Atheism vs religion which bird is a better bird?

FunctionalAtheist said:

Care to speak in english? Or express cogent thoughts? Rambling is is rambling does? The most words doesn't make you the smartest person in the room!

Click to expand...

FunctionalAtheist said:

Care to speak n english? Or express cogent thoughts?

Click to expand...

Simple, I think I was reacting to the Baptist mentality dressed up as secular science. Which really all most atheists really are. I am not sure you understand what objective actually is so yea my post would be difficult. But you seem highly educated so that is understandable. It's a disorder that lots of quite time in nature can help. So what is objective what goes on in your highly educated brain? Feynman got it if you listen closely.

LuisDantas said:

And...? Atheism is hardly the opposite of religion.

Click to expand...

Opiate (like the mind numbing drug), not opposite

adrian009 said:

Opiate (like the mind numbing drug), not opposite

Click to expand...

Excuse me?

David T said:

Itin regard to another comment about simuliarites between the two atheism religion it's the old tl yin to the yang! Many people actually won't get what you are alluding to james!!! You are looking at how people think and in the atheism vs theism thing it's all about what I am thinking it has zero to do with how I am thinking or even why. No its all what i am thinking and why. Btw I have a sport touring scooter done the Harley thing. I just used the analogy that has some parallels in the motorcycle community with a bit of humor. They both are riding a motorcycle so they share that obliviously but dang do atheists get their panties all bunched up. Not all but alot!!!

Click to expand...

Thank you for your kind words on another post. I do love riding motorcycles and getting out on the open road. Fantastic scenery in New Zealand of course. There must be amazing places to travel round in the States.

LuisDantas said:

Excuse me?

Click to expand...

Karl Marx likened religion to hard drugs (opium). The only logical approach for the communists was to systematically dismantle religious institutions.

I have the impression you are not too familiar with a political movement that caused more death and destruction in the 20th century than Fascism.

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia

adrian009 said:

Karl Marx likened religion to hard drugs (opium). The only logical approach for the communists was to systematically dismantle religious institutions.

I have the impression you are not too familiar with a political movement that caused more death and destruction in the 20th century than Fascism.

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

Why do you keep coming back to Marxism as if it were entitled to represent Atheism?

LuisDantas said:

Why do you keep coming back to Marxism as if it were entitled to represent Atheism?

Click to expand...

I've never said that.

There's obviously different ideologies that are associated with atheism. 'One' significant political ideology is communism. It is a movement in recent history and present today whose consequences are plain to see.

I detect from a number of contributors to this thread that it is OK to attribute all manner of atrocities to 'religion' but it is NOT OK to attribute atrocities to atheism.

Clearly atheists are fine if they are accepting of the diversity of others beliefs, just as religionists are fine if they too exercise tolerance.

That being said fanaticism and intolerance is just as much a problem with atheist as for religionists.

It then becomes a problem of human nature and what we do with our respective ideologies atheist, religious, or otherwise.

adrian009 said:

I've never said that.

Click to expand...

You might as well have, for all the insistence on bringing up that unrepresentative movement.

There's obviously different ideologies that are associated with atheism. 'One' significant political ideology is communism. It is a movement in recent history and present today whose consequences are plain to see.

Click to expand...

And you fixate on it, because...?

I detect from a number of contributors to this thread that it is OK to attribute all manner of atrocities to 'religion' but it is NOT OK to attribute atrocities to atheism.

Click to expand...

And that is quite correct, although one should listen to what each religion actually says and is. Also, the specific dangers of theism should be acknowledged.

Clearly atheists are fine if they are accepting of the diversity of others beliefs, just as religionists are fine if they too exercise tolerance.

That being said fanaticism and intolerance is just as much a problem with atheist as for religionists.

It then becomes a problem of human nature and what we do with our respective ideologies atheist, religious, or otherwise.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but I am not playing that game. There is an inherent assymetry between atheism and theism. One enables delusions of acting "for a higher purpose", the other lacks the means to.

james bond said:

I think they're both religions. You're right they're not complementary, but isn't it being extreme that they have no function at all? What if it was only atheism and the Greek gods or paganism? Would you pick the believers side then?

Click to expand...

