



Martinelv said:


> Really? Really? You, I guess, mean atheists who are outspoken in their beliefs, like Dawkins. Those athiest who dare to come out of their foxholes are say something the religious don't like to hear. Or perhaps you think that ALL atheists like to be seen as enlightened. How wrong you are.


At the core of this dispute is that you really believe that Athiests are enlightened and I don't. As Dawkins calls him and his ilk "the brights".



Martinelv said:


> Shall I psychoanalyse you, just for fun? Your whole response drips with condescention and, above all, fear. Because fear (not to mention ignorance) is at the core, the very root of all religious belief. Fear that the increasing amounts of athiest who dare to criticise your precious religion may upset your religious status quo. And where would that leave you? Actually, probably no different. Because I forget...the religious are utterly unable to change their minds. Unlike atheists (as atheism should be read - A-Theism = Lack of Faith, nothing more), who only assert that there is almost definately no god. We can't say there isn't, because you can never disprove any 'hypothisis', however improbable.


Wow that's some psychoanalysis of some person you just met on a message board. So I am afraid of your arguments because they could upset my religious beliefs. I hope you're not charging me for that analysis.

Go on, tell me what you think it means.



Martinelv said:


> I suppose you like the definition: A-Theism is the lack of faith. Whatever you fancy.





Martinelv said:


> I bet the religious aren't prejudiced against homosexuals, or the million and one other prejudices that the bible teaches you. LOL


I don't know how this figures into our debate. It is clear that portions of each religious creed have committed evils. Similarly, it is clear that Atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot have killed millions. Albeit they did not kill in the name of Atheism, but there disbelief in a final authority and that final authority's universal law, made these killings worryfree.



Martinelv said:


> Shitty mental dialouge? What's that meant to mean? LOL. Although, I appreciate your 'attempts' at sarcasm, although it betrays a rather mean dislike of someone who you believe (wrongly) is more intelligent than you. Oh boy, it shines through like ambrosia from heaven.


Should I bother responding to this? He thought what I was trying to do there was sarcasm, this is sarcasm, that was, me complaining about you... oh why even bother explaining to this guy, he won't get it. I guess I will then.
Do you see how annoying that is. Nobody wants to hear what is going on inside your head before posting!



Martinelv said:


> I'll take a wild guess, but I'd wager that you aren't a student of medieval or classical history? No, okay - I'll enlighten you. The reason that these people are thought not to have challenged religous dogma is...for heaven's sake, because in those times, if you didn't profess some belief in god/s, then you were, at best, placed under house arrest, or at worst, burnt at the stake. I'd say I believed in god/s if there was a gun to my head. It has nothing to do with intellectual competence. Kant himself discared the The Ontological Argument, and he also rejected versions of The Cosmological Argument and The Teleological, or The Design Argument. Many, many theists secrely acknowlege that Kant was, at worst, a pantheist, or most probably an agnostic.


I'd like you to support your claim that people not believing in god in ancient greece would be burnt at the state or placed on house arrest. My impression of greece is a society of free thinkers. I think you might be getting Greece confused with the middle ages. I will leave out the list of brilliant christians, muslims and jews because, well it would be much too long, but here are some deists: 
* Ethan Allen [6]
* Aristotle [7]
* Marlon Brando [1]
* Henry St John, 1st Viscount Bolingbroke
* Napoleon Bonaparte [8]
* Cicero [9]
* Benjamin Darrow
* Paul Davies [10]
* Democritus
* Albert Einstein[2]
* Epicurus
* Antony Flew [11]
* Benjamin Franklin [12]
* Frederick the Great [13]
* Edward Herbert, 1st Baron Herbert of Cherbury [14]
* William Hogarth [15]
* Victor Hugo [16] [17]
* David Hume [3]
* James Hutton
* Thomas Jefferson [18]
* Immanuel Kant
* Gotthold Ephraim Lessing [19]
* Abraham Lincoln [20]
* John Locke [21]
* James Madison [22]
* Moses Mendelssohn [23]
* Gouverneur Morris
* Thomas Paine [24]
* Elihu Palmer [25]
* Plato
* Alexander Pope [26]
* Maximilien Robespierre [27]
* Adam Smith [4]
* Lysander Spooner [28]
* Alfred Lord Tennyson
* Matthew Tindal [29]
* John Toland [30]
* Constantin-Fran?ois de Chasseb?uf, Comte de Volney
* Voltaire [31]
* George Washington [5]
* Alan Watts
* Keith R. Wright



Martinelv said:


> Also, a quote from Einstien:
> 
> "It was of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it. The idea of a personal God is quite alien to me - and seems even naive"


Of course Einsten did not believe in a personal god, that doesn't make him an atheist or pantheist. A deist believes in an impersonal god 'the great watchmaker'.

Here are some other quotes from Einstein:

"God does not play dice" Albert Einstein

"My religion consists of a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible universe, forms my idea of God. " Albert Einstein.



Martinelv said:


> No, not many, an overwealming majority. I read a paper (The Royal Society - 2005 - FRS- Fellows of the Royal Society - which includes the Astronomer Royal, Poet Lauerate....etc) that 88.5% of scientists regard themselves as atheists, 3% believe in a personal god, and the rest didn't bother to reply. I'd say that your many = most. Does that mean that you think all scientists, whatever their creed, are intellectually pompus? Perhaps you'd rather like them all to read a 2000 year old book instead for their guidance and morality (I have another stab that you don't actually believe the stuff in the bible - literally?)


There a many studies claiming to have the breakdown of atheistic/agnostic scientists vs. theistic/deistic scientist. I am not surprised that the study you use has on 3% of scientists believing in a personal god. 88.5% of scientists are not atheists, but the percentage is quite high. The fact of the matter is theology and science do not intersect and therefore what a scientist thinks about god does not really affect my religious views. I am only interested in the the outspoken scientists who will enter philosophical debate. That most scientists are atheists is not a surprise, nor is it a threat.

I do not interpret the bible literally and I believe parts of it are false if they do not agree with the teachings of Jesus.



Martinelv said:


> For every answer science yields ten more questions are raised
> 
> 
> 
> I don't expect you to understand, but that is the essence of science!!! The beauty of discovery!!!! Which is the complete opposite to religion, which, apparently, has the answers to everything, and won't budge an inch! A bit like a stale baguette.
Click to expand...

I happen to be in college studying to become a scientist, I too love science's voyage. I will not however, mistake the question-answer-more questions-more answers....etc. cycle to be some form of religion.



Martinelv said:


> On top of that there is always the argument "why is there something rather than nothing?"
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good lord. Why did you even bother writing that? That kind of idea died out as soon as the monkeys left the trees. Although you say you have a deep understanding of cosmology - have you heard of Quantum Physics? No? Yes? Maybe? Well, either way I'll tell you. We are here because we are. If we wasn't, then we wouldn't be on this planet, this forum, arguing about it. There is a 'theory' called Quantum Genesis (which I'm sure you are familiar with), which states the universe came about because of a fluctuation in because of a 'virtual' particle in a sea of virtual particals (they are called 'virtual' because they don't exist until they do - it's all there, if you care to read about Q/Physics - the same physics that gave you your TV), a virtual particle that didn't exist until.....it did! And hey presto - the big bang. So do you see, there was no 'first cause', no before. We just 'happened'. I know you can't, or won't, accept this...but it's a simple fact. There was no 'before'! No god, no 'prime mover or first cause. We....just...are.
Click to expand...

I don't think that you understand the scope of the "why is there something instead of nothing" argument. Don't restrict it to just applying to matter. You mention virtual particles, matter that leaps into existence. Why are there vitual particles rather than no virtual particles? Why are there seas of virtual particles instead of no seas of virtual particles? It all seems to be brought about by something. I know, I know, why is there a god instead of no god, but you must admit something supernature - something science does not touch - that took place to bring anything into existence.

This is stolen from someone on amazon:
"*The development of a Process before Processing existed, before development existed and before anything existed. 
*The development of Time from non-Time. 
*The origination of Nature from non-Nature. 
*The origination of Origination from non-Origination. 
*The origin of Physics from non-Physics. 
*The origin of Blind Watchmaker from neither seeing nor non-seeing Watch from non-watch,Maker from non-Maker. 
*The origin of Selection from non-Selection; Choices from the absence of Choices or Choosing. 
*The origin of a Cosmic Manufacturing Assembly Line complete with Raw Material, Work-in-Process, Finished Goods and all that entails for Bio-chemistry (zero to Human Brain) from Absolute Zero existence of Rawness or Material. 
*The origin of Consciousness from non-Consciousness. 
*The origin of Life from non-Life, Zilch. 
*The origin of Evidence from non-Evidence. 
*The origin of Feedback at every micro-step of Mutation & Adaptation to justify continuation of the Selection Process from non-Feedback, non-microsteps, non-Mutation, non-Adaptation, 
non-Justifiability, non-Standard of utility, non-Continuation. 
*The origin of Motive(Necessity) and Motion(Directed/Purposeful Energy) to Initialize Nature and its Selection Process and the Momentum to keep it rolling from non-Motive,non-Necessity, non-Motion, non-Purposivability, non-Momentum. 
*The origin of Information, Sorting, Evaluation, Organization into Organic Organisms from non-Information, non-Sorting, non-Evaluatability, Dis-Organization, neither Organic or Inorganic, non-Organisms. 
*The origin of Scratch-formulating-Recipes (DNA, Physical Laws) from non-Scratch, non-Receipes, absence of Laws.

I've heard of using a recipe to make things from scratch, but never heard of scratch making a recipe. "


----------



## Guest

Einstein was into pantheism, read his biography


----------



## Dreamer

Martin,
I hate to say, JAO has made some very good points. I found his/her, his? I'm sorry POV overall pretty sensible.

And again, re: Einstein, *Mentally Ill, I quoted a good portion of his biolgraphy re: his POV on religion from his new biograpy which is really excellent.*

Einstein called himself a Determinist. And what fascinates me is he couldn't call himself as Jew as Jews in general believe in Free Will. *Einstein did NOT believe in Free Will.* If he didn't, that also illustrates he felt some "greater force" was at work. I won't repost that whole summation of Einstein it is self-explanatory and several posts back.

AND ONE LAST TIME.... :evil:

Atheism - a lack of belief in GOD or a GODs, and again, (to the best of my understanding) referring specifically to the Gods of organized religion from Zeus to the Judaeo-Christian God, to Allah, etc. I believe it also includes (in "hard" atheism believe in a HIGHER POWER, undefined) -- I don't have that, I DON'T KNOW. So I assume, semantically, I am an atheist.

This is a very specific definition of athesim. "Faith" can mean other things. "Faith the sun will rise tomorrow. Faith my car will start in -20C weather. It is a more general term used in a more lay manner to refer to atheism.

Being a scientist does not preclude a belief in God or some higher power at work in the universe. It CAN.

Again, what I get concerned about, is that you DO sometimes sound SO certain that it does sound like Dawkins calling atheists, "the brights". That is arrogance to a degree. And it starts falling on the side of Fundamendalist ANYTHING. But you are entitled to speak/feel that way, but the reaction you get will be more dramatic. And yes, I do agree that saying "I am atheist" is not something people like to hear, yet there have been many over the years who do say so. Some persecuted, some not.

I will say, my cousin's Baptist Fundamentalism is equally troubling to me, however he hasn't done ANYTHING to "force this" upon anyone. The key is, don't talk about God at the dinner table and you're safe. LOL. He wants to "share" with others who feel this, a sensation he has, of tremendous certainty I can't explain that God/Christ is present in his day to day life. This is why his friends feel the same way as he does.

