Atheism is a Religion (Split from Blessing Human Rights thread)

[HELPNEEDED]

Missionary atheism cool

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by HELPNEEDED

Missionary atheism cool

Yeah we knock on your door and tell you a real god wouldn't need to take attendance on Sundays and to go back to bed.

We tend to gather at the library don't confuse us with the group at the Chik Fil A

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by SeeBass

Yeah we knock on your door and tell you a real god wouldn't need to take attendance on Sundays and to go back to bed.

Close, u take every chance to insult others and propagate ur belief system.

[Cecil Terwilliger]

Stop trolling.

[HELPNEEDED]

Originally Posted by Cecil Terwilliger

Stop trolling.

That's what u say to legit posts. Lol

[Pierre "Monster" McGuire]

On that 45:00 minute video I watched the intro to see what each of the guests were all about. Most of the video discusses public policy (which I'm not huge into).

I ended up skipping to the woman who works for American Atheism and she argued that secular morality is superior to religious morality. It was tough to follow her reasoning, but the more I think about it, she's not wrong.

[Cheese]

sorry...Im being a missionary atheist...whatever the heck that means.

[jamoro]

Originally Posted by Pierre "Monster" McGuire

On that 45:00 minute video I watched the intro to see what each of the guests were all about. Most of the video discusses public policy (which I'm not huge into).

I ended up skipping to the woman who works for American Atheism and she argued that secular morality is superior to religious morality. It was tough to follow her reasoning, but the more I think about it, she's not wrong.

While think about it, secular morality is accepting people for WHO they are without any religious dogma behind it.
I like to think of my self as a very patient and accepting person, I don't look at people and think they have a hidden agenda. I just accept people for who they are. Some times I can come off naive, but really I'm just very friendly and accepting of other people

[J pold]

I should preface this post but saying I am an atheist, even though I despise using that term to identify myself, and I do respect some contributing members of the discussion, like Michael Shermer and James Randi, that whole video really rubs me the wrong way.

The host really epitomizes the smug sanctimoniousness attitude you find when you come across self professed atheists, especially on the interwebz. It is readily apparent right off the top when she states that she won't have a theist contribute to the discussion for worry that it would devolve the discussion. Of course why would you? Clearly your way of thinking is the best. Atheists are the vanguard of Western Societies, they are smartest people in the room, therefore it is appropriate is wholly ignore other systems of belief or cultural ideas about the natural world. To me it's as closed minded as any other dogma out there.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by T@T

Yet millions of people would take 2 hours out of their "busy day" to watch some dork talk about fairy tales in church.

At least this vid is free!

Maybe you could give us a condensed version of what the video was talking about. Assuming you watched that free video. I await your response.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by J pold

The host really epitomizes the smug sanctimoniousness attitude you find when you come across self professed atheists, especially on the interwebz. It is readily apparent right off the top when she states that she won't have a theist contribute to the discussion for worry that it would devolve the discussion. Of course why would you? Clearly your way of thinking is the best. Atheists are the vanguard of Western Societies, they are smartest people in the room, therefore it is appropriate is wholly ignore other systems of belief or cultural ideas about the natural world. To me it's as closed minded as any other dogma out there.

Well remember these guys spend a lot of time and effort sitting with theists and debating them, so you can give them a break to sit down with no theists and chat.

Of course you can call it smugness, but it to me is just confidence in the knowledge your ideas are logically usually on the right side of things. Again when you argue logically theism has a tougher time because of faith and experience holding such importance while the other relies on observation and tangible things.

I just find it frustrating that just speaking with confidence on these ideas you get called arrogant, yet mild mannered theists claim absolute truth and knowledge are never get called arrogant, because they make their points more "humbly."

But yeah the host is Bill Maher's former gf and she is a bit annoying at times, albeit she's a hot neuroscientist which is easy on the eyes, that laugh though, argggh.

[Cheese]

I see no arrogance in the above tube at all. I see a number of confident well educated people talking about specific issues.
They aren't even standing at a pedestal with arms gesticulating wildly.

Well made well spoken...thanks for posting it.

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

Maybe you could give us a condensed version of what the video was talking about. Assuming you watched that free video. I await your response.

Why bother? you would likely read a few words and quit anyway. I'll give you one tidbit, kind of a hot looking nerd atheist hosting that show.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by T@T

Why bother? you would likely read a few words and quit anyway.

You do know what they say about assumptions?

Continue with your usual drive comments

I'll give you one tidbit, kind of a hot looking nerd atheist hosting that show.

