Options

The Rise of Atheism and Agnosticism

2456

Posts

  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    God wrote:
    More space may be opening, but Democrats have more ground to cover than Republicans when it comes to the libertarian vote.

    That's because libertarians care more about economic liberty than social liberty and always have. They singularly fail to ever engage meaningfully on any social issue.

    In any case, we aren't talking about a party that Libertarians approve of, we are talking about a moderate party that is economically and politically liberal.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    ShurakaiShurakai Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    I agree with the OP entirely. I live in Canada, in the most right winged province, and I don't know more than a couple people who actually go to church and believe in a diety. If pressed, than alot of people say they are christians, yes. But when you get them actually talking about it you find that they don't really have anything to do with religion at all, besides the holidays in some cases.

    I am personally love my parents for bringing us up in a non-pressured religious environ. My dad had us say a prayer before bed and whatnot but they never actually said "this is the only way it is, and whoever says no god exists is a lost soul" or whatever. In this way, my brothers and I are atheist, and my sister goes to church. Freedom of choice FTW.

    I also believe the internet has a great deal to do with this change. I am of the opinion that 80% of the time, people only follow thier religion because they were sheltered by thier parents and never got to see the world outside the theist echochamber ( Christian schools are a good example of this). The internet allows for debate and discussion such as these that take place on these boards, though not always in such a civilized manner being the internet and all. It exposes viewpoints and promotes individualism and rebellion, which as we all know are a teenagers favorite pastime.

    Shurakai on
  • Options
    GodGod Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Your random uses of small and big "L"s are confusing me. Note: I used small because I'm not talking about the retarded Libertarian Party, but people as you describe who have historically voted Republican because, as you said, they care more about money than whether or not gays can marry or people can smoke pot.

    God on
    sky.JPG
  • Options
    ShintoShinto __BANNED USERS regular
    edited November 2006
    God wrote:
    Your random uses of small and big "L"s are confusing me. Note: I used small because I'm not talking about the retarded Libertarian Party, but people as you describe who have historically voted Republican because, as you said, they care more about money than whether or not gays can marry or people can smoke pot.

    Sorry for the confusion. And the angry undertone.

    I'm still trying to come to grips emotionally with the gay marriage debate at the constitution convention here in Massachusetts.

    Shinto on
  • Options
    DeepQantasDeepQantas Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    EDIT: There are also religious people who don't make political decisions based on the tenets of their beliefs. I know this may be real hard for you enlightened folk to believe, but it does happen.

    beliefs are actions waiting to happen. the only reason a person doesn't act on one belief is that they have another belief that contradicts it. the belief that one's religious beliefs should not influence their political decisions is a good one, but it's a crude facsimile and a placeholder for actual reason.

    To be fair, I don't think "can't be buggered" is an actual belief. And unless the person is pure idealism in human form...

    DeepQantas on
    m~
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    DeepQantas wrote:
    EDIT: There are also religious people who don't make political decisions based on the tenets of their beliefs. I know this may be real hard for you enlightened folk to believe, but it does happen.

    beliefs are actions waiting to happen. the only reason a person doesn't act on one belief is that they have another belief that contradicts it. the belief that one's religious beliefs should not influence their political decisions is a good one, but it's a crude facsimile and a placeholder for actual reason.

    To be fair, I don't think "can't be buggered" is an actual belief. And unless the person is pure idealism in human form...

    what?

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Elkamil wrote:
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    It may be, but it's still pretty small. Something like <5% for atheists and agnostics put together?

    Unless 'non-Chruch goers' includes people who still believe, but just don't need to go to a church to do it, in which case the number probably is quite large. Still, I'm always amused by Christian groups in America who try to play the "our religion is being oppressed" card.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    AthenorAthenor Battle Hardened Optimist The Skies of HiigaraRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    An interesting argument, even if it does digress pretty wildly at places.

    First, keep in mind a few things:

    1) Just because I believe in God, and have a really strong faith basis, does not mean I believe evolution is wrong. Some of us don't take the bible literally, after all. ;-)

    2) There are many denominations out there, mine included, that know that churches are shrinking, and that values are changing. Smart ones, like mine, aren't out to try to change the world. Rather, we are here to provide for the community at large, regardless of creed or lifestyle. That kind of charity, without the bible-thumping, is far more important to society than any notion of "religion," and I applaud all those who positively reach out to society.