How is a lack of belief a religion? What qualities does atheism have that could possibly be religious?
Atheism has no doctrine, no beliefs, no rituals, no ethics. How on Earth could it be a religion?

Valjean said:

How is a lack of belief a religion? What qualities does atheism have that could possibly be religious?
Atheism has no doctrine, no beliefs, no rituals, no ethics. How on Earth could it be a religion?

Click to expand...

Only in a legal sense, in the context of a protected group.

We're a group, now

David T said:

Let's see nature is objective I am subjective to nature. Is that a philosophy?

Click to expand...

I think so, yes!

How is anything that transverses the human mind NOT subjective? Objectivity only comes when we establish (subjectively) a fundamental standard of truth (based on one or more assumptions) upon which we build our paradigm(s).

I'm aware of only two such fundamental standards of truth.

Shadow Wolf said:

To comment as a former believer, the difficulty is in trying to reconcile religious teachings with the world out there, and it gets harder and harder when you begin to realize that God isn't nearly as merciful, benevolent, and loving as your pastor keeps telling you.
But, at the same time, it can be said science is harder because you do have to think, you do have to admit when you don't know, you do have to become better at discerning among what you know, what you think you know, and what you assume to know, and to "do it right" you're position on many things are very likely to change several times. And then there is the very difficult part of trying to convince others what science reveals to us (I've recently discovered many people are fierce zealouts when it comes to AA and they absolutely do not want to hear or consider it actually isn't really that effective of an approach).

Click to expand...

Well said Shadow Wolf. Your comments really struck me cerebrally till you mentioned AA, then the thread went cathartic. I sat in on an AA meeting for a friend of mine who has a chapter leader. She had been sober for 20 years. She had a catastrophic life event one day and had a few drinks. After a few days she went back, to a different chapter, to face up. She was treated like a pos!

First, I was expecting, I' don't know, something at least non-denominational if not...can I say A-religious (not religions, not atheist, just religion doesn't matter?) but first we had to stand, pray...then when she told her story...20 years of sobriety, 14 years of being a leader, helping others, giving time, leading others to better themselves...was meaningless! She was treated like a pos. There was no doubt in the groups eye...the 12 steps had, have, and never will fail...my dear sweet friend, locked in her devotion to these twits....had obviously "not been working" the 12 steps!

After telling her that she was a complete failure, and that if she gives in to the steps, she might be able to "actually" find the path forward (as opposed to fooling everyone those 20 years), the all ended up on a freaking circle jerk prayer circle.

I was emphatically invited back be numerous members who told me their lives had been changed by the group!

My friend is still encapsulated by this cult!

adrian009 said:

While a share your concerns about the strong association with religion and violence, there two sides to a coin. Christianity spread far and wide despite persecution and opposition for nearly 300 years before the emperor Constantine became involved. My religion the Baha'i Faith has spread rapidly throughout many countries despite thousands of our early followers being put to death. I doubt if the Buddhists were too brutal. They all have a message of peace, love, and justice that have had a profound influence on hearts and minds.

Click to expand...

I do understand you have advanced degrees, and a medical degree, etc.... first is, admittedly, very nit picky; there verses there'r vs they're.

But of more import...can provide any evidence of the spread of xtianity "Far and Wide" prior Constantine? Or define what you mean by this? Numbers of adherents? Locals? Etc?

I do realize that xtianity spread by bits and pieces, and like a 1000s of others beliefs in the time moved around.. But far and wide seem to require a breath of foundation.

Thanks in advance!

David T said:

Well atheism can say that but, I certainly know a lot of atheist types who would claim we live in a virtual reality. I can't distinguish between theism as its presented by many and that. We do infact live in a type of virtual reality it's the one we have created linguistically mathmatically culturally.

Click to expand...

LOL! You go boy!

adrian009 said:

That sounds rather violent! Jesus used similar language when He said I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. Like you he was not speaking literally and had something else in mind. So lets dispense with religion.

What do you propose to bring peace and address the urgent needs of humanity? Is that a question you care about?

Click to expand...

I like the insight here. But really...doesn't' peace mean no one is left but me and those that listen to me? Is the concept of peace harmful?