That really tells me alot

[kirant]

Originally Posted by J pold

I should preface this post but saying I am an atheist, even though I despise using that term to identify myself, and I do respect some contributing members of the discussion, like Michael Shermer and James Randi, that whole video really rubs me the wrong way.

The host really epitomizes the smug sanctimoniousness attitude you find when you come across self professed atheists, especially on the interwebz. It is readily apparent right off the top when she states that she won't have a theist contribute to the discussion for worry that it would devolve the discussion. Of course why would you? Clearly your way of thinking is the best. Atheists are the vanguard of Western Societies, they are smartest people in the room, therefore it is appropriate is wholly ignore other systems of belief or cultural ideas about the natural world. To me it's as closed minded as any other dogma out there.

One thing I notice in the lack of a theist in the conversation is that there is less balance in the debate. I'm a self professed agnostic (agnostic atheist when I voted in the old poll) and only caught parts of the debate (I left it running while making some food), but there seemed to be times where they'd not really make distinctions in theism.

One part that I heard in detail and disagreed with is how a theist would pray to their god. One of the commentators (I don't know which one in specific, as again I wasn't watching, just listening) mentions that you can test a faith by looking at whether or not prayer works. I didn't catch the preceding section and may be acting without some knowledge (he mentions something "Randy" stated), but this snippet strikes me as a bit odd. The distinction between a non-acting god and a god that actively listens and participates in individual's prayers wasn't made. In this train of thought and measurement, the possibility that god doesn't act based on prayer is treated as impossibility. I haven't read the Bible in a while, but I do wonder if it's actually even stated in there that god will, without a doubt, answer your prayer if you have been a loyal follower. Either way, the test would be whether or not a god that acts based on faith based requests is tested, not on the existence of a god as a whole (which only happens if we can make the assumption that if a god exists, it will act on these requests). If we narrow the concept to a single type of god, one that must act on all forms of prayer, then we may see results that don't support a hypothesis...but the concept and the definition of a supreme being doesn't necessarily lock in all those terms from my understanding.

Later on, I caught a few comments implying that a theist would believe anything they're told, and linking that to politics (seemingly implying that they'd not trust religious politicians). I believe few people make such uninformed decisions and that all atheists are simply as all-encompassing about their belief as they make it out to be. In the poll from this forum, an agnostic theist would choose to believe in a god because something that happened to them and make the decision to be theist based on evidence...a life changing experience of sorts. In groups as large as atheist and theist, not everyone can be encompassed in such a simple manner...the internet an excellent host to many people who seem to have little evidence that god can't exist (with even less evidence or comprehension of their own arguments) and have more fun just flaming away as oppose to actually understanding the conflicting forces (even more notable if you talk to some). Large groups are impossible to scoop up into individual categories...there are almost always minorities and different streams of similar thought that confuse things.

One small comment too on the famous "theist vs atheist/rapist" study. I've always wondered (as I never tracked down a version of the study) is if there is a reciprocal reaction of atheists to theists - Do atheists react in a similar manner to a theist to the opposite belief in terms of trust? We have one point of data - That, barring a possible peculiarity in sample data (as the error bars are HUGE), it seems that from the single test that theists distrust atheists. However, hat seems pretty meaningless to me unless we see a difference in reaction from atheists towards theists. If there is no difference, then I think that we've simply seeing the effects of huge division along the concept of atheism/theism. If there is a difference, then there may be something to talk about...one side, if they're much more trusting of the other, may claim moral victory, though I'd be more interested in the "why" of the statistic...why is it that one side is less trusting of their opposite faith persons.

It's actually a decent listen from what I caught. A little one-sided, but worth hearing.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by kirant

One thing I notice in the lack of a theist in the conversation is that there is less balance in the debate. I'm a self professed agnostic (agnostic atheist when I voted in the old poll) and only caught parts of the debate (I left it running while making some food), but there seemed to be times where they'd not really make distinctions in theism.

One part that I heard in detail and disagreed with is how a theist would pray to their god. One of the commentators (I don't know which one in specific, as again I wasn't watching, just listening) mentions that you can test a faith by looking at whether or not prayer works. I didn't catch the preceding section and may be acting without some knowledge (he mentions something "Randy" stated), but this snippet strikes me as a bit odd. The distinction between a non-acting god and a god that actively listens and participates in individual's prayers wasn't made. In this train of thought and measurement, the possibility that god doesn't act based on prayer is treated as impossibility. I haven't read the Bible in a while, but I do wonder if it's actually even stated in there that god will, without a doubt, answer your prayer if you have been a loyal follower. Either way, the test would be whether or not a god that acts based on faith based requests is tested, not on the existence of a god as a whole (which only happens if we can make the assumption that if a god exists, it will act on these requests). If we narrow the concept to a single type of god, one that must act on all forms of prayer, then we may see results that don't support a hypothesis...but the concept and the definition of a supreme being doesn't necessarily lock in all those terms from my understanding.

