Do you or do you not believe there is a god?

[Medb]

You are splitting hairs. Whether he acknowledges the past is meaningless and beside the point. How is wanting to "divorce us from a religious future" not the same as divorcing us from our roots? He is seeking to sever those roots and take us an entirely new direction. Hence my comment.

I'm not sure why you assume roots have to be severed to go in a new direction. Fuck, if we stayed in a straight line we'd still be living in the dark ages. Then, I often think that would suit the religious types

We may well evolve to a point of having no religion. I doubt it, as anthropology shows that all societies in our history have had some form of religious worship. The evidence, young rationalist, is on my side of the board here.

Carry on with the 'young' thing, I'm loving that

But who is to say what the future holds? It may be possible. But of course Dawkins isn't really arguing that a world without religion is one of many possibilities in the future evolution of man. He is arguing that we should actively divorce ourselves from our roots and create that future. And you and Copehead are trying to fudge that point.

He is not asking anyone to divorce themselves from their roots. He is asking that you really evaluate the facts, he is telling you you don't need god to be good, he is saying you don't need god to explain the universe. Why do you keep stressing this divorce thing?

A sizable proportion of the population are already good without god, I'm not sure what you think will happen if religion were to be gone. Are you really afraid that all the people who are being good only for the eternal reward will all of a sudden start raping and murdering? What does that say about religion?

I'm not afraid of a world without religion. I don't think it will ever happen.

Sadly I don't think it'll ever happen either. As long as there are poor and ignorant people there will be religion. And before you get all defensive and claim I'm saying you're ignorant I'll just justify what I've said. Religion is dying in the west, it's only continuing to grow in the third world. With the exception of the US, the west is catching on that and seeing religion for the superstitious myth it is. Even in the US, it's happening, just painfully slowly, but more and more high profile figures are opening up the discussion which would never have happened before.

Religion thrives where there's poverty and ignorance. Great news for the RCC, they love to keep the poor reproducing to boost the numbers, that makes up for all the AIDs losses they're responsible for.

[Zeke]

I don't have to Zeke - I have already explained how it works.

- Churches don't have to file a 501(c)3 to be tax deductible. They already are.

Tax exempt I think you mean. That is if you have any idea as to what you mean. A donation is tax deductible. An organization is (or can be) tax exempt.

Hope this helps

As I stated earlier, your argument that churches ought not be exempt from taxation is moot.

Please show me where I have made such an argument. Again, it seems that you're either ignoring or misconstruing my argument. As I've already stated and restated it for you on multiple occasions I'm going to have to assume that you either not bright enough to understand it or are intentionally misconstruing it.

So, which is it?

You are on stronger ground if you limit it to saying that large donations to churches that engage in political activity ought not be eligible to be written off, but you haven't argued that. If you had, we wouldn't be debating the point.

You're not quite understanding the law which should come as no surprise to anyone. Churches and religious organizations (and other NPOs ) violate their 501(3)c status when the participate directly in or donate to a political campaign or they allocate too large a portion of their income and resources to lobbying (i.e. advocating particular pieces of legislation). When they violate the terms for their 501(3)c status they are subject to having their tax exempt status revoked.

What many churches and religious organizations do is form separate PACs - which have their own set of rules and regulations - to pursue their specifically political agenda. That's as it should be. The iffy part is how they tend to play fast and loose with the resources of the church and how they overlap with those of the PAC. That's something I'd like to see investigated and pursued more aggressively.

So exactly what is your point in repeatedly bringing it up? It doesn't support your position.

Why not try reading my previous posts again? Or, perhaps, even for the first time? Try giving them more than a cursory glance. Possibly consult a dictionary for those words the meaning of which eludes you. Ask for help on the thornier concepts if you need to. Really. There's no shame in it. Well, not much anyway.

Good luck.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

He is not asking anyone to divorce themselves from their roots. He is asking that you really evaluate the facts, he is telling you you don't need god to be good, he is saying you don't need god to explain the universe. Why do you keep stressing this divorce thing?