Note, some of this is splitting hairs in definitions, however Einstein didn't have a religious "FAITH", he noted he didn't pray, he felt a power greater than man at work in a complex universe he couldn't fully understand either, despite his amazing knowledge and conclusions that hold up today. But he didn't "worship" it, depend on it. He was a bit in awe of it.

I so WISH you would read that Atheism reader, with the selections from various religious theorists from Lucretius to Elizabeth Cady Stanton. (There now I remembered that woman's NAME!)

And again, I have a problem defining myself - ME. Because I don't believe in an anthropomorphized God, have any faith that prayers will be answered by such an entity, I have to call myself an athiest from what I understand from a SPECIFIC definition.

However, I can be clueless about what this crazy life is all about, and be an agnostic, NOT KNOWING what we are here for.

I think I can be both. I know I do not believe in Christ, Allah, Yaweh, Zeus, Hera, Freya, Amon Ra, etc. but I know I feel there may be something out there. What I don't know ... it has not been delineated for me by an organized religion. Not one.

And I do try to have respect for those with Faith, and sometimes I want it, but I do not feel comfortable going to Church -- I believe least in Christianity. I feel more comfortable in Synagogue, certain ones as they can become rather secular depending on the type of Synagogue. But I still feel I don't belong. (Also, my problem is, I've never been baptized, never been confirmed, don't know what is going on during a service and am humiliated, lol.) I'm always the only one seated when people go up for Communion! -- that is awkward, but noone says a peep to me. They don't care, it's MY feeling awkward. For all they know I'm of another religion visiting CHurch with my friends who go to Church, and that's what I am! No one gives a hoot.

I appreciate the grandeur of a beautiful Church, a Mosque. I have been overwhelmed in such places by a feeling of ... awe. A feeling I can't explain. I feel "peace" there, not disgust or hatred.

And again, if it is hard-wired, if there is a "God part to the brain", then how can anyone avoid these feelings?

I don't like the rules of certaiin modern-day religions however. Someone can still have Faith in Christ without agreeing with organized religion. Doctrine, ritual, etc.


----------



## Dreamer

At "About.Com"

What is the Definition of Atheism?: 
"Atheism, broadly defined, it is the absence of belief in the existence of any gods. Christians insist that atheism means the denial of the existence of any gods; the absence of belief in any gods is, for some strange reason, often ignored.

At best it might be mistakenly referred to as agnosticism, which is actually the position that knowledge of gods is not possible. Dictionaries and other specialized references make it clear, though, that atheism can have a much broader definition."

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I have some confusion with this definition. "Gods" to me, does not mean "unknown power". Hence I have to say I'm atheist. But on the other hand, I *then think I fall into AGNOSTIC really, as I can't prove the existence or non-existence of a "higher power" either.*

So, perhaps I'm back to being an agnostic. Martin there IS such a thing as an agnostic.

*I understand the conundrum re: an atheist being seen as being in DENIAL, which I don't buy vs. simply having "an absense of belief."
This is where feathers are ruffled on both sides. Clearer to me now. Perhaps this is the problem. But it does not mean that atheists are more intelligent than those with belief. I don't buy that.*


----------



## PPPP

Martinelv said:


> because fear (not to mention ignorance) is at the core, the very root of all religious belief. Fear that the increasing amounts of athiest who dare to criticise your precious religion may upset your religious status quo. And where would that leave you? Actually, probably no different. Because I forget...the religious are utterly unable to change their minds. Unlike atheists (as atheism should be read - A-Theism = Lack of Faith, nothing more), who only assert that there is almost definately no god. We can't say there isn't, because you can never disprove any 'hypothisis', however improbable.


Fear is not the root of ALL religious belief. 
Ideally it is LOVE that is the root of religious feeling. 
We aren't always what we might like to be but you can't honestly make that statement.

I doubt the posibility that I would continue to exist as myself after I die and faith brings no comfort for my doubts. 
And I have many doubts. 
But I still love and I trust and I hope, even if I disappear entirely, even if there is nothing but suffering in my life, somehow it's ok and it will be ok. 
You can say that that makes me an idiot but I'm okay with that too.
I might be one.

I can see that people who become atheist have examined their faith and their doubts and come to a rational conclusion.

I would hope that those of us who come to a different conclusion will be given the same consideration. 
That you will allow that we are probably rational people (at least as much as anyone else ) who have examined our beliefs sincerely.


----------



## Cam

Personally I think that religion gives people a sense of community/belonging.

BB


----------



## Guest

Plain and simple... yet correct... =)



Black Box said:


> Personally I think that religion gives people a *sense* of community/belonging.
> 
> BB


----------



## Martinelv

Hello, and thanks for replying. And thanks for not being patronising this time. I'm only patronising when others are. I can forgive most things, except outright rudeness.



> You have been far more patronizing at an earlier time in this discussion.


I think, perhaps, you are mistaking patronisation with sarcasam. But either way, we'll leave it there. I'll be civilised.



> At the core of this dispute is that you really believe that Athiests are enlightened and I don't. As Dawkins calls him and his ilk "the brights".


As I said in my previous post, I do not think that the majority of atheists think they are enlightened, in terms of religion. They just lack the faith. That's all. How many times do I have to say it? I think you think that atheists deem themselves to be 'enlightened' because they don't believe what you do, and you use the word 'enlightened' as a form of attack, as your faith is (understandably) precious to you. Am I wrong? I'm not enlightened at all. I just lack faith in religous. That, is, all. That is what atheism is.

As for 'brights', Professor Dawkins, if you read his latest book, is actually against that term. It was dreamed up by a small majority (and a shame to all sensible atheists) of militant atheists in America, which is understandalbe because of the crushing burdon of the American neo-cons and the American Taliban that the Americans have to put up with. It was a backlash. But I can see how you think that ALL atheists think of themselves as enlightened, because of the term 'brights'.

Atheists, the vast majority of them, either say nothing, do nothing to aggrevate the religious. We just lack the faith, that's all. Do you see Atheist rallies? Atheist's standing on the street handing out pamphlets like the street preachers? Atheists knocking at your door trying to convert you to thier faith - whatever one it is. Do you? I can't quite remember the last time an atheist flew an airplane into a building, or walked into a cafe with dynamite strapped to their bodies, can you? So....who considers themself enlightened? Answer - the religious. Atheists, humanist and our ilk, value LIFE, because we know this is the only we get. And I know what your are thinking - what about Hitler, Communism.....they were all atheists, yes? Wrong. And I see that you've mentioned it later in your post, so I'll get back to that.



> Wow that's some psychoanalysis of some person you just met on a message board. So I am afraid of your arguments because they could upset my religious beliefs. I hope you're not charging me for that analysis.


It's easy really, you should try it. And no, you are not afraid of my comments, because you are infected with the religion virus, and there is nothing that I can say or do to change your mind. BUT on the other hand, you ARE afraid of my comments, probably for two reasons. First - my comments cause you offence (which I've never understood - because if you are so firmly sure of your faith, what difference would it make what I said?), and secondly because you think that because I am an atheist, and you assume that I consider myself enlightened (which, sigh, I don't) and hence more intelligent (which I'm not), you personally feel attacked.

And no, I'm not charging for it. I left my collection plate at home.



> Similarly, it is clear that Atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot have killed millions. Albeit they did not kill in the name of Atheism, but there disbelief in a final authority and that final authority's universal law, made these killings worryfree.


Are you serious about this? Hilter was not an atheist, but that's beside the point. The most important thing is that he was a sociopath. As were Stalin, Moa and Pol Pot. A sociopath, religious or not (and boy - I'd say that there are just as many sociopaths in the clergy), kills or whatever because they lack conscience. Do you see? It has nothing to do with communism or any political system. The atrocities that they commited were not because of atheism, but because of an enormous amount of interconnected things - such as popular uprisings, ethnic tensions (religious), the desire for territorial expansion....etc. For god/s sake people, why doesn't anyone get it? Why do they blame it on atheists? It astounds me how quickly point the finger at atheism to justify what these terrible people did. Why? Because it's quick, easy, and the ignorant believe that ALL atheists lack a moral code!! And don't get me started on that one!!

Oh, and by the way, if we descend to the gutter for a moment and talk numbers - in regards to the numbers of people who have lost their lives, been imprisoned, tortured, repressed or whatever, I think you'll mind that the religous are on top of the body-count league. Why is it that the religious can only remember the last hundred years or so, and not remember the previous 3000+ years, where the world was savaged by religion, and continue to be to this very day. Gaza, the Arab states... It's a kind of bizarre selective memory.



> Do you see how annoying that is. Nobody wants to hear what is going on inside your head before posting!


What? If you don't want to know what is going on inside my head, then why are you even bothering to reply? Are you psychic too? It gets clearer and clearer why you are replying. You are afraid. Whether you like it or not.



> I'd like you to support your claim that people not believing in god in ancient greece would be burnt at the state or placed on house arrest. My impression of greece is a society of free thinkers. I think you might be getting Greece confused with the middle ages


Where did modern day Greece come into this? I was talking about the medieval times, (actually, up to the present day, although dissenters don't get put on the rack anymore, I grant you), where people who did not profess a belief in religion, would be tortured or murdered. Read a book on history, it's all there. The world was a river of blood. Thankfully, atheists (in, as far as I can tell - Europe and Europe alone) are tolerated (! that always makes me laugh, that word, it's so pious....LOL) nowadays, and religion is, sigh, becoming less irrelevant in peoples lives. Most christian religions, except for the funda'mentalists', are so watered down nowadays that they are barely distinguishable from a AA meeting.

That list you provided with notable deists. Lovely. Looks very impressive doesn't it. But I'm afraid you've fallen into the old and frankly wretched 'Appeal to Authority' argument - which means; "Hey, look - A, B and C believed in God, so it MUST be true.' Not so my friend.



> Of course Einsten did not believe in a personal god, that doesn't make him an atheist or pantheist. A deist believes in an impersonal god 'the great watchmaker'.


Wrong. Einstein and many other notable scientists used the word in a completely atheist sense. It was a mistake, I grant you, but still - what makes you think he was a deist? He used the word god to simply denote his awe and wonder at the complexity of nature and the cosmos.



> I do not interpret the bible literally and I believe parts of it are false if they do not agree with the teachings of Jesus


I bet you don't. Like most religious people, they pick out the nice bits and either ingore the nasty bits or treat them as parable or as 'historical interpretation'. How utterly convienient! Did you know that war, blood and vengance are three of the most common nouns in the bible? Lovely. You could fit the 'nice' bits on the back of an envelope. In essence they are: Be nice to people. Be a good person. Wow! What a humdinger that is! Who would have thought of that!!! I've got a copy of the bible, and I've underlined the passages which contain brutality in red. It looks like a butchers apron!



> I don't think that you understand the scope of the "why is there something instead of nothing" argument


Yes I do, and I'll tell you why, after this quote of yours.



> Why are there vitual particles rather than no virtual particles? Why are there seas of virtual particles instead of no seas of virtual particles?


It's simple. Because they are *virtual* particles. They do not exist until they do. I repeat, they are virtual particles. An baby is not a baby until it is concieved. I know you will not be able to accept this, because us humans are programmed to think that 1+1 = 2. But it the field of quantum physics, that is no so. It has been scientifically proved that electrons can appear (from nowhere) and disapper. They can also move from one point to another without crossing the distance. It's all be proved, time and time again.



> why is there a god instead of no god


Good question. Would you like to answer me? I'd wager you'd reply by saying "If there was no god, then we wouldn't be here." Which is what I am saying about virtual particles. Your god is a personal spirit, mine is my own personal awe at the universe.

I like your list of books. Creationism writ large. I won't even go into that insanity.

Cheers.


