Well, again you seem to be equating atheism to only being a non-belief instead of a whole set of philosophies and ideas in and of itself.

Maybe I'm doing that because it isn't? Maybe you are confusing atheism with humanism? Maybe I'm confused because you are confused?

I guess if you only define athiesm as the strict dictionary definiton of, "Doesn't believe in god." and leave it at that and assume there cannot be anything beyond a lack of belief...then sure, I guess you can think that way.

To assume that being an athiest doesn't come with it's own set of common viewpoints and philosophies is pretty silly though.

Also (darn no edit) I suppose it would stand to reason that a majority of athiests would also be humanists just by definition anyway. So if you want to go ahead and place those different labels here and there and it'll aid your understanding, be my guest.

I rather see it as a resistance group against brain slug overlords.

I think people should be able to believe in what ever they want. But I also would love to see church removed from all government just do to the simple influence it has on people our country and those in office would run more logical thinking patterns than being, I would think sightly less corrupted.

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

keep dreaming cak.

(about government being less corrupt that is)

_________________

World of Warcraft: Kallaystra, Gweila, Steakumn, Tarathia [ Feathermoon/Horde ]

I laughed.

As a further anecdotal aside, I live near Seattle, and a month or two ago my daughter came home from school crying because her friends told her she was going to hell for not believing in Jesus. She's decided she's going to believe in God now. I'm not hugely concerned, because I don't really think she's old enough to have firmly entrenched beliefs on the subject or anything, but it's still unsettling.

That's how you get kids who don't even have "faith"...they take religion as just a given fact because they were indictrinated young. =(

I will keep dreaming, only thing i got! hah

_________________
"Creating Havoc and Pie Since 2001!"
My Website: http://www.anthonyhays.com
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/cakvala

and a hat

Unfortunately quite a few atheist kids are also indoctrinated pretty young =/ Back when I went to school in this area it was almost nothing but atheism, and most of the arguments by those kids tended to consist of "my parents told me so" or varying degrees of such. People who admitted they believed in a religion(especially Christianity) were pretty much ostracized. You'll still find a whole slew of adults that show plenty of signs that they really haven't thought it through at all, which can also hint at some indoctrination or blind following. Plenty of that on both sides, sadly.

Speaking of which, my experience was significantly different than what Zatronn is describing. Then again, you can always get small groups of kids who might believe something different and gang up on someone. If it's the Eastside across from Seattle I can understand that though, plenty of conservatism afoot in that region =)

You fool, do not speak of him here!

(I laughed. Out loud. In the rain.)

I wouldn't say there's PLENTY on both sides, but yeah, there are most definitely some douchebag atheist parents. Personally, my wife and I explain all of the ideas that are out there for our daughter when asked, and let her know the evidence and draw her own conclusion.

If she ever finds God, I'll respect her wish, because it was done on her own terms. She wasn't ever forced into anything, including my own lack of belief. At the end of the day, however she finds happiness is good enough for me - so long as she's not trying to convert me

Being a parent really does change your perspective on a lot of things. I've ranted about religion on these boards, and how I hope the Rapture comes. I really do mean it; the fundies drive me fucking batshit and I have no greater fear than that of an ignorant theocracy developing. But that's just my own paranoid hyperbole and I know that's not the case longterm. Most religious folks are content to mind their own fucking business - which suits me just fine.

Word. Religions are like STDs - I don't care if you have one, just don't go spreading that shit around.

I can respect that, Elessar. Kudos to you and anyone else who presents all the viewpoints and allows their kid to make up their own mind.

I think with regard to converting the only thing that bugs me is when someone tries to convert someone in a weakened position - such as after a tragic event or if the person is in no state to make up their own mind. Some of the old missionaries to foreign lands come to mind. I, however, don't mind too much when an atheist is trying to convert me. I know it won't happen - but I still appreciate the fact that some of my atheist friends care about me enough to try and let me see what they think is the truth. I think the same is true for religious folks trying to convert atheists. If I were an atheist, I'd be honored that they cared.

Now obviously if it were for the wrong reasons... such as a religious super-zealot trying to convert as many people as he can to meet some fucked up quota set by his pastor, that's something else entirely.

Personally I tend to keep to myself with regard to religion(well, offline at the very least =p), but I can understand why people try to espouse their own viewpoints in an effort to hope others see the same.

I went to Salt Lake City last year for an Omniture conference and walked around the Temple area. It was pretty cool - very pretty. And it was fascinating watching how the Mormons there operated. The whole operation was geared towards getting you in and slathering information all over you. Still, they were super nice and not pushy. Tons of attractive young women. I love the show Big Love - I wanted to ask them if I could have one of the women if I signed up. heh.