Because that is what he is advocating. Look - if his gig was simply trying to explain why atheism works for him, I'd have no truck with him. But he functions as a kind of an evangelist, trying to sell his followers on the idea that they can and should create this brave new world without religion. And in doing so - he has unleashed a subculture of intolerant dogmatic jerks on the world (or at least the internet).

Sadly I don't think it'll ever happen either. As long as there are poor and ignorant people there will be religion. And before you get all defensive and claim I'm saying you're ignorant I'll just justify what I've said. Religion is dying in the west, it's only continuing to grow in the third world. With the exception of the US, the west is catching on that and seeing religion for the superstitious myth it is. Even in the US, it's happening, just painfully slowly, but more and more high profile figures are opening up the discussion which would never have happened before.

Religion thrives where there's poverty and ignorance. Great news for the RCC, they love to keep the poor reproducing to boost the numbers, that makes up for all the AIDs losses they're responsible for.

And there it is in a nutshell. What else is it but evangelism when you cast those who do not think like you as ignorant?

[Medb]

And there it is in a nutshell. What else is it but evangelism when you cast those who do not think like you as ignorant?

I knew you'd say that! You do realise you were just quite ignorant there don't you?

It's seriously like hitting your head against a brick wall. No wonder Dawkins et al get a bit shitty sometimes.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

Zeke - this is the argument you made

I'd say any use of the resources gained by being a religious organization (donations and anything bought with those donations) to promote a specific political agenda (e.g. vote this way, support this ballot initiative and so forth) should forfeit that church's exempt status. Preaching moral and social values is one thing. That's supposedly the province of religion. But advocating specific candidates and policies crosses that line IMHO.

The law - even the law you continually cite - does not back you up on that point. I think I've established that pretty clearly.

There is no "freedom from religion" in the constitution and no church stands to lose their tax exempt status even if they name themselves "The Holy Church of the Obama Hater". They might lose their 501(c)3 which confers some tax benefits to them, but not their tax exemption, which is constitutionally guaranteed. And even in the case of their 501(c) 3 they have the right to promote a political agenda to some degree - just not a specific candidate.

Do we really need to keep beating this horse? Why not simply admit to being wrong?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

And there it is in a nutshell. What else is it but evangelism when you cast those who do not think like you as ignorant?

I knew you'd say that! You do realise you were just quite ignorant there don't you?

It's seriously like hitting your head against a brick wall. No wonder Dawkins et al get a bit shitty sometimes.

And I had no doubt you'd call me ignorant. Everyone who disagrees with you and Dawkins is ignorant. That's your shtick.

[Zeke]

Zeke - this is the argument you made

I'd say any use of the resources gained by being a religious organization (donations and anything bought with those donations) to promote a specific political agenda (e.g. vote this way, support this ballot initiative and so forth) should forfeit that church's exempt status. Preaching moral and social values is one thing. That's supposedly the province of religion. But advocating specific candidates and policies crosses that line IMHO.

The law - even the law you continually cite - does not back you up on that point. I think I've established that pretty clearly.

Which I then elaborated upon and amended from "any" to "significant" when pointing out the existing laws. What you quote above is my opinion hence the "IMHO" at the end. I'd certainly like to see much more stringent restrictions.

Again, are you really as, well, not bright as you appear to be? Or are we talking about being intentionally obtuse? Just sort of playing the moron for effect?

I must say that if it's an act it's very convincing.

Kudos.

[Medb]

And there it is in a nutshell. What else is it but evangelism when you cast those who do not think like you as ignorant?

I knew you'd say that! You do realise you were just quite ignorant there don't you?

It's seriously like hitting your head against a brick wall. No wonder Dawkins et al get a bit shitty sometimes.

And I had no doubt you'd call me ignorant. Everyone who disagrees with you and Dawkins is ignorant. That's your shtick.

The figures speak for themselves, it's not my shtick.