----------



## Dreamer

Martin the <!-- s]I can said:


> Atheists, humanist and our ilk, value LIFE, because we know this is the only we get. And I know what your are thinking - what about Hitler, Communism.....they were all atheists, yes? Wrong. And I see that you've mentioned it later in your post, so I'll get back to that.[/b]


Briefly, I don not think this is an accurate statement. I see as many corrupt non-believers in this world as those who believe in God. Islam as I see, and have again read about, is the most integrated WITH politics. This is a huge problem. Many countries in the Middle East are called THEOCRACIES. That's damned scary.

There isn't a Western country called a THEOCRACY. The US is a Republic (anti-monarchy) with a strong desire to spread DEMOCRACY as the US sees democracy and capitalism as the best way for a country to evolve economically. We may be idiots, but that's our motivation for sticking our noses everywhere. We're anti-Communist.

I see more political fights for territory. And the WTC attack was an attack on the "excesses of American/Western materialsm/greed". Yes, it was masterminded by bin Laden and/or others who are Fundamentalist Muslims who have declared a jihad on America, however there have been MANY atrocities commited by truly non-religious individuals.

*The attack on Pearl Harbor, which I think I finally have straight, near the end of WWII was not a "religious" act - kamikaze sp? pilots who committed suicide with THEIR airplanes did so for JAPAN, for nationalism. They were likewise carrying on a war with the Chinese over territory, ready to snap up a great deal of the Pacific Rim.

That was in the name of NATIONALISM.

They were ticked off at us for a reason I don't recall (AGAIN), but their suicide missions were politically motivated by an extraordinary agressive leader (whose name I also forgot -- look at Wikipedia).* The Emperor REFUSED to surrender and sacrificed so many people in fighting. I am not counting the Atomic Bomb, I am talking about BEFORE that when every man was obligated to fight to the death in the name of Japan.

Hitler killed (and we can argue numbers here) millions of people, but his first move was to conquer as much of Europe as he could get his hands on. He was after Jews, yes, but "mentally defective people" including the mentally ill, homosexuals, etc. Can't say he was doing that in the name of any God, and again if my memory serves he called himself a Pantheist (whatever that means).

*But he was also revered and followed in a misguided way, appealing to a miserable country at the time, for restoring a humiliated Germany post WWI. He united people with a promise that Germany would gain its power back and more and would no longer be treated like trash in the West.*

And again, Einstein believed there was NO FREE WILL in the universe, and mentioned at different times he considered himself a Deist. It's in this book I'm reading. In letters he wrote to people I didn't make that up. He may have been lying, but that's what it says in his biography in his own words.

*I simply can't say religion is the root of all evil. IT IS A CONTRIBUTING FACTOR - it is a means to "pump individuals up into action", but bottom line, men go to war in the name of a lot of things, mainly territory and resources and can define the "purpose" any which way.

I see politics/survival, etc. FIRST. And non-religious people are as cruel, murderous, dangerous and horrible as those accused of acting on behalf of their religion.*

Also I think JAO was referring ANCIENT GREECE, not modern Greece somewhere in there.


----------



## Dreamer

And the Palestinian/Israel mess is really over territory. Who has a home? The Palestinians and Israelis have been fighting for a home for centuries. They are both "nomadic" groups really without a country.

Israel is accused of being greedy for land as are the Palestinians. As I see it, that is territorial. And whatever you call a group, Hamas, etc. I call them terrorists, some motivated by religion, others simply by rage and entitlement.

And to be honest I don't know how will ever be settled, considering, as in Iraq there are various groups who don't agree on how to LIVE, who hate each other for various ridiculous reasons. It's a power play.

And yes, many may call upon his own "God" for strength in this type of idiocy, but men are acting on a desire for survival, for their piece of the pie.


----------



## Dreamer

OK, I have to stop, lol. But Communist countries are generally atheist. They repress religious freedom as "dangerous", and are equally full of problems and equally agressive. I don't have all the goods on this, but communism generally requires atheism or no religions.

I just read about China where there is really no specific "deity" ... leaders have been considered "deities", but this does not imply an afterlife, etc. It's sort of whacky. There are rituals, ancestor worship, Buddhism (which is atheistic), Taoism, etc. Some smaller groups of God oreinted religions exist, but very few.

But this just occured to me. If you consider the size of China and it's future influence alone ... well, at this time there is little religion dictating it's political policies, etc. It's expansion is a desire to enjoy the taste of capitalism.


----------



## falling_free

> Hitler killed (and we can argue numbers here) millions of people, but his first move was to conquer as much of Europe as he could get his hands on. He was after Jews, yes, but "mentally defective people" including the mentally ill, homosexuals, etc. Can't say he was doing that in the name of any God, and again if my memory serves he called himself a Pantheist (whatever that means).


According to the wikipeida entry (not neccerserilly the best choice for reliable infoation) Hitler did it seem, use religion as a propganda exscuse to persecute the jews. for example he viewed christ as a anti-semite



> In contrast to other Nazi leaders, Hitler did not adhere to esoteric ideas, occultism, or Nazi mysticism, and even ridiculed such beliefs in private and possibly in public. Drawing on Higher Criticism and some branches of theologically liberal Protestantism, Hitler advocated what he termed Positive Christianity, purged of everything that he found objectionable. Hitler never directed his attacks on Jesus himself, but viewed traditional Christianity as a corruption of the original ideas of Jesus, whom Hitler regarded as an Aryan opponent of the Jews. In Mein Kampf Hitler writes that Jesus "made no secret of his attitude toward the Jewish people, and when necessary he even took the whip to drive from the temple of the Lord this adversary of all humanity, who then as always saw in religion nothing but an instrument for his business existence. In return, Christ was nailed to the cross." Hitler rejected the idea of Jesus' redemptive suffering, stating in 1927:
> 
> "My feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God's truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter."


however he also was apparantly known to have been more critical of religion in private



> Hitler's private statements are more clear. There are negative statements about Christianity reported by Hitler's intimates, Goebbels, Speer, and Bormann. Joseph Goebbels, for example, notes in a diary entry in 1939: "The F?hrer is deeply religious, but deeply anti-Christian. He regards Christianity as a symptom of decay." Albert Speer reports a similar statement: ?You see, it?s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn?t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion too would have been much more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?" In the Hossbach Memorandum Hitler is recorded as saying that "only the disintegrating effect of Christianity, and the symptoms of age" were responsible for the demise of the Roman empire.In 1941, Hitler praised an anti-christian tract from 362CE, Julian's Against the Galileans, saying "I really hadn't known how clearly a man like Julian had judged Christians and Christianity, one must read this..."He was reported to say that religion should die on its own accord


Anyway , regardless of wherever he was quasi-religious or athiest. i think the arguement of which belief or lack of beilef system has killed most people and is therefore morally superior is stupid , people kill people. all belief systems have blood on their hands (including politcal ones). It's the nature of history and devolpment that there will be violence and bloodshed over fighting over a belief or an ideal, and I don't feel it will end anytime soon, even in my lifetime or ever for that matter.

That is why I am personally against relgion, im not going to force this view on others, but ultimatilly I think reglion divides more than it unites, and while it may not be the root of all evil it is the nest of much of it.


----------



## falling_free

> OK, I have to stop, lol. But Communist countries are generally atheist. They repress religious freedom as "dangerous", and are equally full of problems and equally agressive. I don't have all the goods on this, but communism generally requires atheism or no religions.


There is actually a branch of socialism called christian socialism among the hundreds of other types of socialism, there's no rules saying an indivdual must not be christian to be a socialist/communist.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_Socialism

Actually i think that one of the greatest things about politics, it's a work in progress , always being changed and adapting to the times. Religion on the other hand , stays in the dark ages as a constant thorn in the side of progress.



> I just read about China where there is really no specific "deity" ... leaders have been considered "deities", but this does not imply an afterlife, etc. It's sort of whacky. There are rituals, ancestor worship, Buddhism (which is atheistic), Taoism, etc.


Q:How many buddhist and taoists do you hear of issuing fatwas to kill people???

A: None, because they don't believe in a personal god thefore don't have the supposed justification.


----------



## JaoDP123

Martinelv, your rebuttals, for the most part, fail to touch on many of the arguments I have set before you. From the answers you have given me it seem that I could copy and paste what I have written earlier and allow you another go at them.



Martinelv said:


> As I said in my previous post, I do not think that the majority of atheists think they are enlightened, in terms of religion. They just lack the faith. That's all. How many times do I have to say it? I think you think that atheists deem themselves to be 'enlightened' because they don't believe what you do, and you use the word 'enlightened' as a form of attack, as your faith is (understandably) precious to you. Am I wrong? I'm not enlightened at all. I just lack faith in religous. That, is, all. That is what atheism is.


We will drop the issue of atheists pretending to be the enlightened ones because I think you are making too much of it. When someone believes they are enlighted they believe that they possess a higher understanding fo the world. Whether or not you are a person who feels this way is actually irrelevant. Whether or not you agree with the words usage is irrelevant. The reason the word was used at all is because I thought you would know what enlightened meant in the context it was used in earlier. It is of no importance to the debate over the existence of god.



Martinelv said:


> Atheists, the vast majority of them, either say nothing, do nothing to aggrevate the religious. We just lack the faith, that's all. Do you see Atheist rallies? Atheist's standing on the street handing out pamphlets like the street preachers? Atheists knocking at your door trying to convert you to thier faith - whatever one it is. Do you? I can't quite remember the last time an atheist flew an airplane into a building, or walked into a cafe with dynamite strapped to their bodies, can you? So....who considers themself enlightened? Answer - the religious. Atheists, humanist and our ilk, value LIFE, because we know this is the only we get. And I know what your are thinking - what about Hitler, Communism.....they were all atheists, yes? Wrong. And I see that you've mentioned it later in your post, so I'll get back to that.


I do not see as many fanatical atheists as I do fanatical theists. People who believe in an afterlife would be more apt to take their convictions to the grave. But how does that argue against the existence of god?



Martinelv said:


> Wow that's some psychoanalysis of some person you just met on a message board. So I am afraid of your arguments because they could upset my religious beliefs. I hope you're not charging me for that analysis.
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy really, you should try it. And no, you are not afraid of my comments, because you are infected with the religion virus, and there is nothing that I can say or do to change your mind. BUT on the other hand, you ARE afraid of my comments, probably for two reasons. First - my comments cause you offence (which I've never understood - because if you are so firmly sure of your faith, what difference would it make what I said?), and secondly because you think that because I am an atheist, and you assume that I consider myself enlightened (which, sigh, I don't) and hence more intelligent (which I'm not), you personally feel attacked.
Click to expand...

Why is it that you are continuing with your junk psychoanalysis? If there is nothing you can do to rid me of my religious virus that has been preprogrammed in me during my childhood. Even your esteemed psychoanalysis is no match. Here you go Martinelv, if this will get you to stop the your junk psychoanalysis, I AM VERY AFRAID OF HOW YOU ARE CHALLENGING MY FAITH.



Martinelv said:


> Similarly, it is clear that Atheists such as Stalin, Hitler, Mao and Pol Pot have killed millions. Albeit they did not kill in the name of Atheism, but there disbelief in a final authority and that final authority's universal law, made these killings worryfree.
> 
> 
> 
> Are you serious about this? Hilter was not an atheist, but that's beside the point. The most important thing is that he was a sociopath. As were Stalin, Moa and Pol Pot. A sociopath, religious or not (and boy - I'd say that there are just as many sociopaths in the clergy), kills or whatever because they lack conscience. Do you see? It has nothing to do with communism or any political system. The atrocities that they commited were not because of atheism, but because of an enormous amount of interconnected things - such as popular uprisings, ethnic tensions (religious), the desire for territorial expansion....etc. For god/s sake people, why doesn't anyone get it? Why do they blame it on atheists? It astounds me how quickly point the finger at atheism to justify what these terrible people did. Why? Because it's quick, easy, and the ignorant believe that ALL atheists lack a moral code!! And don't get me started on that one!!
> 
> Oh, and by the way, if we descend to the gutter for a moment and talk numbers - in regards to the numbers of people who have lost their lives, been imprisoned, tortured, repressed or whatever, I think you'll mind that the religous are on top of the body-count league. Why is it that the religious can only remember the last hundred years or so, and not remember the previous 3000+ years, where the world was savaged by religion, and continue to be to this very day. Gaza, the Arab states... It's a kind of bizarre selective memory.
Click to expand...