    With those said, it should be noted that the last decade has seen quite a bit of growth in so-called "Mega-churches," non-denominational churches that cater to thousands at once. Personally, I don't like the vibe I get from them -- they claim that there are no symbols, and they are more pure.. but to me, I see them just doing substitution of one symbol for another.

    In any case, it's fairly well known that quire a few people are religious in name only, or believe in God but aren't practicing religious types. I think this is where most of the Atheists and Agnostics come from (and I honestly believe there are quite a bit more Agnostics than there are Atheists, as people are searching for the truth).

    ... I'd type more incoherant thoughts, but the wedding I'm working (sound engineer) should be starting any time now.

    Athenor on
    He/Him | "A boat is always safest in the harbor, but that’s not why we build boats." | "If you run, you gain one. If you move forward, you gain two." - Suletta Mercury, G-Witch
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Elkamil wrote:
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    well, you have gigantic mongers* like Jim Wallis calling secularists and non-religious folk out on their lack of morals, so you might have a point. the "center", which includes the religious left, sometimes picks up this wacky notion that it's somehow noble to shoot for the middle.

    *w/ respect to cock.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Athenor wrote:
    (and I honestly believe there are quite a bit more Agnostics than there are Atheists, as people are searching for the truth).

    :|

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Saying that America is experiencing an upswing in atheism/agnosticism "now" forgets some kind of important facts. For example, that evangelical popular Christianity as we think of it today basically didn't exist until the seventies. Or that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were deists, which means they likely would have been atheist/agnostics if such a thing had existed back then.

    America has been going through fairly regular religious peaks and valleys since its inception. We just passed the crest of a peak of religiosity. You can maybe look at our approach into the next valley as an "upswing" in atheism/agnosticism, but I'm not sure it will last. If we can assume history repeats itself, the pendulum will now swing away from Christianity, then back. But the fifth (sixth? fourth? I've lost track.) great awakening will inevitably come again.
    I wouldn't say it's inevitable, but it's certainly unpredictable; and I wouldn't call what we are/were in an awakening. It's not big enough.

    I also wonder if the impact of immigrants from South America, and elsewhere, balances out the changes that might be happening. I remember reading that a large percentage of South American Catholics convert to protestantism, but I'll have to look it up again to be sure.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Saying that America is experiencing an upswing in atheism/agnosticism "now" forgets some kind of important facts. For example, that evangelical popular Christianity as we think of it today basically didn't exist until the seventies. Or that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were deists, which means they likely would have been atheist/agnostics if such a thing had existed back then.

    America has been going through fairly regular religious peaks and valleys since its inception. We just passed the crest of a peak of religiosity. You can maybe look at our approach into the next valley as an "upswing" in atheism/agnosticism, but I'm not sure it will last. If we can assume history repeats itself, the pendulum will now swing away from Christianity, then back. But the fifth (sixth? fourth? I've lost track.) great awakening will inevitably come again.

    are you sure about that? i was under the impression that general religiosity has remained relatively constant for the past century or so, at least, in the U.S.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    TroubledTomTroubledTom regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Saying that America is experiencing an upswing in atheism/agnosticism "now" forgets some kind of important facts. For example, that evangelical popular Christianity as we think of it today basically didn't exist until the seventies. Or that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were deists, which means they likely would have been atheist/agnostics if such a thing had existed back then.

    America has been going through fairly regular religious peaks and valleys since its inception. We just passed the crest of a peak of religiosity. You can maybe look at our approach into the next valley as an "upswing" in atheism/agnosticism, but I'm not sure it will last. If we can assume history repeats itself, the pendulum will now swing away from Christianity, then back. But the fifth (sixth? fourth? I've lost track.) great awakening will inevitably come again.

    are you sure about that? i was under the impression that general religiosity has remained relatively constant for the past century or so, at least, in the U.S.

    Maybe even grown, and become more aggressive. I can provide anecdotal evidence of this.