I wonder why you'd jump to the conclusion that I was saying you were ignorant? This is despite my disclaimer within that post which said "...before you get all defensive and claim I think you're ignorant...". Could it be that you know how ridiculous your god appears to someone like me?

[Rorschach]

I tell you what Rorshach. You and I haven't gone around in a while, so I'll play for now. I won't do the same for Monkey, The Prof, Zeke etc., as they have demonstrated absolutely to me that they have no interest in communication of any meaningful kind.

Ah well. That didn't last long, did it. And I made such an effort to be polite.

I think we are still fine. I simply haven't responded to your post because it is longer and requires more effort than the ones I have responded to. Same with Qube's post earlier. I honestly appreciate the attempt at polite engagement - for whatever time it holds out.

Not any longer I'm afraid. It would seem that trying to keep things calm doesn't get you a response so I guess I'll go back to being as unpleasant as Mission, Echolalalandia and the rest of the unpleasant cunts.

[Medb]

Am I an unpleasant cunt?

[Rorschach]

Of course they are, that there is no doubt. They didn't suddenly spring from nowhere. Most religious forms assimilate or build on top of what has gone before, just as political philosophies do.

However, it would be facile to deny that in the West, Christianity has been the dominant form for nearly 2000 years. Furthermore, as a political body in the Church, it has been tied together with power structures of government for most of that time. There is no doubt that the Church has been on the wane since it's zenith in the 12th or 13th century, but the dispersion of philosophical values from that time still resonate now.

You sound like a 70s trade union leader.

By "religious forms" do you mean "religions", or something else? Or were you just trying to be poncy?

Christianity has been the dominant form" of what? Religion? Culture? Political power? Artistic expression? Social structuring?
I guess that sentence sounded good in your head when you wrote it but it doesn't mean anything.

as a political body in the Church, it .... - What is the "it" in this sentence? Christianity? How is/was Christianity a political body in the church? What the hell does that mean?

the dispersion of philosophical values from that time still resonate now
Were you drunk when you wrote this garbage? You might think it a bit pedantic of me to point out that the verb (resonate) doesn't match the subject (the dispersion of philosophical values) but that seems to me to exemplify the sloppiness of thought that went into this post. That is a horrible sentence. If one of my students wrote this I'd cross it out.
In red pencil.

Whatever, values and culture existed before Christianity and will continue, much the same, in a post-Christian world if/whenever such a thing exists.
What has inspired art, architecture, music etc. of recent times? All sorts of shit! Including Christianity but mostly other stuff. So it ever was and so it ever will be. Christianity has been at the heart of European and other societies for a damn long time. So what? So has the common cold. If it hadn't been there we'd still have had culture and if it disappears we will still have culture.

To be fair, it's equally daft to suggest that we wouldn't have had war and brutality without Christianity.

Just saying, like.

But back to "the dispersion of philosophical values". Philosophy based on the Bible or the Christian establishment has pretty much disappeared in Europe and good riddance to it.
Davey has, more than once, claimed that quoting the bad stuff from Deuteronomy is "cherry picking". It isn't though. "Cherry picking" is what Christians have been doing for centuries, including ignoring what's laid out in Deuteronomy. Little by little, the really nasty teachings of the Christian churches have been set aside, not for philosophical reasons but because they became unacceptable to people. i.e. people applied their natural philosophies to life in contradiction to those demanded by the churches.
Here's a quote I've nicked off the internet for you. No doubt Davey has heard it many times and it shows I have no original thought but I guess I'll have to live with that:

“Every one of us… has met the criticism that in ethics we humanists live on Christian capital, that our moral attitudes are drived from Christianity. I believe this to be utterly wrong and that, on the contrary, what goes for modern Christian ethics is in fact derived from humanist values. For most of its history Christianity was red in tooth and claw… It is only in the last couple centuries that Christian attitudes have gradually become ‘civilized’ and humane. Why? [Because of] the rise of humanism and skepticism. We have given Christianity its modern face. which often quotes the very nice things Jesus is reported to have said, and carefully omits the nasty sayings such as , ‘If a man abide in me not, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.”