There are sometimes some major differences in the major denominations. I'm Methodist now and I find it to be a lot more low-key, which is good for me.

It took me a while to get to this point, but I think I'm willing to say at this point that if anyone looks at the *evidence* for and against the existence of god, then there is no way you daughter could end up with a belief in god.

Do you do the same thing to your daughter for the existence of Santa Claus?

As for "low key," I just don't get that. If you believe that if you don't tell people about Jesus they will end up in hell for eternity, why would you not tell everyone you can? You would have to be a pretty horrible person to just sit back and know that people around you are going to go through that kind of horrible suffering that never ends and not do anything about it.

I'm not sure where you're going here. Are you implying he's doing something wrong by making sure she can choose on her own?



You keep coming back to the hell thing a lot. It's pretty sad really...is that all you've got for your faith? You have to believe or you'll burn? Is that even faith, or just fear? It sounds more like a belief in hell than a belief in god.

Never mind that not everyone believes in a "hell" and whatnot. Besides, it's about choice anyway. Even if you really believe that people will go to hell, you can't MAKE them believe, and even if you could would that even qualify as true faith?

People have to come to that point on their own, in their time, on their terms, or else what do you really have? Peer pressure to join a social club? Scare tactics to get people to drink wine and say Hail Marys?

I believe the point is that if you don't just "believe" in Santa Claus not only are you going to burn in hell, but you won't get presents once a year while burning. Just think, you could have asked for a fire extinguiser too!

Yes. If you know something is false, wouldn't you tell your child that it is false? If I tell my child the earth is round and that's what she should believe, then am I doing something wrong since there are still flat earth believers out there?



lol... you are *completely* missing my point. In fact, you are mostly agreeing with it. I'm *not* a Christian. It's hard for me to say it because of decades of programming, but I suppose people would call me an atheist, or at least an agnostic who is extremely doubtful there is any kind of god. I have no faith.

I'm criticizing people who claim to be Christians but are "low key" about it, as Joxur said. I'm pointing out that if you adhere to a belief system that includes a belief in eternal damnation (as Methodists do, in this particular example), then you are a real asshole if you aren't trying to save as many people as you can from it.

After reading this post, maybe you should go back and re-read the posts in this thread that I posted, Bovinity. Perhaps they will read differently.

As I said before, religion is such a deeply personal and spiritual thing that it shouldn't be something you "teach" to someone like a scientific fact, or push on them like a new product on TV. If you're going to have faith and believe, it's something you have to find and come to terms with on your own, otherwise what is it really?

And a "flat earth" is a poor analogy, I shouldn't have to explain why.



Well, the "yours" were more of a general term than personal. But I did assume you were a part of the set of "your". So I'll retract part of that.

In any case, they do get the word out. It's all over the place. There's a reason people half-jokingly call the U.S. "Jesusland". But that's the best you can do, is get the word out. Like I said before, you can't MAKE someone believe. You can't push and push and push until people break and give in. I like to think of it as a path...you can show it to someone, but you can't make them walk it.

Even if you did, would it mean anything? Does that empty social following count as faith? Is god fooled by any of it, like the tales of people "fishing" meat out of a well to get around no-meat fridays?

But this isn't about whether your beliefs are true or false. It's not like either side has any clue as to whether or not they are actually right. It's about jumping to a huge conclusion without the benefit of even a shred of evidence or rational thought (beings rationally, the only conclusion you could come to is "maybe there's a god, and maybe there isn't."


You'd have to look pretty hard before you found someone who was not already aware of the basic precepts of Christianity. Once they've been shown that the path exists, it's entirely up to the individual to decide whether or not they want to walk there. At least it should be, because I doubt that their God or Christ figure really puts much stock in those people who only showed up to church because they were dragged or badgered into going.

Religion was always grounded in faith, not evidence or fact. The issue is that it's a personal question for the individual, not something you can point to and say "Ah ha! See? No God". There are many people throughout the world that claim that they feel a connection to some brand of monotheistic god. That connection and feeling is intangible, but people claim its a major source of their belief. There's plenty of observational ground evidence of a spherical Earth. There's documented evidence that Santa Claus was created as a fiction for a specific purpose. Most religions are far, far more ambiguous than that about their true origins, else they likely wouldn't have caught on in the first place. There are plenty of mature, intelligent people that share the belief. That doesn't mean you give instant credence to it, but giving some thought about it and questioning its merits isn't uncalled for.