The only reason I brought up the blood atheists have shed was to demonstate that both persons of faith and the unbelievers can become sociopaths. Again, which side killed more has no bearing on god's existence.



Martinelv said:


> Do you see how annoying that is. Nobody wants to hear what is going on inside your head before posting!
> 
> 
> 
> What? If you don't want to know what is going on inside my head, then why are you even bothering to reply? Are you psychic too? It gets clearer and clearer why you are replying. You are afraid. Whether you like it or not.
Click to expand...

All of this is irrelevant to god's existence. Just be sure to keep you responses relevent to what we are talking about. I want to hear your opinion, not the... "Jesus H Christ on a bike.....no.......this is ridiculous...I'm not going to bother. Not actually I will, but this is so uttertly, utterly wrong"... from your first post.



Martinelv said:


> I'd like you to support your claim that people not believing in god in ancient greece would be burnt at the state or placed on house arrest. My impression of greece is a society of free thinkers. I think you might be getting Greece confused with the middle ages
> 
> 
> 
> Where did modern day Greece come into this? I was talking about the medieval times, (actually, up to the present day, although dissenters don't get put on the rack anymore, I grant you), where people who did not profess a belief in religion, would be tortured or murdered. Read a book on history, it's all there. The world was a river of blood. Thankfully, atheists (in, as far as I can tell - Europe and Europe alone) are tolerated (! that always makes me laugh, that word, it's so pious....LOL) nowadays, and religion is, sigh, becoming less irrelevant in peoples lives. Most christian religions, except for the funda'mentalists', are so watered down nowadays that they are barely distinguishable from a AA meeting.
Click to expand...

Earlier you were talking about how the theists, Plato and Socrates had no choice but to remain theists because they would be burnt at the stake or on house arrest if they were to admit being atheist. I said


> I'd like you to support your claim that people not believing in god in ancient greece would be burnt at the state or placed on house arrest. My impression of greece is a society of free thinkers. I think you might be getting Greece confused with the middle ages


We were talking about ancient Greece not modern Greece because Socrates and Plato lived in ancient Greece.



Martinelv said:


> That list you provided with notable deists. Lovely. Looks very impressive doesn't it. But I'm afraid you've fallen into the old and frankly wretched 'Appeal to Authority' argument - which means; "Hey, look - A, B and C believed in God, so it MUST be true.' Not so my friend.


We've both been appealing to authority, if you would like that to stop then we can make that happen.



Martinelv said:


> Wrong. Einstein and many other notable scientists used the word in a completely atheist sense. It was a mistake, I grant you, but still - what makes you think he was a deist? He used the word god to simply denote his awe and wonder at the complexity of nature and the cosmos.


Support for this please.



Martinelv said:


> I bet you don't. Like most religious people, they pick out the nice bits and either ingore the nasty bits or treat them as parable or as 'historical interpretation'. How utterly convienient! Did you know that war, blood and vengance are three of the most common nouns in the bible? Lovely. You could fit the 'nice' bits on the back of an envelope. In essence they are: Be nice to people. Be a good person. Wow! What a humdinger that is! Who would have thought of that!!! I've got a copy of the bible, and I've underlined the passages which contain brutality in red. It looks like a butchers apron!


I do believe every word in the Bible because God is ominpotent and infallible. Some of the Bible's content describes an entity making mistakes or acting vengeful, murderous even. The bible has been adulturated by man to push certain agendas. This does not make everything in the Bible false, especially the of the New Testament which has been multi-source confirmed. Not all of it, but much of it matches other historical records for the time. It is my duty to seek out what is true in the bible, not what is easy for me to believe.



Martinelv said:


> I don't think that you understand the scope of the "why is there something instead of nothing" argument
> 
> 
> 
> Yes I do, and I'll tell you why, after this quote of yours.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why are there vitual particles rather than no virtual particles? Why are there seas of virtual particles instead of no seas of virtual particles?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's simple. Because they are *virtual* particles. They do not exist until they do. I repeat, they are virtual particles. An baby is not a baby until it is concieved. I know you will not be able to accept this, because us humans are programmed to think that 1+1 = 2. But it the field of quantum physics, that is no so. It has been scientifically proved that electrons can appear (from nowhere) and disapper. They can also move from one point to another without crossing the distance. It's all be proved, time and time again.
Click to expand...

See, no you don't understand the scope of the "why is there something rather that nothing argument".



Martinelv said:


> Because they are *virtual* particles...the field of quantum physics


Why should there be virtual particles? Why should there be the laws of quantum physics? The theory of virtual particals, every scientific law exists in nature, all matter exists in nature, that 1+1=2 exists in nature, but why? Why should they exist instead of nothing? Some people think they can explain how the universe came about with complex equations and theories, but these equations and theories need explainations to justify their existences as well. Why do they exist? Why not nothing instead of matter, theories and math?



Martinelv said:


> Which is what I am saying about virtual particles. Your god is a personal spirit, mine is my own personal awe at the universe.


Science cannot answer "why is there something instead of nothing" so you must ultimately believe in some sort of supernature, you choose the theory of virtual particles to explain the world, I choose an intelligent designer. I have personal awe for the universe and the science that allowed

There is nothing that says virtual particles, or even the theory for virtual particles should exist. Just as there is nothing that says god should exist. But the concept of an intelligent orchestrater of the unverse as a point A seems more reasonable to me than a virtual particle.


----------



## suz

It's not a competition boys

*cowers*


----------



## Dreamer

suz said:


> It's not a competition boys
> 
> *cowers*


*LOL -- spot on suz.*
But the sad thing is THIS will start a war, a man's war, and no one will ever remember what it was about.

Falling Free, I know you dislike me immensly sp?, but I know Wikipedia is not the be all and end all of info. I am not a scholar on every damned country in the world, but the HISTORY of China bears out violence just as any other country in the world. What about the former Soviet Union?

I am arguiing simply that Communist countries where "wealth is shared equally", right :roll: -- let's discuss more corrupt leaders, yada ,yada, are eqully capable of violence. It is ridculous to say that they would go to war in the name of Buddha, LOL. They really have a mish mash of religions. Not a huge central one such as Christianity or Islam.

It is IMPOSSIBLE for me to cut and paste a scholarly book or article here.

*My one statement. I personally, IMHO, excuse me for living, do not find religion the cause of misery on this planet. I could easily blame it on testosterone, and that is frequently illustrated on this board as well as in all cultures.

And no, I am not a feminist. Far from it.

And I claim to know about .00000005% of the information we're discussing here. But at least I'm trying to figure it out. I'm very sus of Wikipedia, but you proved my point with Hitler! HE USED RELIGION, manipulated it it for his own purposes. And I forgot to mention, yes, he offed a good number of Christians as well as Jews!*

For crying out loud. :roll:

Yes, this very thread is full of so many diverse opinions a fist fight could ensue if not full out war. Very sad. And no one even sees that. Hatred for people you don't even know. :roll: Vitriol here left and right, and I even get riled up by it. Buddha forgive me!

Gee, I make mountains out of molehills. I should just give up on this. I need therapy. :shock:


----------



## Dreamer

FROME THE NOTORIOUSLY UNRELIABLE WIKIPEDIA, FORGIVE ME. And this is one HUGE freakin' nation on the rise. And only one of many Communist countries in the world.

"The People's Republic of China was established in 1949 and for much of its early history maintained a hostile attitude toward religion which was seen as emblematic of feudalism and foreign colonialism. Houses of worship, including temples, mosques, and churches, were converted into non-religious buildings for secular use.

In the early years of the People's Republic, religious belief or practice was often discouraged because it was regarded by the government as backwards and superstitious and because some Communist leaders, ranging from Vladimir Lenin to Mao Zedong, had been critical of religious institutions. During the Cultural Revolution, religion was condemned as feudalistic and thousands of religious buildings were looted and destroyed.

This attitude, however, relaxed considerably in the late 1970s, with the end of the Cultural Revolution. The 1978 Constitution of the People's Republic of China guarantees "freedom of religion" with a number of restrictions. Since the mid-1990s there has been a massive program to rebuild Buddhist and Taoist temples that were destroyed in the Cultural Revolution.

*The Communist Party has said that religious belief and membership are incompatible. Party membership is a necessity for many high level careers and posts. That along with other official hostility makes statistical reporting on religious membership difficult. There are five recognized religions by the state, Buddhism, Taoism, Islam, Catholic Christianity, and Protestant Christianity.[7]*

*Most people report no organized religious affiliation; however, people with belief in folk traditions and non-religious spiritual beliefs, such as ancestor veneration and feng shui, along with informal ties to local temples and unofficial house churches is in the hundreds of millions.* The United States Department of State, in its annual report on International Religious Freedom,[8] gives possibly the most reliable statistics about organized religions. In 2004 it reports the following:

*Buddhists 8%, with more than 200,000 monks and nuns. This value is seen as extremely low because there are more than 16,000 Buddhist temples that do not maintain traditional congregations.*

Taoists, unknown as a percentage, there are more than 25,000 Taoist monks and nuns at more than 1,500 temples. Taoist belief is often intertwined with both Buddhism and traditional folk religions.

Muslims, 1.4%, with more than 45,000 Imams. Other estimates are much higher.

Protestant Christians, 0.8 to 1.2% with official churches. It is estimated that another 2.5% of the population is a Protestant Christian worshipping through an unofficial house church.

Catholic Christians, 0.4% with official churches, with another 0.4 to 0.8% estimated to be attending unofficial Catholic services.

It should be noted, however, that statistics relating to Buddhism and religious Taoism are to some degree incomparable with statistics for Islam and Christianity. This is due to the traditional Chinese belief system which blends Confucianism, Buddhism, and Taoism, so that a person who follows a traditional belief system would not necessarily identify him- or herself as either Buddhist or Taoist, despite regularly attending Buddhist or Taoist places of worship."