Later on, I caught a few comments implying that a theist would believe anything they're told, and linking that to politics (seemingly implying that they'd not trust religious politicians). I believe few people make such uninformed decisions and that all atheists are simply as all-encompassing about their belief as they make it out to be. In the poll from this forum, an agnostic theist would choose to believe in a god because something that happened to them and make the decision to be theist based on evidence...a life changing experience of sorts. In groups as large as atheist and theist, not everyone can be encompassed in such a simple manner...the internet an excellent host to many people who seem to have little evidence that god can't exist (with even less evidence or comprehension of their own arguments) and have more fun just flaming away as oppose to actually understanding the conflicting forces (even more notable if you talk to some). Large groups are impossible to scoop up into individual categories...there are almost always minorities and different streams of similar thought that confuse things.

One small comment too on the famous "theist vs atheist/rapist" study. I've always wondered (as I never tracked down a version of the study) is if there is a reciprocal reaction of atheists to theists - Do atheists react in a similar manner to a theist to the opposite belief in terms of trust? We have one point of data - That, barring a possible peculiarity in sample data (as the error bars are HUGE), it seems that from the single test that theists distrust atheists. However, hat seems pretty meaningless to me unless we see a difference in reaction from atheists towards theists. If there is no difference, then I think that we've simply seeing the effects of huge division along the concept of atheism/theism. If there is a difference, then there may be something to talk about...one side, if they're much more trusting of the other, may claim moral victory, though I'd be more interested in the "why" of the statistic...why is it that one side is less trusting of their opposite faith persons.

It's actually a decent listen from what I caught. A little one-sided, but worth hearing.

Prayer

[Yakbutter]

deleted

[T@T]

Originally Posted by Dion

You do know what they say about assumptions?

Continue with your usual drive comments

So much for your busy day and not having the 45 minutes to watch it.

If you have to time to sit around waiting for responses on a message board just watch the damn thing will ya...you might even learn something!

And what drive comments? Are you looking for a debate on religion?

[kirant]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Prayer

A quick skim, but it doesn't say that God MUST answer. It might be a definition thing, but it seems there's a difference between hearing your request and answering them. It doesn't have the complete connection that if God hears, he will answer. There are lots of limitation on whether or not God would even hear a prayer though.

If (and that's an if) that's a comprehensive analysis on the Bible's listed statements on God answering prayer, I think there's reasonable doubt in thinking that we could accurately determine existence of God purely by a prayer's answered type of measurement. Now of course, that's something that may be lost with time too. Maybe in the original language and in the original context, these two concepts were more connected. I'm not well read enough to find or understand an original version of the Bible though. If someone like that is around, that'd be an interesting topic to talk about.

[TorqueDog]

Originally Posted by kirant

One part that I heard in detail and disagreed with is how a theist would pray to their god. One of the commentators (I don't know which one in specific, as again I wasn't watching, just listening) mentions that you can test a faith by looking at whether or not prayer works. I didn't catch the preceding section and may be acting without some knowledge (he mentions something "Randy" stated), but this snippet strikes me as a bit odd. The distinction between a non-acting god and a god that actively listens and participates in individual's prayers wasn't made. In this train of thought and measurement, the possibility that god doesn't act based on prayer is treated as impossibility. I haven't read the Bible in a while, but I do wonder if it's actually even stated in there that god will, without a doubt, answer your prayer if you have been a loyal follower. Either way, the test would be whether or not a god that acts based on faith based requests is tested, not on the existence of a god as a whole (which only happens if we can make the assumption that if a god exists, it will act on these requests). If we narrow the concept to a single type of god, one that must act on all forms of prayer, then we may see results that don't support a hypothesis...but the concept and the definition of a supreme being doesn't necessarily lock in all those terms from my understanding.

The reason that distinction wasn't made is because they were talking about theists, not deists. The difference between deism and theism is that deists don't believe in a personal and intervening god, while theists do. They didn't mention that difference because it wasn't relevant.

As for the part of god acting on faith-based requests,
given only faith, mountains can be moved. Seems legit.