Besides, it's much less rigorous to simply say "unicorns do not exist". Leading them down a more thoughtful road to where they actually seek out their own evidence and answers is more prudent, IMO. "What do YOU think? Why do you think it? Does it seem likely? What evidence do you see for it? Can you prove it?" are all more interesting than being spoon-fed everything.

No. Because we know for 100% fact that there is no Santa Claus. We told her to respect the kids at school, and their belief in the jolly old man, but that all the presents she gets comes from us and her family - because we love her. Pretty simple philosophy.

Do you really expect that to work with a child? Telling them to respect the other kids beliefs about Santa? How old is she? That's pretty ridiculous.

Depends on the kid I guess. I figured it out pretty early on, and when kids would talk about Santa in front of me I saw no reason to correct them or destroy their belief if they were still getting enjoyment out of it. If the kid has some semblence of respect and kindness it shouldn't be an issue.

She's 7, and it worked just fine. Telling your children a fatman in a suit gives presents to "good boys and girls"? That's ridiculous. It's because we DON'T do that silly shit that we expect it work with our child - and interestingly enough, it does.

I've noticed something funny about kids, and maybe it's a result of both my wife and I being gifted children. But when you realize children are really young (albeit inexperienced) adults, and you treat them as such, it goes a long way towards reinforcing decision making and consequences. Now, I'm not handing my 7 year old the car keys, but for that matter, I am fairly certain I'm not going to have to worry about her stealing them either. Not to say this will work for all children, or parents, but she's shockingly well adjusted by not raising her with shit like Santa, "No, because I said so." and by not avoiding sensitive topics.

This is exactly how I think you should approach the subject of god.

WHAT!!!!!!! no Santa Claus.....

_________________
Devil

Build a man a fire, and he's warm for the night.
Set a man on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.

http://atheism.about.com/od/atheistbigo ... urveys.htm



According to this Gallup Poll data, more people in a Christian nation would be less likely to refuse to elect a Gay (a sinner in the eyes of the religious) than an Atheist. A Jew, who do not view Jesus to be their savior, is significantly more likely to be elected to office than someone who thinks Jesus was just a mortal man that had some good ideas. Muslims, the people of the very religion that brought us 9/11 and numerous terrorist attacks around the world in recent years and quite rightly the religious enemy of just about everything the United States stands for with regard to freedom and liberty and women's rights, is more acceptable than someone who does not subscribe to a ghost in the sky.



Go figure. It is almost a prerequisite for a Republican to be a Christian in this nation. What does not surprise me is the Independent percentage compared to the Republican and Democrat percentages. Independents, in my view, tend to be more rational people because they do not subscribe to the extreme ends of either bipartisan dogma.



Unsettling, yes. Surprising? Not one bit.

Waaaaaaaaaah. Cry me a river, seriously.

You're talking about a group of people who actively believe the exact opposite of other large portions of the country. You expect people to just not care when it comes to electing a person with those views to government, the one segment in our lives that *can* force things upon us?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

What, exactly, are the "exact opposite" beliefs that an athiest neccessarily has that are relevant to governmental service or legislation?

You don't see belief in god and belief there is no god as exact opposites?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

So atheists don't believe in god.

Does that make their judgment when it comes to things such as legislating right and wrong inadequate? I don't think so.

It's the belief that atheists are some kid of murderous heathens who don't know wrong from right just because they don't believe in some deity that is fucked up.

If we took a survey of religion amongst convicted felons, I would bet the overwhelming majority are "Christians".

Sure, they're opposite, but how is it relevent to government and how could someone force it on you?

Way to totally dodge the question.

People want elected officials to reflect them as much as possible, that's not unreasonable. The idea that religion shouldn't matter is ridiculous.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Religion shouldn't fucking matter.

Well tough shit, it does. If you're willing to set aside your beliefs in the voting booth then that's your decision.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

You know the great thing about atheists? They don't vote for someone based on their religious beliefs, they vote for people based on their policies and platform.

I'm not willing to set aside my beliefs on policy and government in the voting booth. What I am willing to set aside is that because someone is a Jew or Mormon that they are less fit to lead our country than some Baptist. If more Republicans were willing to embrace that, they might have put forth a more electable candidate during the last election.

That's bull. shit.

The reason atheists vote for people of all stripes is because very few atheists run for office with their beliefs out in the open. Atheists are no less likely to vote for people "like them" than religious people, hispanics, blacks, women, etc. Get your fucking head out of your ass. That may be the most bullshit post I've *ever* seen you write.