I think he gives too much credit to "the rise of humanism and skepticism" myself but I think the basic point is true. The philosophies that you, Toby, believe and hold dear don't come from Christianity.

[Rorschach]

Am I an unpleasant cunt?

I like to think so!
I certainly am.

I had a moment of naivete and thought that maybe we could actually debate this stuff in the spirit of 'seeking the truth'. I'm deeply ashamed of myself now.
As has been pointed out several times, nobody's going to change their minds or even listen (though i swear I was willing to try!) so we might as well just enjoy swearing and sniping and stuff.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I wonder why you'd jump to the conclusion that I was saying you were ignorant? This is despite my disclaimer within that post which said "...before you get all defensive and claim I think you're ignorant...". Could it be that you know how ridiculous your god appears to someone like me?

I didn't jump to that conclusion. I criticized you for calling people of faith ignorant.

You didn't call me ignorant till the next post.

[Medb]

Am I an unpleasant cunt?

I like to think so!
I certainly am.

I had a moment of naivete and thought that maybe we could actually debate this stuff in the spirit of 'seeking the truth'. I'm deeply ashamed of myself now.
As has been pointed out several times, nobody's going to change their minds or even listen (though i swear I was willing to try!) so we might as well just enjoy swearing and sniping and stuff.

If I'm entirely honest I'd have to agree with you. I absolutely can be an unpleasant cunt


I'll lay my cards on the table, just before I go to bed, early because I've got a stinking cold

I just don't get it. I don't get how educated people, and I don't mean highly educated, I mean people with even just a high school education, can still believe in these myths. Why haven't they grown out of it along with outgrowing Santa Claus, it really is as simple as that.

Look at the knowledge we do have, look at how science has progressed us, we have out-shone their god a million times over, we have effectively overridden their god, there isn't a god shaped hole anymore.

Is it really just as simple as the innate fear of death? I fear death, as much as the next person, but the thought of never dying would scare me even more. The thought of eternity kissing some weird entity's arse would be enough to drive me nuts. I just don't fucking get it.

[Medb]

I wonder why you'd jump to the conclusion that I was saying you were ignorant? This is despite my disclaimer within that post which said "...before you get all defensive and claim I think you're ignorant...". Could it be that you know how ridiculous your god appears to someone like me?

I didn't jump to that conclusion. I criticized you for calling people of faith ignorant.

You didn't call me ignorant till the next post.

Subtleties just seem to go right over your head don't they?

I wasn't suggesting all theists were ignorant. I said that religion thrives among the poor and ignorant. It does. That's a fact. It's dying in the educated populations and thriving in the poor, uneducated populations.

Now if you take from that that I'm saying you, or in fact all, theists are ignorant then that's quite ignorant of you, which is what I said in my next post

[Rorschach]

I have no idea why Baron keeps being brought up either btw.

I suspect it goes back to this incendiary post from December 2010 in which I suggested the existence of an "atheist brigade:"

You suspect wrong. It goes back a lot further than that.

But firstly, I too am confused as to why you "keep[s] being brought up". As far as I'm aware I'm the ony person who's mentioned you in this context. Just out of curiosity, who else mentioned you?

Anyway, I've seen you make comments like the one you quote several times, but the one I remember most (for some reason) was on the Athiest Bus thread where you said something like: "The Atheists are very .... strident".
There have been other occasions e.g. relatively recently when you claimed that the atheists on the board all had a simplistic view of religious faith. And Davey and Toomanyhatz have said the same kind of thing, however much they deny it now.
I never said it was "incendiary", just that I get fed up with that stereotyping. Is that enough reason for you to pour out all that sarcasm?

[Davey the Fat Boy]

[

Ah well. That didn't last long, did it. And I made such an effort to be polite.