----------



## Dreamer

Chinese wars/massacres, etc. going back to the mid 1800s and certainly not current:

First Opium War 1839-42
Taiping Rebellion 1850-64
Nien Rebellion: China 1853
Miao Uprising: China 1855-72
Panthay Uprising: China 1855-61
Second Opium War 1856-60
Muslim Rebellion: China 1863-77
Ili Provincial Rebellion 1864
Tieutsin Massacre: China 1870
Russian Occupation of Ili 1871
Japanese Occupation: Ryukyu 1879
French Indochina War 1882-83
Sino-Japanese Confrontation 1882-5
Sino-French War 1884-85
Tonghak Rebellion: Korea 1894-95
Sino-Japanese War 1894-95
Hundred Days Reform: China 1898
Boxer Rebellion in China 1899-1901
Chinese Republican Revolt 1911
Mongolian Secession 1911
Sun Yat-sen's Revolt: China 1913
Anti-Imperial Revolt in China 1915-16
May 4th Movement: China 1919
Chinese Reoccupation: Mongolia 1919
May 30th Movement in China 1925-26
Northern Expedition in China 1926-28
Shanghai Massacre in China 1927
Nanchang Uprising in China 1927
Autumn Harvest Uprising 1927 Canton Commune in China 1927
Assassination of Zhang Zuolin 1928
Soviet Invasion of Manchuria 1929
Communist Urban Revolt in China 1930
Mao's Chinese Soviet Republic 1931-35
Manchurian Incident 1931
The Shanghai War 1932
Japanese Invasion of Jehol 1933
Mao's Long March 1934-35
Kuomintang Mutiny in China 1936
Panay Incident in China 1937
Sino-Japanese War 1937-45
Japanese Blockade of Tientsin 1939
New 4th Army Incident in China 1941
World War II 1941-45
Chinese Civil War 1945-46
Chinese Civil War 1946-49
Sino-Mongolian Border Clashes 1947-48
Chinese Occupation of Tibet 1950
Korean War 1950-53
Tibetan Uprising 1954
Sino-Burmese War 1956
Tibetan Uprising 1959
Indo-Chinese Skirmishing 1960
Sino-Indian War 1962-63
Chinese Cultural Revolution 1966-69
Sino-Soviet Border Clash 1969
Sino-Vietnamese War 1979
Tiananmen Square Massacre 1989


----------



## Pablo

The only way I can see it is if you are a believer in a God in the Christian/Jewish/Islamic definiton then you have to admit that God is either not all good or not all powerful. Look at the world today! if God exists then he is either not all good or not all powerful and I dont think I should pray to a God who is either of these things.

But because I dont believe in a God it does not mean that I dont believe in spirituality and mysticism. The pure scientist believes that in life there are two aspects of reality: 1 -The understood and 2 - the yet to be understood. The spiritualist believes there are three aspects to reality: 1 -The understood, 2- the yet to be understood and 3- the never to be understood. It is the never to be understood which gives life it awe and wonder and makes a person humble that there is so much more going on than they will ever fathom, so I have to side with the mystics and believe that there are aspects of life we will never understand otherwise life will be dead and pointless.


----------



## Pablo

You make a good point about China Dreamer. China is probably the country least influenced by religion on the planet but it is still highly aggressive and violent, just look at what they are doing to Tibet basically ripping apart its highly valuable and sacred heritage to make it conform to Communist principles, which is a massive crime against humanity. Also see what they are doing to the Falun Dafa religious organisation, torturing and imprisoning anybody who speaks out about their beliefs. There are even rumours about Falun Dafa members being rounded up and their bodies used for organ harvesting, although it is hard to work out fact from fiction when it comes to the PRC, still they are pretty high up on the Amnesty International grievance list of countries.


----------



## falling_free

Not all athiests are communists you know :lol: . :roll:

What you seem to be arguing is that if the world were seculur it would suddenly become a communist superstate with a complete degradation of morales.

This is a complete nonsense in my view, the cold war is over guys...........

oh and china is hardly communist , it more like state capitalism.

Oh and im not a symthasizer for china's and the soviet union's various evil's by the way before anyone tries to pin that badge on me.

Still devoleping my political views but at the moment I believe in a in a kind of liberal democratic socialism. Einstein as I recall has been mentioned a few times in this debate, but did you also know he wrote an article named why socialism in a magizine called monthly review in support of a type of democratic socialism.

http://www.monthlyreview.org/598einst.htm


----------



## Dreamer

I swear I still blame it all on testosterone and survival of the fittest and tribalism, territorialism, etc. I swear it.

I am blaming no one political party/religion, etc. Humankind, as I've said many times before, IMHO, is not innately good. And there are no easy answers or any one solution to anything.

As to why this is as it is ... I could answer it in a number of ways.

As I may have said before, someone once said to me, they want on their tombstone, "What The F**k Was That All About?!"

We don't know. I don't think we'll ever now. Not here, not now. Not in THIS now.

I just don't want it to mean nothing.


----------



## CECIL

IMHO its all about fear. Fear is an incredibly powerful force - one that is a remnant from our evolution out of biology. Of course we've argued about this before, but just look at why people do the things they do.

Why does anyone suppress other people's views/ideas/beliefs? Fear. Fear that they are wrong. Fear of change. Fear of loss.

Why do people start wars? Fear. Fear of change, fear that their country will be invaded or destroyed, fear that their way of life is in danger.

Why do people murder other people? Fear. Massive fears built up inside themselves that are never dealt with, so they have to be expressed somehow.

And people use fear in religion to influence other people. "Don't do this or you'll go to hell", "If we let those Muslims go on and on about THEIR god, then OUR god will get pissed off and do bad things to us". Fear.

Where's the love guys? Where's the love?


----------



## Martinelv

Sorry - I didn't realise that anyone had replied. I'm still waiting, ney - shaking with anticipation, for the 'hundred's of proofs' of god/s existence. Don't make me wait too long.


----------



## suz

I'm agnostic and I'm stupid.

Jusy my two-penneth.


----------



## Guest

The only stupid thing about you Suz? is your low self esteem? A lovely person like you ?shouldn?t? be putting them selves down so much! )Hugs(.


----------



## Pollyanna 3098

I am going to chime in here without reading the whole thread, probably a bad idea but Martin you require proof of existence. I don't really know what to believe so I should probably exit the thread, but can you prove that he doesnt exist. Its a pointless argument :roll:

3098


----------



## Guest

Pollyanna is correct... You can't prove either way....

The core point being? is that you could be ?all? correct? only time will tell? That's saying that time "does" exist.


----------



## Dreamer

Martinelv said:


> Sorry - I didn't realise that anyone had replied. I'm still waiting, ney - shaking with anticipation, for the 'hundred's of proofs' of god/s existence. Don't make me wait too long.


ACH, Martin. You are still on another topic for the Love of God! (Now I like saying that, lol).

The question is:

From the original subject heading which I found insulting was:

1. Are those who BELIEVE IN GOD "ignorant". Do they have "low IQs" and it was prompted by a graph that seemed to "prove" this in what I see as troubled countries where this clearly lower economic hope, sorry living situations, and lack of education. That graph was misleading at best. The subject heading I found insulting which is why I'm in this thread.

2. Then I guess I have pulled in (along with others) the concept that this is not true. Illustrating that those with higher levels of education (let's put it that way) can have faith. Faith can also be misused by leaders of many conntries to manipulate the population, as with Nationalism.

3. You then noted that religion (in other topics as well) is the cause of the world's ills. That is a different topic entirely. I vote that it is not, noting that there is NO MORE corruption/violence, etc. in people of Faith vs. those of no-Faith.

4. *You are again rabid you rat 8), at somehow wanting to win this argument that there is no God -- and you are indeed an atheist, which is no problem, but you seem to be forcing your views here ... you have for quite some time*

5. As noted, if we can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God -- and that is the agnostic stance (as long as it includes an undesignated more vague translation of a "higher power" along with any other established deity that exists today) -- then no manner of argument can sway those who have Faith to one degree or another.

And forgive me, but ther is, like Hitchens?, and who's the other guy I just forgot?, as sense of superiority about this.

I also read in the paper today that England, following the lead of France and other countries are going to literally force (or try to) Muslim women from wearing their clothing which fully covers them. Many were BORN in England. People OPENLY tell them to "go home" when their home is Britain. A person of a Bangladesh DESCENT who was BORN in England is told by people ON THE TUBE, to "go home." She reponds, "This is my home."

If the British didn't want immigrants they should never have allowed them into the country.

*This has caused women who didn't WEAR the birka sp? before to WEAR it.

As you feel religion is forced upon you, you rebel which is your right.  But so is the Muslim woman who feels it is her right to rebel when the stakes rise. Muslim husbands frequently don't care as much in the West. Women feel they WISH to wear the clothing in a more liberal country as a vestige of their culture, though they are treated at home with far greater equality and value in a Western country.*

It is interesting as well that British men whistle at women wearing the Birka and say "Hey beautiful, what's hidden under there?" That is demeaning.

Bottom line, final points:

1. I see the poor treatement of women, and religious rules upholding this as well as other ritual and law, to come from MEN who wish to guarantee their genetic heritage and not blame their sexual desires, or to justifiy their sexual desires. They wish to control women to control their genetic heritage. THIS IS HARD WIRED. I WILL FIGHT THIS TO THE DEATH.

2. MEN are hardwired to be agressive, territorial, possessive, tribal, xenophobic. If religion came from man (which I believe it did -- Muhammed is a true historical example who was a political conquerer as well as founder of his own religion), then it expresses what Men are -- and this is hardwired so how are you going to change this?

3. Finally if religion is a hardwired evolutionary adaptation of some sort -- HARD WIRED, how can this be changed.

Again, if I knew clearly if ATHEIST refers to only established anthropomorphized deities (Yaweh, Allah, Christ, etc.) -- and INCLUDED in that definition a more nebulous "higher power" -- I would clearly be an Agnostic. But I am atheistic in that I do not believe in "deities" -- antrhopomorphized Gods.

*I agree with some of your points Martin, but then you turn the debate back to what smacks of your own prejudice against FAITH. Belief in the SPIRITUAL. Any personal SPIRITUAL Faith. And it seems you would seek to root it out in a dramatic manner, in the same way (at minimum irritating) you feel there is too much evangelizing.*

*Are we arguing "Proof of God?" or whether or not those with Faith are lacking in an intelligence that you have? I'm confused. I don't see my arguments set in stone.

Again as many have said, why are you so rabid about proving those with FAITH WRONG. You have a right to have those beliefs, and you can be agressive about it, but it becomes as disturbing as those who use relgion as power.... corrupted. Atheism can be used as power corrupted. Any political system can be used as power corrupted.

I'm debated whether or not the original graph here convinces me that those of Faith are not as intelligent as others. My response. That is not true.

And to your statement that those of Faith are more violent than those who aren't -- My response is a resounding FALSE.

Men have the potential to be corrupt, or not corrupt. Destructive or not destructive. Women as well. But it is men who dictate what really goes on in the world ... men have created the good and the bad as I see it.

MEN are good or evil.

But we still cannot understand why we are here, we can neither prove nor disprove a "higher power" -- and that has a VERY broad definition.

Have you been reading the whole thread?
:?

And it would seem, this division, is wholly lacking in respect and empathy for those of other POVs who are NOT fundamentalist and NOT violent.

If we are all the product of our grey matter, the point is moot. You are lacking a "God center" (which is a misleading concept) -- and yet mysteriously have "messages from beyond" and say they "cannot be explained." I find that equally puzzling. You can't have that, Martin. Where is "THAT" power coming from.

PROVE THAT TO ME. SHOULD I BELIEVE IT OR NOT, AND HOW CAN IT BE PROVED OR DISPROVED, or were you just entertaining us? Hence manipulating us?

Cheers and sighs. :roll:
Much of life, and much of the brain will never be figured out. And I believe there will always be violence, tribalism, territorialsm, ritual ... watch Star Trek, lol. Wait until we run into the Borg -- "resistance is futile," Martin.*


----------



## Dreamer

Again taking the birka or some form of headwear form women who CHOOSE to wear it starts towards the slippery slope of persecution. As in France, they want the end of yarmulkes, crosses, etc.

That will only start a backlash.

The pendulum swings back and forth, but nobody gets it.

Why don't the British go to countries where womens' clitoris' are removed so that they "can't enjoy sex" so will only have sex with their "husbands"? What do y'all consider human rights anyway?

I agree, atheists can have their absense of faith, but why is it so important to take away faith, again if:

1. It is hardwired
2. If it is NOT the reason for all world violence
3. If MEN created it, they should freakin' take responsibility for it themselves.
4. If NOT ALL atheists are corrupt/evil/violent, if NOT ALL believers are evil/corrupt/violent. This sounds like some sci-fi horror film. "Minority Report" -- stop the crime before it happens and take all individuality away from everyone.

Slippery slope, slippery slope.

