Dawkins atheistic vision of society

Originally posted by agryson
Who said that? I can't find the post!

MacSwain. I can probably find the post where he argues with me, telling me there are Soldiers in the Navy, if you want.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Since declaration of self is being made: I am not a mystic of any stripe, including the world’s third largest religion, Atheism. As a child, I was indoctrinated with traditional views by parents, school and society. Thank God (pardon the pun), at a young age I possessed logic and reason as necessary to extrapolate truth and since have followed no man save m ...[text shortened]... icking on the ones that do not fight back.

Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?

Here's the post in question, and the quoted sentence is still there.

Originally posted by KellyJay
I got that and still disagree with him, you are able to lump all those
people into a single group by giving a 'definition' and a simple one
just by saying what it is they all have in common. Now does that mean
that they don't all behave the exact same way? Just as I pointed out
to you not all Christians behave the exact same way so there isn't
really a ...[text shortened]... do and say
the more other words will apply to you just as they do Christians.
Kelly

That's all very true, and you'll see from my posts that I describe myself as an atheist for the sheer simplicity of it, but at the same time I agree with the article in that that shouldn't be necessary, no more than it is not necessary for me to have a word to describe my lack of belief in astrology. The reality is that the word atheist will be with us for a very long time yet, that is not the same thing as sayng that it should be.
Also, by saying that someone is a christian, of course there are differences between people, but the one word carries with it a description of the persons cultural and philosophical background, two very big things about someone. The word atheism does not come close to describing any of those things. To use your algebra from earlier, all that the word atheism says is that I don't believe in a god. The word christianity not only says that that person believes in one god, but all of the underlying theology as well. A whole narrative of that gods son coming to earth etc. is revealed with that one word.
The word atheism is nowhere near as descriptive as that, and thus less useful as a descriptive term, which is what the article is getting at, at least based on my own reading of it.

Originally posted by MacSwain
Because Atheists are actively fighting against Christianity [b]which is the same as fighting for Islam.

Wow, MacSwain, don't you think you're taking the whole "with us or against us" ideology a little bit too far? It's just a rhetorical device, not a viable philosophy!

Originally posted by AThousandYoung
Here's the post in question, and the quoted sentence is still there.

Thanks... wide eyed exhalation of breath follows...

Originally posted by MacSwain
Since declaration of self is being made: I am not a mystic of any stripe, including the world’s third largest religion, Atheism. As a child, I was indoctrinated with traditional views by parents, school and society. Thank God (pardon the pun), at a young age I possessed logic and reason as necessary to extrapolate truth and since have followed no man save m ...[text shortened]... icking on the ones that do not fight back.

Do you DESIRE to live under Shiria law?

You keep missing my point. When I said atheism isn't like other religions I don't mean that it is a third one behind Christianity and Islam that is trying to win a race.

There are no proscribed laws in something called "atheism". In Sharia law or amongst Christians there are proscribed rules they follow and the code of law would reflect that. If people were atheists people would argue about which laws are the most practical and that's how they'd be governed.

I keep saying, atheism isn't a formally organized thing. The one artist you're talking about (I forget his name) was trying to make a symbolic point against Christians perhaps, he wasn't fighting all religions. He is just one individual he doesn't represent atheism at all. Nobody does. It's a NEGATIVE belief in something not a positive.

He's not a bully, he's expressing himself. If you want to talk about schoolyard bullys you can talk about the way Islamic fundamentalists would KILL him for doing the same thing to one of their symbols. I don't know how you can label the atheist artist a bully in that case but not the Muslim extremists who put fatwas on people who utilize freedom of expression.


When I say these religions keep US (your emphasis) from progressing I am talking about everyone on the planet, not just atheists. Even religious people will be held back if we can't develop stem cell research and things like that....they just don't see it that way.


At the end of the day, all I'm saying is is that the sooner everyone on the planet is guided by common sense instead of a code of malws two millenia old the better off everyone will be.

It takes only common sense to see it this way!

Originally posted by agryson
That's all very true, and you'll see from my posts that I describe myself as an atheist for the sheer simplicity of it, but at the same time I agree with the article in that that shouldn't be necessary, no more than it is not necessary for me to have a word to describe my lack of belief in astrology. The reality is that the word atheist will be with us for a ...[text shortened]... ptive term, which is what the article is getting at, at least based on my own reading of it.

Right so you are upset with the use of the word atheist why? It carries
with it a view about all things being here without God or gods! I don't
see the debate there is a position taken when one declares they are
without a belief in God or gods that touch all things not just the one
subject of deity. As a creationist I believe everything and everyone is
here for a reason, not necessarily one that I had anything to do with!
Moreover saying I am a creationist does not really say what I believe
entirely either, even if I were to claim to be a Christian creationist it
only paints me accurately ever so slightly about a few things not many
since I could also say I’m a young earthier or a gap theorist too which
now define me a little more clearly. Just the word atheist alone does not
tell me much about anyone as just the word Christian, we will always
need more.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Right so you are upset with the use of the word atheist why? It carries
with it a view about all things being here without God or gods! I don't
see the debate there is a position taken when one declares they are
without a belief in God or gods that touch all things not just the one
subject of deity. As a creationist I believe everything and everyone is ...[text shortened]... es not
tell me much about anyone as just the word Christian, we will always
need more.
Kelly