I think we are still fine. I simply haven't responded to your post because it is longer and requires more effort than the ones I have responded to. Same with Qube's post earlier. I honestly appreciate the attempt at polite engagement - for whatever time it holds out.

Not any longer I'm afraid. It would seem that trying to keep things calm doesn't get you a response so I guess I'll go back to being as unpleasant as Mission, Echolalalandia and the rest of the unpleasant cunts.

Well that's fine. I've been busy living life and trying to answer all of the posts that keep coming up. Longer posts that require a lot of cut and paste sometimes get lost in the shuffle.

Anyhow - since it seems to mean a lot to you...

A few questions I'd like you to answer.

1) How do you define 'fundamentalist atheism'?
Here is a link from an atheist web site in which a fundamentalist atheist offers up a defensive definition in order to explain why such a thing is impossible, while simultaneously demonstrating its existence by having an atheist web site full of atheist dogma (an 'atheist dictionary" no less):

http://atheism.about.com/od/Atheist-Dic ... theist.htm

"An atheist dictionary, no more" I would say myself.
I'm sure we'll have to agree to disagree but I can't see how a collection of definitions can be considered 'dogma'. I couldn't find anywhere where people were exhorted to believe unquestioningly what was written there. That's not remotely the same as the Bible etc.

All alone, I'd probably agree. But it is just one of many such resources yu can find on the net. There are an awful lot of people expending a lot of energy talking about what they don't believe.

I presume this dictionary definition of dogma is uncontroversial:
a fixed, especially religious, belief or set of beliefs that people are expected to accept without any doubts.
I don't believe that any of the noisy atheists on this board believe that at all. I don't personally have any doubts. I don't believe. But I certainly don't expect anyone else to think the same. Mick the Monkey has admitted to being less sure than I am but, equally, there's no way he expects people to have the same opinion as him.

I beg to differ. I think there are all sorts of beliefs promulgated by the boards atheists that are expected to be taken as fact. The belief that religion is evil. The belief that man would be less evil without it. The belief that people are drawn to religion out of ignorance. The belief that ideas that fall outside of the realm of provable science are without value. Even the belief that fundamentalist religion is the true form of religion, and that all other forms must either answer to it or be judged as wishy-washy or non-committal. These are but a few of the many beliefs I've seen bandied about the board as if they were beyond debate. And that list does not even get to the dogma about atheism itself (how it is the absence of a belief, therefore any recognition of the common beliefs of a group atheists cannot be cited, because after all - they are atheists and thus supposedly lack a world view - thus goes the circular logic).

I really think that this 'fundamentalist' tag, apart from being used as a wind-up (which is fine) is a red herring. I think you need to look for another word or expression to describe the kind of people who don't believe in any kind of god and consider that an issue worth talking, or possibly shouting, about.

I'm open to other tags. I like "Dawkins botherers" but that gives him too much credit. Regardless - I am not simply talking about people who happen to disbelieve in God and perhaps find it worth arguing about. I am talking about a group of people who share a worldview: That the world would be better without religion. That is not the absence of a belief. It is a belief - and one that its adherents cling to with a fundamentalist vigor.

'll tell you why it isn't a thoughtless request. I'm pretty fed up with you, Tommanyhatz, and the Baron (and others though I can't remember whom exactly) taking pops at atheists, usually with an unflattering adjective attached, and talking about them as if it was anyone who spoke up on that side of the debate on any religious thread.

Nobody here "takes pops at atheists". The unflattering adjective you speak of is not just an adjective, it is a modifier - used to separate out the specific atheists in question from the larger universe of atheists with which none of us has any issue.

Am I being included? I don't know but if I am I'd rather be referred to directly so I can respond directly.

I honestly don't recall enough about our previous discussions to know how I view you. Based on this thread I have no issue with you. But I'll give you a quick guide: if you are able to talk about your lack of belief without putting down people who believe differently than you, than I'm cool with you.