*I'm sorry I never remember how to spell birka, or any of that stuff. Here in the US, wearing of religiouos garb isn't that big of a deal, although I would say my "less educated" cousin who hates anyone who "isn't caucasion" to even live next to her.

She disagrees with ANY interracial marriage, even Tiger Woods mixed heritage. It isn't "natural" -- and that isn't from the Bible -- she's afraid of other "ethnic groups" -- no good explanation. She thinks all Muslims are evil -- did before 9/11, always has and she's 63. She makes fun of the man at work who wears a Turban, but can't say anything to his face as he is her supervisor. Doesn't matter that he is more educated and has never pushed Hinduism on her, but her favorite doctor is from India -- that is acceptable, as are the "nice black nurses and the nice Phillipino nurses" in our hospital systems. My father's cardiologist was a Hindi Priest! Best doctor he could have. Oh, and he's married to a Japanese woman! OMG, their children are montrous! Actually they are incredibly beautiful.*

It never occured to me to be bothered by people of different cultures, or intermarriage. I know of so many such people.

Tiger Woods is a problem! And should SEAL have married Heidi Klum!? Who is crazier? What's wrong with them. And have children!?!?

Why don't we dictate who can marry whom as well, especially if it involves a big cultural gap or religion. When does this stop? And don't you think it infuriates people more than bringing them together?

Personally I like the Thai restaurant here as well as the Middle Eastern market, and the BEST, BEST, BEST Chinese food nearby. Holy potatotes.

OOops, we shouldn't have allowed immigration either. Everyone must leave, and that includees the British (we don't want all of these British citizens here anymore like Sir Anthony Hopkins -- why does he want to live here anyway?), the Canadians, the French, the Spanish, the Greeks, the Aussies, etc., etc., etc. I won't go into the "Africans" OMG, terrible people, etc.


----------



## Dreamer

suz said:


> I'm agnostic and I'm stupid.
> 
> Jusy my two-penneth.


LOLOLOLOL.

You see, no one, NO ONE can be pidgeonholed.

"A pennyworth of mirth, is worth a pound of sorrow."


----------



## Dreamer

fallling free said:


> Not all athiests are communists you know


Never said that. Those in power in communist states (to one degree or another) limit religious freedom. That isn't to say individuals don't practice their own spirituality somewhat on the sly. Communism replaces one religion with another. Communism IS the religion. The leader is the "deity." I wouldn't care to have that forced upon me any more than being forced to go to Church.

Pick your poison.

You make gross generalizations, again. Unless that was a joke. Sigh.

:roll:


----------



## suz

Dreamer said:


> suz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm agnostic and I'm stupid.
> 
> Jusy my two-penneth.
> 
> 
> 
> LOLOLOLOL.
> 
> You see, no one, NO ONE can be pidgeonholed.
> 
> "A pennyworth of mirth, is worth a pound of sorrow."
Click to expand...

 8)


----------



## Martinelv

> probably a bad idea but Martin you require proof of existence


What? I....what? I don't require proof of existence!!! The poster I was having a discussion with (note - I regard it as a discussion, but the religious seem to regard it as a war of words) said at the end of his post that he had hundreds on ways to proove that god exists. And keep in mind, the burdon of proof is on the religious, not me!! I don't require proof. I am just 99.9999999999999999999% (not 100%, like the religious are, conversley) that god/s do not exist. Show me otherwise, and I'll examine the evidence.

Dreamer - I'll get back to you. I'm veeeeeeery busy organising my wedding at the moment, but....it's interesting. For an atheist / agnostic, you seem to protest too much. Makes me wonder why. Why are you so veheremently protective of the religous? Surely they are protected enough...I mean, they have (they think) the 'big man' on their side, and are protected all around the goddam world by government and the de faco legislation of 'offense' and 'respect'. What difference does what little old me says? Anyway, I'll get back to you.


----------



## Dreamer

Martin who drives me crazy 8) said:


> Dreamer - I'll get back to you. I'm veeeeeeery busy organising my wedding at the moment, but....it's interesting. For an atheist / agnostic, you seem to protest too much. Makes me wonder why. Why are you so veheremently protective of the religous? Surely they are protected enough...I mean, they have (they think) the 'big man' on their side, and are protected all around the goddam world by government and the de faco legislation of 'offense' and 'respect'. What difference does what little old me says? Anyway, I'll get back to you.


I am really waiting for your response! But I don't think you read my posts thoroughly -- again the need for all of us to sit down and talk in person.

OMG -- did you read what I said again man!? I have no religion, no specific Spirituality in my life ... well my religion (non-thiest would be Buddhism I guess) and my theories are HEAVILY based on evolutionary theories. But I can neither prove nor disprove (no one can IMHO) the existence of a higher power.

:evil:

I am not defending sprituality save as an individual right! I am not defending religion as I see political parties as religions, and I have support here in this thread on that one. "Philosophies of how to approach life" -- and of course one can be both Spiritually religious and Politically religious. There are also conservative non-believers and liberals of Faith! Again have a look at Jimmy Carter -- very strong Baptist faith, as well as Bill Clinton. (Can't speak for Hillary) As *FallingFree* noted "not all atheists are communists" lol. Obviously not. And in Communist countries there are many of faith who simply don't practice in public.

*I am defending individuality and the need to retain cultural identity which includes Faith in many cases. I am defending what some of us may actually have been BORN with -- a hard wired tendency to have Faith, and in that case, those like Dr. V.S. Ramachandran (evolutionary neurologist/neuropsychiatrist) my hero 8) -- even HE doesn't know what it means to have this "religious propensity" in the brain. *

And I am debating that your atheism is very strong, strong enough that you do seem (remember this isn't an attack) to "evangelize" sp? atheism as much as some of Faith evangelize their religion.


I have never seen anyone so rabid about atheism save my mother. Noone in person that I "know". That is a MAJOR statistic in my life considering I am 48.

The strange thing. I have never been forced to have Faith by any of my peers. But I was shamed by my mother or my friends were insulted if I attended Church with them. My mother preferred my friends who didn't attend Church or seemed to have less interest in sprituality, but none of them talked about it anyway -- NONE! She also preferred my Jewish friends, and her Jewish (non practicing friends) seeing as Judaism is to a good degree more secular/cultural.

Well my cousin who is WAAAY over the top can't stop talking about it, but I see him once a year. His WIFE even gets sick of his carrying on. But he, for no reason I can pinpoint, is extraordinarily Christian -- he doesn't believe in evolution, etc. My mother would challenge him, insult him, ruin parties as a result! Never got together with the relatives much as a result. Who needs to be insulted out of the blue.

I will say, his 3 sons, have not gone Baptist. They are rather quiet Lutherans, which is the religion of my German family. But no one ever practiced Lutheranism. My Aunt (long deceased, my mother's sister was NOTHING like her -- completely non-judgemental), my other cousin, her sons are not especially religous other than they have some sort of personal faith we don't talk about. They do go to Church.

Now granted I don't know any Muslims ... don't think I know any ... but I see them all around this very liberal university town I live in. This city has one of the largest Middle Eastern populations in the country (to the best of my knowledge). Many are greatly troubled by the Iraq war, and speak out on TV interviews here, but many agreed with toppling Saddam (though what the US did was idiotic). The grief they have is in losing family members in the civil war there now. These people are not uprising against the US Government.

However, the government keeps tabs on that community as all over the WORLD, including here, there are "home grown terrorists." But most Muslims here are ashamed of that, or strongly disagree with that saying that the violence is not part of the teachings of the Q'uran.

Many Middle Easterners here don't agree with the Iraqi war, and they also speak out publically. But not with violence.

*But I don't have the problem you or your country have with individuals expressing their religious/cultural heritage in public. Simply wearing a head dress (I see that here all the time from coffee shops to grocery stores). I have no problem seeing a professor with a turban or yarmulke. I don't have a problem with the plethora of new age, Hindi, Buddhist stores, temples around here either.

I find the diversity wonderful. And to stifle it, UNLESS THERE IS FUNDAMENTALISM WHICH RESULTS IN VIOLENCE WHICH I HAVE YET TO SEE HERE, is unthinkable to me. And you are quite prepared to stifle this freedom in the name of "secular humanism" which is ALSO a type of religion -- a set of beliefs (not theistic, but political) -- again this is your right, but I see it heading towards the Big Brother side of things.

There are also kids who dress in the most outlandish clothing -- the old Goth crap, so full of tatoos and piercings, and purple hair that they look like aliens, lol. I'm not going to say THEY can't express themselves that way either, as COLLEGE students (I see it differently in lower grades in school -- high school, etc. where I believe in dress codes -- NOT eliminating RELIGIOUS symbols, which are rare as kids rebel against their parents anyway) ... What about Devil Worshippers? Witches? Anything New Age you can think of.

I don't care how liberal my town is. How liberal this University is. If I felt uncomfortable and wanted to live somewhere else I would move but I love it here.

And there is OPEN discussion of these ideas. Not OPPRESSIVE ELIMINATION. I feel that's what you want, and is what your government and the French are doing. I think that is unnacceptable and a violation of freedom and a sad elimination of individuality

Do you dislike those of African heritage who wear typical African garb? Should they be forced to stop wearing that? That is CULTURAL, not even Spiritual.

You seem to be for the elimination of human rights, yet you are allowed your right to be an atheist. And I also see an arrogance, a sense of superiority. I am not an advocate for ANY religion, I'm an advocate for freedom of expression as long as it doesn't interfere with society as whole. If your government chooses to stifle religious freedom, that is fine. But then, despite all of our flaws (and we have a TON) in the US, I far prefer to live here than in Britain, though I find it's history, it's beauty -- all of Europe, many countries -- wonderful.


Cheers,
D
8)
Please REALLY READ what I have to say. I think I'm being pretty clear, yet feel I have to re-explain all the time. I also think we should boycott the import of Jaguars, tea from Britain, not make scones anymore, not visit Stonehenge or Big Ben. We will hence get contaminated by your culture! We also need to close all Pubs, British and Irish. Your culture is unnceptable and unwelcome here. 8)*


----------



## Dreamer

*Cool about the wedding. I'd gather you will be married by a Justice of the Peace or a Sea Captain or the like (that sounds amazing to me). That is your right as well. Not a Church wedding. If somone told me that was unnaceptable I would find that in violation of YOUR rights. I wouldn't stop speaking to you or insist you have a Church wedding! Or tell you you are deluded. I am an advocate freedom of choice.*


----------



## Martinelv

Just a quick one before I battle the trains home:



> I am not defending sprituality save as an individual right!


Yes you are. You literally scream it! Why is that?



> OMG -- did you read what I said again man!?


Yes I do. I read your novella's ( 8) ) very closely, and I get the gist of what you are saying. But as with everything where we cross swords, it smacks of patriotic, protectionist individualism, for the sake of it. I am not talking about individuals, and you know that, you minx. I know that this statement will send you into screaming raptures, but it's the truth. From my point of view anyway.



> And I am debating that your atheism is very strong, strong enough that you do seem (remember this isn't an attack) to "evangelize" sp? atheism as much as some of Faith evangelize their religion


I'm not going to justify the 'evangelizing' atheism thing. It doesn't justify a response, and you, a woman of considerable intelligence, knows that.

Tell me - if you had a child, and his or her life was seriously f*****ed up by religion, personal or not, would you not scream your disapproval? That's all I'm doing, in a sense. So why are you protesting so much? If I had a child and he or she was murdered by a drunk driver, would you be on this forum screaming at me if I stated that I hated all drunk drivers? No, of course you wouldn't. So what's the difference? Tell me, I really need to know. And forgetting my metorphorical child, there are MILLIONS of people, around the world, right now, right this second, who are being screwed up by religion. Right now. This second. The analogy is perfect. Yet you, as an agnostic/atheist, seem bent on protecting them. They don't need protecting, as I've said - they have enough protection already, I'm sure you'll agree.