I have no problem with the word atheist, but at least I can inderstand that there is one. Like I said, I describe myself as an atheist, even though I see the words limitations. But the point being made is that to be a christian, you sign up to a set of beliefs, to be a creationist or a jew or a muslim, you sign up to a set of beliefs or views. Of course you've got your finer resolution descriptions, but in all cases, there is a "default" which is based not in belief but in evidence and logical discourse, and there is a "non-default" which requires you to suspend disbelief and have a faith. (To clarify I am not saying that atheism is a default state for mankind, but that lack of belief in a deity is likely to exist regardless of culture or even species, while belief in say, Jesus christ, requires you to be a part of that culture and thus is not a universal)
You don't "sign onto" atheism, you "sign off" of religion.

Originally posted by The Dude 84
YES THATS MY POINT!

Aliens didn't put me here. My parents did and I'm grateful to them, nobody else put me on this earth but THEM!

Really? And who put your parents here? Maybe their parents? And who put your grandparents here? Perhaps your great grandparents? I think you can see where I am going with this. In fact, who put this earth here? Sometimes it is hard to see past the nose on our face.

Originally posted by whodey
Really? And who put your parents here? Maybe their parents? And who put your grandparents here? Perhaps your great grandparents? I think you can see where I am going with this. In fact, who put this earth here? Sometimes it is hard to see past the nose on our face.

Ok, I'll bite & ask the obvious question- who put God here?

Originally posted by agryson
I have no problem with the word atheist, but at least I can inderstand that there is one. Like I said, I describe myself as an atheist, even though I see the words limitations. But the point being made is that to be a christian, you sign up to a set of beliefs, to be a creationist or a jew or a muslim, you sign up to a set of beliefs or views. Of course you' ...[text shortened]... d thus is not a universal)
You don't "sign onto" atheism, you "sign off" of religion.

Again, to sign up as an Atheist you believe there was no creator of the
universe as it is, it either sprang from something other than God or
gods or ther always this universe in some form here without the help
of God or gods details will vary, but the theme will be the same no
God or gods involved. As an Atheist you believe man alone is the
judge of right and wrong and there is not higher standard than what
man coimes up with and so on details vary theme the same. As I
have pointed out to you before it colors your world view on all things
and the details of how you color it run into the same issues that
Christians face when they are just lumped into the same bucket as
every other person who carries that label.
Kelly

Originally posted by Squelchbelch
Ok, I'll bite & ask the obvious question- who put God here?

What you are really asking is when did time begin, but if time were created then the answer is obvious.

Originally posted by agryson
Wow, MacSwain, don't you think you're taking the whole "with us or against us" ideology a little bit too far? It's just a rhetorical device, not a viable philosophy!

There is no need to get excited. 😏

Our resident bong boy pulled a line from a post on first page this thread. Oh well. He stalks me like a bird. 🙂 I really don’t understand why, unless it’s because I insulted the cow every chance I got for several weeks and she is the vengeful kind. 😉

Read my two posts first page this thread. If you disagree…fine with me. I think they are salient.

Point being: I am past being amused by militant atheists who blame religion for everything wrong with the world (no problem, their prerogative) – Then compound the error by only attacking Christians! (who do not defend themselves) and don’t have the balls to do the same against Muslims (who do defend themselves - very well indeed). Cowardice combined with Bullyism is not a desireable trait in my book.

Read both posts on the first page this thread to get entire viewpoint. If you still think my stance is “if you’re not for me you are against me” time to question comprehension. The point is if you destroy Christianity you are empowering Islam by default.

Geez…sometimes I am just flummoxed. Do I make my points too involved? C'est la vie! I will not change. 😏

Originally posted by whodey
Really? And who put your parents here? Maybe their parents? And who put your grandparents here? Perhaps your great grandparents? I think you can see where I am going with this. In fact, who put this earth here? Sometimes it is hard to see past the nose on our face.

You don't know who put the earth here and neither do I! Nobody does. The only thing I KNOW with certainty is my parents brought me here and I love and respect them for that and everything they've done for me since.

Don't make this digress about how the Earth was formed, because even though you probably believe you know, you don't, and neither do I. Some quasi-mystical sentence at the end of your post does nothing to convince me of your argument...in fact it's the opposite.

Originally posted by whodey
What you are really asking is when did time begin, but if time were created then the answer is obvious.

If something can be outside of time then time can't be created. It has always existed. Your assuming that time only exists because people are there to acknowledge it. If there is a totally empty galaxy bereft of life in any form it doesn't mean time doens't exist. Time doesn't only exist because a clock is made to count it. This view of the world is so simplistic I can't believe people think this way.

If the world can be explained by being a product of God's creation, and God can be explained by just always having existed, then why can't the Earth always have existed? If God can be created without a creator then why can't the same be true of the Earth? If nothing can somehow create a God than surely it can create the Earth too. And if God just somehow has always existed then you can't show me that the same can't be said for the Earth.

The reason is because then Christianity and every other religion becomes totally pointless and you don't want to face that.