In fact I find the clumping together of 'noisy or whatever atheists' (or sometimes, just 'atheists') rather hypocritical. You consider what you call fundamentalist atheism to be a quasi-religion. I don't think you'd consider it acceptable for me to make blanket statements about the Jews on the board.
It's lazy and inaccurate stereotyping.

I don't think anyone here does clump all atheists together, I don't even think "noisy" is the issue. It is the condescension of a specific sub-group that draws my ire. The fact that most of those are condescending with exactly the same language and the same talking points as a few well-known writers who have made a cottage industry out of assholery is what causes me to chide those folks for their ironic religiousity. Don't like that? don't be one of those people. You seem like a decent enough guy, and one smart enough to argue for your position without having to denigrate anyone else in doing so. So do that. I'm open to the idea that religion might be viewed as a negative overall when the balance sheet is done. But I'm not a brain-washed idiot for sticking up for the most accurate accounting. So have a modicum of respect and I'll return it.

As for the part about the Jews on the board - if we were calling all non-Jews idiots, I'd expect such a blanket statement.

Finally - I won't re-post your whole quote from the bus advertisement thread, but your point was that the similarities of the arguments found on many of the atheist web sites and the posters arguing here ought not be seen as evidence of any emergent new-atheist dogma, but rather just as good arguments that recur because they are good. I suppose that is possible. The judgment that they are indeed good arguments being subjective - I'll simply ask you to extend the same courtesy to people of faith when talking with them. Every person comes to their own faith or lack of it through their own personal process and life experience. When we judge whole swaths of people as brain-washed, ignorant or sheeple - we rob them of their humanity. not every person leads an examined life, but the ones that do exist on both sides of this debate.

So to sum up - if you think I am guilty of unfairly characterizing a group of people, I plead no contest. I am returning unkindness with unkindness. It does not have to be so.

[Davey the Fat Boy]

I wonder why you'd jump to the conclusion that I was saying you were ignorant? This is despite my disclaimer within that post which said "...before you get all defensive and claim I think you're ignorant...". Could it be that you know how ridiculous your god appears to someone like me?

I didn't jump to that conclusion. I criticized you for calling people of faith ignorant.

You didn't call me ignorant till the next post.

Subtleties just seem to go right over your head don't they?

I wasn't suggesting all theists were ignorant. I said that religion thrives among the poor and ignorant. It does. That's a fact. It's dying in the educated populations and thriving in the poor, uneducated populations.

Now if you take from that that I'm saying you, or in fact all, theists are ignorant then that's quite ignorant of you, which is what I said in my next post

I got exactly what you are saying. I think you are an elitist.

[toomanyhatz]

There have been other occasions e.g. relatively recently when you claimed that the atheists on the board all had a simplistic view of religious faith. And Davey and Toomanyhatz have said the same kind of thing, however much they deny it now.

All that I deny is that I've ever been particularly nasty about it, or resorted to name-calling. Yes, I do believe that some (there's that word again) of the atheists on the board have a simplistic view of religious faith. I can't think of a single instance where I (or Davey for that matter, but again he can speak for himself) have ever denied that we said that.

In fact I'll go a step further and say I still feel that way and will happily borrow Dawkins' soapbox to say so again. A high percentage of the anti-religious arguments on the board consist of either a) religious people have done bad things, therefore religious thought leads to bad deeds or b) any notion of God/gods can't be scientifically proven, therefore anyone who claims belief is deluding themselves in some way. I'm sure you're all lovely people but I'm tired of those two arguments and feel no need to respond to them any more.

As far as the gloves being off now, that shouldn't affect me either because as I said, I believe that I have never contributed to the nastiness or name-calling in any way. Should I see some evidence that I have, I'll happily recant.

[copehead]

*And faithful is the right word, as they fail to examine the assumptions on which the views of their mentor – a biologist, not a philsopher, and how it shows – are based.

Always trust the religious to tar us with their own failings.

I this case deference to authority.

I don't give a shit what Dawkins thinks unless it is scientifically supportable.