If republicans are the only ones voting with religious beliefs in mind then what does it matter? Why do you need republicans to elect atheists?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

Actually, Joxur, he is 100% correct.

Atheists do not vote based on a candidate's religion because it is 99.9999999% guaranteed that if a candidate is running for any significant office in this nation that they are religious to some degree. When was the last time you heard a candidate come out and proclaim to be an Atheist?

Atheists do not stand a chance in hell of beating out a Republican or a religious Democrat in any election in America. The religious constituents will make sure of that. You don't have to look any further than Proposition 8 in California to see that the Mormons from a state away had a huge hand in the outcome of Prop 8’s defeat...and that was just a proposition, not even an election with candidates. The religious have an enormous amount of money to influence any election they have an interest in winning. What do Athests have? A rational mind? A broader view of the world? Sorry...those don't win elections.

Atheists vote based on the issues and policy because we are smart enough to know that EVERYONE that runs for any significant office is going to be religious to some degree. To us, religion does not make someone qualified to be elected nor does it prove to us that they are morally better than their opponent. A Christian's point of view is that an Atheist is at a moral disadvantage to a Christian. That's just the way they think ecause that is what their church teaches them - non-believers are sinners and the tool of the devil.

I'd like you to find me one religious person that would vote for an equally qualified Atheist running against a Christian even if the Atheist candidate stood inline with a couple more issues with the voter than the Christian candidate did. Good luck finding me a Jesus-loving Christian that is willing to vote for a pro-choice pro-homosexual candidate. Conversely, good luck finding me an Atheist that will not vote for the candidate that most closely mirrors their stance on the issues, regardless of the candidate’s religion.

I think it depends on what we're talking about with regard to someone being religious. If it is: "He is religious, and I'm voting for him because he will affect change and policies in a certain way", I think there are a lot of religious folks who take that into account and are voting purely on policy and what they would like to see happen. That by itself is voting for policy just as much as any atheist is.

On the other hand, if it's *because* the person is religious and that's the main qualifier, then that's not much different from choosing a person because you believe he/she has the same moral beliefs as you - or has the same character, and doesn't do whatever you view as bad stuff. How many atheists are so purist on policy that they would vote for an adulterer, thief, and murderer if there was much promise of getting policy through? Yea, good luck finding many of those. All morality and character judgements are subjective, so there really isn't any more or less truth there than there is for religion. People understandably vote based on those subjective things(often over policy), and I can't fault them for it.

There is no "my vote is more objective because I'm religious or atheist".

That's why so many people in the south drive around with "Vote The Bible" bumper stickers on their cars?

Look at Romney for a good example of a candidate being screwed over by their own religion. Granted, it may also been a little bit to do with his at times moderate stance on abortion and gays, but a large group of people refused to vote for him simply because he is Mormon.

I'm not having one of them polygamy loving bastards in my white house! I'll be glad to point out other ignorant viewpoints brought to you by the Christian majority later in the day.

Still dodging my question, I see!

That's to be expected, of course. I didn't really think there was any substance behind what you were saying.

Let's see. I am a member of my church that I attend just about every Sunday, unless I am out of town. I help out with church functions when I can. I believe in Jesus Christ and the Bible. I guess that makes me a Christian.

I also believe in evolution, some form of gay rights, and some form of pro-choice.

I vote based on who I think will do the best job for the office and whether or not policies will be a good thing or not. I don't vote because of someone's religion, that's just dumb.

I'm pretty sure there are more like me, after all God did give us free will.

The Christians that you hear about are usually the ones screaming the loudest, that doesn't mean they are the majority. Squeaky wheel gets the grease.

Kenyana, if you don't mind my asking...can you name who you voted for in every Presidential election since you have been able to vote?

Just by reading what you wrote, I would say you are not a typical Christian with regard to what you support in the way of pro-choice, gay rights, etc. The reason I say that is because those issues are directly related to what the chuches go out of their way to "educate" their parishioners to be against and supporting either one is usually looked down upon by those of "significant faith". I applaud you for looking at the world with a broader view than many in your religious demographic.

You are also one of the very few Christians I have heard say "God gave us free will." Most Christians refer to "God's plan" or will say, "This is the path God laid before me", which indicates a lack of free-will due to a predetermined outcome they have no control over.

You are a rare bird indeed.

I don't think that "most Christians" believe in predestination or everything planned in their life by God. You must be around a lot of old Presbyterians (they used to have that as their doctrine) . I don't think that Kenyana's belief is that rare at all.