Which again, forgetting your attempt at disguising your atheism with pretending it is an individuals right (which it certainly is), but the real question is - why should we tolerate it? With you sweetheart, we don't even get that far. I need to know why.



> I have never seen anyone so rabid about atheism save my mother. Noone in person that I "know".


Ah. There, we get to the crutch of the matter. You are not shouting at me. You are shouting at your mother.

Don't hit me, it's the truth. You know it, I know it. Don't tar all atheists with the same brush as you tar your mother - rightly or wrongly. Rightly, in your case, I expect. Am I getting there? Your difficulties with atheism? Your intellect tells you that religon is bunkum, but your horrific experiences with an atheistic (ney - from what I know of you - nilhisitc) mother, causes you to bristle with anger whenever you hear or see or read someone says something similiar.

Thing is, I am not your mother. I do not share her views.

I prepare myself for the storming retaliation. I mean no harm by it. You've said it yourself. But I'm not going to have to continue to justify my non-belief on the basis of someone elses prejudices.

I like you. I am your friend. I am not patronising you. I am not pretending to know. But what I have just said, you have already said yourself. I've read your website, and, whether you like it or not, my heart bleeds. My heart bleeds for someone like you, who I'd love to have as a personal friend, who's life has been f****ed up. You know how much I hate DR/DP. You know how much I respect you (remember our jousts with D.Joe?).

Just.....well, don't take it out on me.

Actually, do take it out on me. I can take it now....I, well, feel....solid, if that's not a strange word.

What is strange is that I can feel so close to, and not just to you, people who are continuing to suffer from this s**t. I hate it. Hate it, hate it, hate it.

Forget it all. We all live under the same sun, the same moon. And tonight, when I look up at the moon, the sun, I hope you will too.


----------



## Martinelv

Ooh, I forgot - about the wedding. Well, it's been a bit of a palaver - but the saintly Bishop of Norwich has granted that I, a divorcee, can in fact get married again in a church. The full kaboodal.

Yeah, go on - say it. I'm a hypocrite?

And the bishop isn't?



I don't give a damn what the 'church of england' thinks. I'm getting married in a church because it's nice. I like the tradition. I like churches. Rather that than a registary office.

Oh, and I also give presents at christmas. Kick me.


----------



## Dreamer

OK, I'm going to respond, but you clearly don't understand where I'm coming from, and that makes me sad is all.

Firstly, the hard-wired part which I tend to believe in. Also, the concept that evolutionary survival instincts come first -- you ignore that completely. You also have yet to understand my questioning of how I define myself as an atheist, or an agnostic. You've missed the whole point. So on that I give up.

You also same some pretty cruel and illogical things here.



> it smacks of patriotic, protectionist individualism, for the sake of it. I am not talking about individuals, and you know that, you minx. I know that this statement will send you into screaming raptures, but it's the truth. From my point of view anyway.


That is a low blow, and I have really no clue where you get this from except a misguided sense re: my being an American I guess.

I believe in a lot of rights, including Pro-Choice, Pro homosexual civil unions, etc. Is that "misguided" patriotism? Whta a silly word. I live in the US. But there are people who have faith the world over. Is it patriotic? That makes no sense. A Buddhist is tolerant -- is that patriotic? You REALLY hate the US/our politics I think, my guess. I'll toss that ball back into your court. And of course that is your right.



> Tell me - if you had a child, and his or her life was seriously f*****ed up by religion, personal or not, would you not scream your disapproval?


If my child were "seriously f**cked up by religion ... and I'm not clear about what you're saying as this doesn't seem to be the case of anyone I know personally ... I really don't know what you mean. If my child were raped by a Priest, yes I'd have a fit, but my child wouldn't be goiing to Church!? But my anger would be at pedophilia, and corruption within an organization.

And if I were neutral, as I am, re: Faith; I would not go to Church with my child, etc. I mean I would take the child at an older age to experience it (the beautiful Churches, Synagoges, Mosques) of the West and Middle East.

I would explain (and my husband would have to reinforce this) that "I don't know" and it is your choice to discover what you believe in. If the child got sucked into a cult, yes I'd be furious. But many parents lose their children to all sorts of lifestyles. You could have a child who chooses some form of Faith and Church. Would you stop loving your child for that? Ban him/her from your life?

You're mixing apples and oranges. If a child of mine became a Fundamentalist ANYTHING, I'd be concerned. But at some point we all become adults. My hope would be that I had raised my child to be tolerant, thoughtful, and interested in educating him/herself re: as many walks of life as possible and make his/her own decisions.

At some point, I might lose my child to differing beliefs, but I would gather my child (as with my friends) would have a child basically on the same page as I am -- with no guarantee, as we are ALL INDIVIDUALS.



> And forgetting my metorphorical child, there are MILLIONS of people, around the world, right now, right this second, who are being screwed up by religion.


Gross generalization. Religion of one form or another is so integrated into Culture and society that is ridiculous to blame all problems on religion. I look at all the problems we have domestically, and the bulk of them have to do with the disintegration of the family structure, the "feel good" mentality, entitlement. And the violence and rage in our country is among youth without focus.

Those who blow themselves up are young men without focus. They latch onto any cause -- political or religious to justify their agressiveness. This would be the definition of the gang culture we have here (in all cultures) and that exists all over the world as well. Yes there are "girl gangs", but they certainly are tiny in number compared to the sexed up, "let's prove we're men and kill people" gangs of young men. THAT is a social ill we have to deal with, and I don't know how.

Note ... men ... (far fewer women) .. are violent. Why is that? That is also going back aeons and to survival of the fittest. Division of labor between men/women.



> Ah. There, we get to the crutch of the matter. You are not shouting at me. You are shouting at your mother.


Low, low blow from you Martin. Beneath you, as I have confided in you in some emails about this. And if you've read my site, about my mother, it is clear my mother was mentally ill though no one can figure it out. I found from her first husband (in a weird situation) she saw a psychiatrist in the 1950s. He wanted his money back, lol. I yelled at him as he was trying to manipulate her when she got dementia, and said as well, "Why the Hell didn't you ask for the money when you divorced her?!" What an idiot, he was an attorney, lol.

I have told you, that my mother DID f***k up my life in a lot of ways. She made me embarrased by her outspokenness, yes. But not just her atheism, but comments that men were worthless, that love is a delusion (there's one for you to debate -- a Freudian concept), that everyone else in the world were insincere and I should trust no one, and then later that I was defective for being mentally ill.

Note, among her other attacks on people were "All black people in Detroit should be scooped up in bulldozers and dumped into Lake St. Clair." That HURT. I had several friends who were black at my school. And of course we had a black housekeeper my mother made fun of and treated like shit. That had nothing to do with her atheism. I hated her more for that. She also told my cousin he was an idiot to get a vasectomy after having 3 children. That I NEVER could figure out as she felt they had too many children and were "breeders". FOR THE LOVE OF GOD she was nuts.

I'm most angry about that. I found her atheistm ridiculous at best as it made no sense. And as noted, you are THE ONLY PERSON, who argues it to the extent she did. It is quite astonishing.

I guess I have to get down and dirty on that one, as that was very unfair.



> Thing is, I am not your mother. I do not share her views.


Thing is, you didn't know my mother or live with her. Odd, but you are very much like her. She saw herself as a God. A medical doctor. Superior to her patients and to anyone who had Faith. They were delusional, and she felt it was destructive, and at the same time absolutely amusing as she didn't believe in an afterlife so it didn't matter.

You aren't playing fair in this debate now Martin. I can't respond as you don't understand me. You just don't get it.

And yes, you are a hypocrite for having a Church wedding. You could have a beautiful wedding at sea ... there are many choices that are romantic and beautiful that bypass a Church.

But that is your right, to speak out of one side of your mouth on one side, and another on the other.

Why would you DARE step inside a place of worship you so disdain. WHY?

When you have children, which I wish I had, but have seen grow up -- my friends' kids, maybe your view on life will soften a bit, as you see someone you have created which is not a clone of you, but an individual.

Kids pop out of the womb with their own personalities. It is astounding. I do not believe in a tabula rasa, but I also believe in a degree of hard wiring.

Read V.S. Ramachandran. That is where I stand. And he is a very bright, kind, scientist. Who doesn't judge others, or bring up their own personal history, specifically something I have told you in confidence -- that I ADMITTED COULD have a degree of influence on your rabid atheism.

As noted, I have NEVER met/heard anyone else like you (personally) save my Mother. I find that rather astounding.

And I cannot compare Faith to the CORRUPTION of Faith within an organized religion or by religious leaders.

This is the end of my debate, as you don't hear me. All of this falls on deaf ears.

There will be prayers, and you will be married in the name of a God you despise at your wedding. Again your choice. Your bride's choice. Funny thing is that's how I was married. In a VERY simple ceremony. At a little chapel by a Minister. My husband and I. He a Jew/agnostic, I an agnositic/whatever the Hell I am. I wanted more than standing in a line at the County Clerks office, yes. But we tailored the wedding to our lack of Faith. And this was more of a non-denominational wedding chapel.

My dream wedding would to be married at sea by a ship's captain. Though a Church is very beautiful. I can see why you chose it, for it's magic, it's romance -- do you see you have been seduced by that indefineable magic that one experiences in such a ritual.

I'm going to be a bitch now. And I'm mad. I might forgive you.

But I'm really ticked off by your lack of empathy or an attempt to understand the needs or wants of individuals who are not exactly on the same page as you are.

Damnit. Really cruel and below the belt this time Martin.
D

PS, I DON'T give Christmas presents -- I give "New Year" gifts to a select few. And the cards I send are non-denominational, save to my cousin as I respect him, even though he drives me crazy. I wish people "Peace of the Season, and a Healthy New Year." If I attend any service, it is at the invitation of friends. Dinners likewise. As I enjoy their company and the social ritual.


----------



## falling_free

> And you are quite prepared to stifle this freedom in the name of "secular humanism" which is ALSO a type of religion -- a set of beliefs (not theistic, but political) -- again this is your right, but I see it heading towards the Big Brother side of things.


I disagree that secular humanism is goign to lead to a big brother state of goverment.

Iv'e never actually said I would agee with the FORCEFUL abolishment and repression of relegion on anyone, I think it will eventually wither away and die, if not in the whole world, then at least in my home country (the uk)
where I think christianity is on it's death bed.

For example of everyone I know I could count the amount of relgious people on one hand, nearly everyone I know of my generation is either agnostic or an athiest. And this is through my years in the priamry school, secondery school, college and unviversity education system where I have met a diverse range of people from all walks of life and backgrounds.

My mum and dad say they are chrisitans , when do they go to church???? almost never.

The fact is a secular humanist society will probably be less like a big brother state , as we don't have age old (and most importantly) largly irrelevant rules and limitations enforced on us by a supposed invisible higher auhority that can never ever be questioned and changed.

It's a truer and in my view more noble quest for truth which secular humanism represents. It doesn't claim to have all the answers so I dont beleive it can classify as a relegion either.


----------



## Dreamer

And what if I said to you Martin, "Because you are an atheist, or a Jew, or a Christian, or of any religion, YOU MAY HAVE NO CHILDREN, as you will corrupt them."

This isn't a violation of individual rights? Would you be happy with that? And of course homosexuals are persecuted frequently not truly by a religious law (that is the reinforcement of the topic) -- homosexuality is seen as "deviance" frequently by both those of Faith and non Faith.

But did you know there are homosexuals of Faith, who have religion in their lives.

Gross generalizations. That's all I read here.