    TroubledTom on
    Wii friend code: 8704 3489 1049 8917
    Mario Kart DS: 3320 6595 7026 5000
  • Options
    mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Saying that America is experiencing an upswing in atheism/agnosticism "now" forgets some kind of important facts. For example, that evangelical popular Christianity as we think of it today basically didn't exist until the seventies. Or that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were deists, which means they likely would have been atheist/agnostics if such a thing had existed back then.

    America has been going through fairly regular religious peaks and valleys since its inception. We just passed the crest of a peak of religiosity. You can maybe look at our approach into the next valley as an "upswing" in atheism/agnosticism, but I'm not sure it will last. If we can assume history repeats itself, the pendulum will now swing away from Christianity, then back. But the fifth (sixth? fourth? I've lost track.) great awakening will inevitably come again.

    are you sure about that? i was under the impression that general religiosity has remained relatively constant for the past century or so, at least, in the U.S.

    Maybe even grown, and become more aggressive. I can provide anecdotal evidence of this.

    The "evidence" you're seeing might just have something to do with the fact that laws and society are moving left, thus the religious types have to be more aggressive.

    Think about it...you didn't need pro-life groups picketing abortion clinics in the 1950's, did you? It was illegal. You didn't have people speaking out against gay marriage, because the concept was preposterous.

    People used to have to keep their "sins" private...it wasn't socially acceptable, so people hid what they were doing. Hence the reason you didn't have (or need) an organized religious right trying to keep them from doing it.

    mcdermott on
  • Options
    SceptreSceptre Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    Saying that America is experiencing an upswing in atheism/agnosticism "now" forgets some kind of important facts. For example, that evangelical popular Christianity as we think of it today basically didn't exist until the seventies. Or that a huge chunk of the founding fathers were deists, which means they likely would have been atheist/agnostics if such a thing had existed back then.

    America has been going through fairly regular religious peaks and valleys since its inception. We just passed the crest of a peak of religiosity. You can maybe look at our approach into the next valley as an "upswing" in atheism/agnosticism, but I'm not sure it will last. If we can assume history repeats itself, the pendulum will now swing away from Christianity, then back. But the fifth (sixth? fourth? I've lost track.) great awakening will inevitably come again.

    are you sure about that? i was under the impression that general religiosity has remained relatively constant for the past century or so, at least, in the U.S.

    I think this system of upswings and downswings Mcc mentions is something that isn't going to last. A system like that relies on general disinformation amongst the public, which while certainly not impossible, is rendered significantly more difficult due to increased access to informational resources such as the internet.
    One can come back and say we've always had this access through libraries and such, but the general public is far too apathetic to go out and read up on their own religion.
    While there are certainly devout believers who use the internet ( Or even post here ), I think we can all agree that there is a very large increase in agnostics/atheists.

    Whether or not this is propagated by facilitated access to information or differing opinions is up for some debate, but you can certainly see that it allows people to see a wider spectrum of the the kinds of people who believe or stand by what they do.

    I think this more focused perspective towards the negative aspects of their faith can frighten/enlighten some people. (Depending on how you see it.) And as such we see the numbers we're seeing today.

    Sceptre on
  • Options
    ElkiElki get busy Moderator, ClubPA Mod Emeritus
    edited November 2006
    I was scanning the Pew, for some of their religion surveys; I didn't find what I was looking for, but I found this.


    15-21.gif

    It's definitely the Democrats with the liberal/moderate split, with regards to "unbelievers." Conservatives and moderate Republicans are in agreement, but the numbers of both are small.

    Elki on
    smCQ5WE.jpg
  • Options
    monikermoniker Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    russia32 wrote:
    moniker wrote:
    Trantor > Gaia

    Oh, and you assume that we're going to continue the 200 year old paradigm from the industrial revolution as time, and advancements go by and resources become more scarce. Why?

    As of 2006, humans have failed to alter their lifestyles to protect the environment. I believe oil, coal, and to a lesser extent natural gas will remain the only practical form of energy. Personally I would like to see nuclear power utilized on a global scale but that will not happen until petroleum sources are depleted, which will take thousands of years. With that in mind, why do we continue to build our communities the same way, drive inefficient cars, and continually destroy natural resources for short term economic profit? The answer is people value luxury and wealth over sustainable growth. The other answer is a capitalist economy requires constant growth to function, and it is not possible to continue that forever.