David T said:

Simple, I think I was reacting to the Baptist mentality dressed up as secular science. Which really all most atheists really are. I am not sure you understand what objective actually is so yea my post would be difficult. But you seem highly educated so that is understandable. It's a disorder that lots of quite time in nature can help. So what is objective what goes on in your highly educated brain? Feynman got it if you listen closely.

Click to expand...

Ok, ok....Let's see if we can find a common ground. As far as baptist mentality...I was raised Lutheran. I was a baptist minister in a hispanic church (speaking only english) but after having received advanced degrees in statistics, ornithology, ichthyology, evolution, and experimental design. I have "read" the protestant bible (read meaning cover to cover from in the beginning to may he come quickly amen) 7 times; as well as countless nights reading tons of other religious texts.

Now, when you say you are not sure I understand what object 'actually' is, I understand objectivity to be open mindedness, fairness, the lack of bias or prejudice. Furthermore, objectivity is based on objective fact, i.e. reality as far as our senses can perceive, as opposed to predispositions, authoritative doctrines, or lucid dreams (lol).

As far as your post being difficult..ha, educated folks have difficulty understanding you...really? lol that is the bet you've got?

Perhaps you can point out where my previous comments, or my comments from this post, are in err? As to questioning if I understand your comments?

[edit] as far as hour in nature...I am 12 years the chair of the field trip committee for the most active chapter of the Audubon society in north america. I lead more than 35 field trips, coordinate close 500, and spend 1000s of hours in nature on an annual basis.

adrian009 said:

"For long years, the Soviet system created by Vladimir Lenin succeeded in representing itself to many as a benefactor of humankind and the champion of social justice. In the light of historical events, such pretensions were grotesque. The documentation now available provides irrefutable evidence of crimes so enormous and follies so abysmal as to have no parallel in the six thousand years of recorded history. To a degree never before imagined, let alone attempted, the Leninist conspiracy against human nature also sought systematically to extinguish faith in God. Whatever view of the situation political theorists may currently hold, no one can be surprised that such deliberate violence to the roots of human motivation led inexorably to the economic and political ruin of those societies luckless enough to fall under Soviet sway. Its longer-term spiritual effect, tragically, was to pervert to the service of its own amoral agenda the legitimate yearnings for freedom and justice of subject peoples throughout the world."

Bahá'í Reference Library - Century of Light, Pages 43-65

Click to expand...

You are saying that Lenin committed atrocities that make Hitler's seem pale in comparison? Any in history have no parallel? This should be more widely published! Americans butchered more than 30 million native americans and enslaved millions and millions of africans. Spaniards burned, chopped, mutilated, millions and millions of indigenous peoples around the world.

Lenin has no parallel? I need to hear more! Please!

Now when you speak of extinguishing faith in God, this is difficult...I am 100% behind extinguishing belief in divine. But I do not for a minute belive it requires anything more than rational discourse! Of course, I do believe we are 1000 years from it.

adrian009 said:

Karl Marx likened religion to hard drugs (opium). The only logical approach for the communists was to systematically dismantle religious institutions.

I have the impression you are not too familiar with a political movement that caused more death and destruction in the 20th century than Fascism.

Mass killings under Communist regimes - Wikipedia

Click to expand...

NIce read. Is it possible to provide documentation as opposed to this very brief and equivocal web page? For all I know, you wrote this!!!! Not saying you did, but you might as well have for all it documents!

adrian009 said:

I detect from a number of contributors to this thread that it is OK to attribute all manner of atrocities to 'religion' but it is NOT OK to attribute atrocities to atheism.

Clearly atheists are fine if they are accepting of the diversity of others beliefs, just as religionists are fine if they too exercise tolerance.

Click to expand...

OK! First, I, as an atheist, and most atheists I know (many) are not accepting of the diversity of (can't say other) any religious beliefs. We are just tolerant of ignorance so long as it does little proximal harm.

Now, to the more important point...If atrocities are attributed to atheism, bring them forward...If atrocities attributed to politcal ideology disguised as atheism, bring them forward. I suppose there are 100 ways this could be played out.....Bottom line if there are atrocities bring them forward...then let's talk about stopping them, what causes them, etc...

Why the conclusions before the issues?