----------



## Dreamer

I never said I had all the answers Falling. No one does. On any topic. No one political system is the answer.

Fine, let faith wither and die. But give me the freedom to have my POV. Let those with some sense of Faith not be persecuted.

I don't believe it will completely wither from the earth. I don't believe that is possible.

BUT I DON'T KNOW.

I am not afraid of your country. Secular Humanism. I am afraid of individuals who force their ideas onto others who are doing no harm.

This is my POV. I'm not forcing it on you either.

Faith again, is personal. I say if it gives someone comfort, leave it alone.

God, there is such obvious hatred here of America. It isn't religion, it is the United States. I hear NATIONALISM in the superiority of your great country of the UK. I claim no sense of that as an American. I'm dumbfounded and humilated by some of the things we have done. But your country is equally culpable as every other country in the world.

Ah, you are so far advanced with your Secular Humanism. And again, I am not a person of Faith. I find the arrogance disgusting. And I am disgusted by the arrogance that exists in my own country.

As noted, China is the next great power.
I wouldn't worry about the US.
Or perhaps the Middle East?
Perhaps Russia?
Or perhaps we will be blown up soon, or destroy the earth with poison.

I really don't give a shit anymore. I will continue to examine my beliefs, and my understanding of this world as best I can.

I think, personally, we should neuter all men at birth save a few for reproductive purposes. There are no women in this thread, save me, the rest of you are having a pissing contest with me. I'm sick of it.


----------



## falling_free

> Fine, let faith wither and die. But give me the freedom to have my POV. Let those with some sense of Faith not be persecuted.


No one has mentioned persucuting any relgion????

criticism yes,m but not out and out persucution, as far as I know, not one person in this thread has been for the persucution of people of faith, and as I have said many times aready I don't think relgious people are neccersrilly any less intelligent than those that lack faith,



> I am not afraid of your country. Secular Humanism. I am afraid of individuals who force their ideas onto others who are doing no harm.


Well what would you have to fear from our country??? we are an ally of the US, regardless of their I think im right in saying mostly relgious poulation. As for forcing ideas on people , people recieve infomation, they make up their minds, you can't really force ideas onto people that they are going to blindly accept.



> God, there is such obvious hatred here of America. It isn't religion, it is the United States. I hear NATIONALISM in the superiority of your great country of the UK. I claim no sense of that as an American. I'm dumbfounded and humilated by some of the things we have done. But your country is equally culpable as every other country in the world.


No you are just equating america with relgion I think here, I'm not the biggest fan of the US , but they have done a lot of good as well in the world. Of course the UK has done lots of bad things in its time, im not claiming (and not once did I even claim it, that we are superior in some way so I don't know where you got that idea from.


----------



## falling_free

Also I think nationialism is one of the most ridiculous concepts ever, to me my nation is just a place I was born in that someone decided was going to be known as the UK, and I see myself more as a child of the earth than of Great Britain (lol sounds a bit new ageish doesn't it) :twisted:

Nationalism is an infantile sickness. It is the measles of the human race. - Albert Einstein

(LOL we are mentioning him a lot in this thread like he is the pinnicle of all human knowledge)


----------



## Dreamer

Me said:


> My dream wedding would to be married at sea by a ship's captain. Though a Church is very beautiful. I can see why you chose it, for it's magic, it's romance -- *do you see you have been seduced by that indefineable magic that one experiences in such a ritual? In such a special stunning setting that inspires awe, and sometimes an inexplicable peace?
> *


I just had to extrapolate on that; you are a hypocrite -- I'll play as mean as you, as you will take your vows in the name of Christ.

You have been seduced by something inexplicable and beautiful. How can that be, Martin? Seduced by beauty. Maybe that shows you have a bit of soft spot.

So have I, sitting in Notre Dame, The Blue Mosque, St. Patrick's Cathedral, The Crystal Cathedral, Synagogues (not in the Holy Land sadly). I have stood in awe at the Temple at Luxor, at Abu Simbal, I love religous art of all types, and seek it out in museums. Illustrated manuscripts are astonishing. I have been to the Vatican, I have seen the Sisteen Chapel (typing so fast I can't spell.)

And some would have these buildings destroyed. Many have been destroyed, on purpose, and of course in the Middle East, one Mosque for one Synagogue, over and over again. But again I see the battle over LAND. A little piss-ant peace of land that means a lot to both the Palestinians and the Jews.

Dreamer has left the building.


----------



## Dreamer

Falling, you have no idea what I'm talking about either.
Carry on boys.


----------



## falling_free

Dreamer said:


> Falling, you have no idea what I'm talking about either.
> Carry on boys.


       





Shamon!


----------



## Martinelv

Okay Dreamer - I apologise. I understand that what I said may have come across as cruel. That wasn't intended, but nonetheless I apologise. But it just seems to me that you take offense at virtually everything I say - everything. Children...religion....and yes, in that regard, I don't get it either. Everyone has issues but you, more than most, seem to thrive on it. I don't get that. You know I desperately want to you be rid of the DR/DP curse...

I'll leave this now. You think I don't get it, I think you don't get it.

I didn't mean to upset you. You know that. But with regards to religion I'm prone to employ any tool I can to promote my argument.

And regards me being a hypocrite....I...don't....care.


----------



## Dreamer

Martin said:


> *But with regards to religion I'm prone to employ any tool I can to promote my argument.*


OOPS! Careful what you say!

*Exactly my point. YOU SAID IT. On that point, you just admitted exactly what I'm talking about. Spot on. Full stop. "You will employ any tool" to spread the word of atheism even if it has existed since the dawn of time.*


As if no one thought of this before. As though many people examine their believes and have varying degrees of Faith, ritual. Some ID themselves as belieiving in God, but true, do NOT go to Church and again RARELY discuss their faith. I know the same of Jews. Again, there are also more Westernized Muslims, but I only read about their stories (women in particular), I know none in person.

Also, you are frightenly like my mother as _you also have "psychoanalyzed me" -- she did that my whole life. Anyone who starts pulling that shit on me is OUT in my book. How dare you? And that was because she was a psychiatrist, not an atheist!_ I PMd you about that, but I felt it important to note here. THAT was the most hurtful destructive thing she did and what you just did -- observe me and my "motives" as a child and adult, as a science experiment.

*My mother F****cked me up - I am that metaphorical child I guess, and hurt EVERYONE in her life, not just me, and she was an athesit! Case in point. One can get f**cked up by an atheist! She could make my father cry. No one cared to be her friend. Her attorney even said to me after her death, "Your mother never had any friends did she?" My God, the man had a revelation and he's dull as a post! And I was never as fortunate as you are to have a loving mother. I had no mother. She was from a different planet altogether.*

This is a debate. We aren't "learning" from each other, we are yelling at each other.

I am passionate about understanding Faith -- is it hardwired? -- see the TLE post I posted, why 9/11? -- I became interested in it specifically after that. I started studying the religion of Islam. Also, since having DBT therapy in 2004, I have become interested in Buddhism.

If I were Hitchens or Dawkins -- who garner your respect and admiration -- or a scholar on religion, you would listen to me.

You make comments over and over and over and over and over again about the delusion of religion and how destructive it is. I was not hurt by religion in my life EVER. When this forum was strictly for the spirtual, you attacked those who found comfort there. You and others. Over and over and over and over. And I couldn't figure it out.

*But you NEVER let up. So why should I?*

So why do you give a SHIT re: my passion? I want to learn/understand human nature. Sue ME. And how amusing, you fooled the Bishop into holding your wedding. As noted, at my wedding and at my mother's funeral, I chose the most Protestant venues I could find. I told both, in both cases that my husband and I were both non-believers but we wished to have some special ceremony -- we did so ALONE. With one witness.

I told the Minister at the Methodist Church near her house, where my mother's ashes were placed (with no marker) in a garden, that my mother was an atheist. He again tailored her funeral, a ritual that was necessary for me and members of my family (her neice and nephew in particular), to a very non-denominational theme. The focus -- she loved the water -- he found a perfect section from the Bible, the OT, about the beauty of water.

And again, you avoid certain questions. Like your "psychic powers" -- you are an enigma Martin. I have had certain respect for you, and right now it is gone. I don't think you have empathy for others, you don't see the uniqueness in individuals and see the value in that. You don't see that people are not all "hard-line" in any way.

I really don't care you're having a Church wedding. I see the attraction as noted. I really do. But it stumps me. _For the hatred you have for this delusion, you aren't following through on your statement above ... you aren't standing up to your crusade to educate the deluded masses. Puzzling to me is all. You see, life isn't all cut and dried Martin. People like ritual, even you._



Martin said:


> *But with regards to religion I'm prone to employ any tool I can to promote my argument.*


I don't know much about Anglican weddings or the Anglican Church of England -- will you take communion? will you drink wine (the body and blood of Christ?). I can't do either and don't. As noted, I'm not baptized, was never confirmed. How does this jive with the statement directly above, unless it is a hoot in the face at the Church which I imagine it is. I suppose what is lovely is that your bride will have a beautiful wedding, even though she is an atheist as well.

If I had married very young, I may have had a Protestant, low-key wedding, with the lovely gown, etc. If this is for her, great. I hope this is for her -- her most special day -- save the birth of her first child.

Ah, and you miss the point of Christianity anyway. The most important holiday is Easter. The belief of the truly faithful -- the Last Supper (Shabbat as Christ was a Jew), the Rejection of the Disciples, the betrayal of Judas, and the key, the crucifixion and ressurection of Christ. THAT is a day to send a card to the few faithful I know. With respect. And they know I have no faith, but they appreciate my recognizing, very informally theirs. I rarely if ever attend Easter Mass. That is where I least belong.

Also, you'd better change your signature, lol.

Your apology is too late for what you've said here. And your lack of understanding dumbfounds me. Your lack of giving one inch to understanding my POV. Hence I fight back, as I am entitled to, with words.


----------



## Martinelv

> but nonetheless I apologise


End of. Life is too short.

I see you are back moderating. Good. You may hate me, that is your right. But, whether you like it or not, I still think of you with great fondness, and you have been a great inspiration to many people, including me.

I say what I think. As do you. That...is...life.

So tough if you hate me! 8) I still think you are wonderful. I don't hold grudges....I just disappear.....you know...cave-man staring into the fire and all that.

I wish you were well.....I really do.

Martin.x


----------



## Dreamer

Martinelv said:


> but nonetheless I apologise
> 
> 
> 
> End of. Life is too short.
> 
> I see you are back moderating. Good. You may hate me, that is your right. But, whether you like it or not, I still think of you with great fondness, and you have been a great inspiration to many people, including me.
> 
> I say what I think. As do you. That...is...life.
> 
> So tough if you hate me! 8) I still think you are wonderful. I don't hold grudges....I just disappear.....you know...cave-man staring into the fire and all that.
> 
> I wish you were well.....I really do.
> 
> Martin.x
Click to expand...

Dear Martin,

I feel awful about our argument. I get in states where I truly feel attacked and defensive. Comes from years of that basically from birth until my mother forgot who I was.

I would hope we can have a truce, as you are fun and funny.

I will only say, can we have a truce?

I still want -- sometime -- to visit England again, and I would like to see you and some of the old gang if that is possible.

I know things change. Perhaps things would be different in person, I don't know.

I only wish you the best.

Take Care,
D

P.S. : I don't hate you. I think there are only a few people in my life that I actually "hate" or who have hurt me so badly I can never be in contact with them ever again. I've been angry with you. I've felt frustrated communicating with you. I've felt hurt. But that doesn't make me hate you.

Again, I ask for a truce if that is possible?


----------



## Dreamer

How did I miss the June 26 apology? I honestly don't recall seeing that. Sorry.


----------