Aside from the "some form of pro-choice" I think that Kenyana and I have pretty much the same base of belief. I think you would be surprised at the recent change in attitude towards gay rights in many churches. Maybe it is me and I am not hanging with the old people in church. But other than my wife, which saddens me to say, I don't know of anyone that would support any legislation that would prohibit any couple from the same privileges that any other couple has today.

Maybe the "God's Plan" people are just the loudest or something, but I'm in the same boat as Bello...that's pretty much what I hear out of the majority of christians I talk to or hear in the media/books/etc.

It's always been amusing to me, since I get to say things like, "Well, either it's gods plan that I'm an atheist or I'm single-handedly throwing a wrench in his plans!"

1996 - Perot

2000 - Bush

2004 - Bush

2008 - McCain

Yes, That's 75% Republican. But it has nothing to do with my faith.

I can say that for governor I have voted Democrat and for many local elections I have voted Democrat. I vote based on who I think has the best policies and will do the best job. It's not a popularity contest for me.

I might answer your question, if it was relevant to what I was saying, but it wasn't.



What was that about being open minded?



In my 27 years of living here, I can honestly say I've never seen that.

If you want to talk about the way people vote the way they do then you can't ignore candidate choice. In the vast majority of elections the available options are piss poor at best. So it's either vote for the guy that the closest to what I want, or vote the guy that's nothing like what I want. Wtf do you expect people to do?

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

There is nothing wrong with voting for the person closest to the political stances you want to promote. It is unfortunate that your criteria for this closeness has nothing (or should have nothing) to do with running the country. Seperation of church and state was put in for a reason, not just to piss off zealots.

You are quoting me for calling a spade a spade?

Find me a traditional Christian church that advocates homosexuality and abortion and I'll give you a cookie. Both of these acts are immoral to Christians. Or, should I say, traditional Christians. An Atheist will typically have no problem with homosexuality of abortion, which in the eyes of a Christian makes their moral compass not as straight and true as someone from their own faith that has been taught through biblical context and indoctrination that certain political and social platforms are immoral.

Sorry brother, there is nothing closed-minded about what I said. It's just the way Christians in general operate.

That is a fascinating spread, especially if you state you vote based on the best policies or who will do the best job. Perot and Bush had polar policies and Bush and McCain differed from one another as well...while McCain and Bush have very little in common. While Perot is decidedly non-Christian and Bush is known for injecting his religious beliefs into his policies, McCain is a born-again Christian (Baptist)...so...I still lump him with the Christians with regard to the "moral" vote.

Honestly, I am trying to see a pattern in your voting...I simply do not see it. LOL What I really question is how so many Christians can vote for people who beg for the religious vote when they have done some very immoral things. I understand the whole repent thing (not that I think that should excuse poor judgment), but why do Christians tend to vote for someone who is currently claims to be a Christian that has shown a pattern of poor judgment along moral lines as an adult instead of an Atheist that has a life-long pattern of good judgment and has never been found to have strayed from a moral path?

For me, I not only want the man or woman I agree with the most on the issues (regardless if they are religious or not)...but one that has not been out there being a jackass prior to running for office and then all of a sudden "finding Jesus" to woo the religious-right and to earn some moral brownie points. A consistent track record of proper behavior throughout one's adulthood will win me over 10 times out of 10 comapred to some yahoo that used to be a and a coke fiend who now likes to preach to his constituents about the saving grace that is Jesus Christ. I find it all too convenient that some of these fools find Jesus when they need the religious-right votes but were nowhere to be found in a church before they entered the running for a public office.

"...while McCain and Bush have very little in common" should have read "...while McCain and Perot have very little in common."

Most of the Christians I've met believe in free will. Free will is very commonly used as an explanation as to why God might "allow" bad things to happen or bad choices to be made. For a lot of Christians, this argument is more acceptable than the idea that God is not omniscient(obviously there are arguments that branch out from that, but when an average religious person is faced with selecting between the two, they pick the former more often - "Hey, he gave his free will in his infinite wisdom! Sounds good!").

Though I've met both atheists and religious folks that absolutely cannot STAND the idea of themselves not being in control. It completely boggles some peoples' minds that they are not in control of what they believe to be their own "decision-making" processes.

Well off the top of my head. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episcopal_ ... ted_States)

So being open minded requires advocacy of homosexuality? Really? There are a lot of different measures of open mindedness. I'd say you're pretty close minded in regards to religion in general. But hey, you're cool with the gays so it doesn't matter!



Right, religion is the only thing they have in common or is comparable to those they opposed for office, gotcha.

_________________
Marauder Harabakc Goat

I'd be interested in who Kenyana voted for in primaries.