    Who says we need to alter our lifestyles in order to protect the environment? Ecological concerns are inherently economical. Captains of industry want to run the most efficient plants possibly since it will save them overhead and increase profit margins. Take this to the inevitable conclusion and you will see that capitalism does actually work for the benefit of sustainability and regenerative designs so long as there is an economic incentive to go that route. Green roofs are incredibly sustainable and save tons of money. (less rainwater runoff to deal with, smaller gutters, change the BUR less frequently, etc.) It is a win win for your pocketbook and your planet. Plenty of other ways this kind of paradigm can be spread to every product out there so long as sustainability and recyclability (or biodegrading) is thought of at the beginning of a product's design. Read up on William McDonough, he's leading the charge in this Industrial Evolution.

    moniker on
  • Options
    SalviusSalvius Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Elkamil wrote:
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    It may be, but it's still pretty small. Something like <5% for atheists and agnostics put together?

    I usually see ~15% if you count "non-religious", "secular", "humanist", etc. That's enough to make it the second largest "religion" in America after christianity. Non-theists call themselves so many different things it's easy to underestimate their numbers. Of course, that same fragmentation also explains their almost complete powerlessness.

    Salvius on
    current.png
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Salvius wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    Elkamil wrote:
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    It may be, but it's still pretty small. Something like <5% for atheists and agnostics put together?

    I usually see ~15% if you count "non-religious", "secular", "humanist", etc. That's enough to make it the second largest "religion" in America after christianity. Non-theists call themselves so many different things it's easy to underestimate their numbers. Of course, that same fragmentation also explains their almost complete powerlessness.

    Well, what do you expect. Atheists have no real reason to gather, and when they do, it's usually so they can act like pricks and assholes to religious groups.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    russia32 wrote:
    Here is another interesting fact. The world population has now reached 6.5 billion people. By 2050 this population is expected to be almost 10 billion. The human population has quadrupled in only the last 100 years. That is incredible change. Now, here is somewhat of a personal question. How many people would want to live on an overpopulated, completely urbanized planet. I am a pessimist, but I believe in the future problems will far outweigh the benefits of new technology. I think the life humans should be able to live will be limited to the wealthy. This will also increase secular beliefs.
    It'll have exactly the opposite effect. Religious belief provides comfort to those in need.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Salvius wrote:
    Scooter wrote:
    Elkamil wrote:
    I remember reading in the Economist that non-church goers are the fastest growing "religious" group in America.

    Also, wouldn't conflict be more likely to happen in the Democratic party, between atheists and the religious left?

    It may be, but it's still pretty small. Something like <5% for atheists and agnostics put together?

    I usually see ~15% if you count "non-religious", "secular", "humanist", etc. That's enough to make it the second largest "religion" in America after christianity. Non-theists call themselves so many different things it's easy to underestimate their numbers. Of course, that same fragmentation also explains their almost complete powerlessness.

    Well, what do you expect. Atheists have no real reason to gather, and when they do, it's usually so they can act like pricks and assholes to religious groups.

    man, what

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    The attitude I've seen from atheist groups is one of the reasons I started calling myself an agnostic.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    The CatThe Cat Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    The attitude I've seen from atheist groups is one of the reasons I started calling myself an agnostic.
    That's pretty silly. I don't go around declaring myself 'not-really-a-feminist' just because some jackasses think that the word implies man-hating.

    The Cat on
    tmsig.jpg
  • Options
    ScooterScooter Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Well, to clarify, once I saw what the hard-core atheist line was, I realized that's not what I was going for. It didn't actually change what I believed, it just made me realize there's not one big happy atheist group all we non-believers fit into.

    Scooter on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Well, what do you expect. Atheists have no real reason to gather, and when they do, it's usually so they can act like pricks and assholes to religious groups.

    what? jesus, you're a prick and an asshole.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Well, to clarify, once I saw what the hard-core atheist line was, I realized that's not what I was going for. It didn't actually change what I believed, it just made me realize there's not one big happy atheist group all we non-believers fit into.
    Well that might be because atheists aren't a big whole group. We have a spread of retards and idiots like any other large group of people and the key point of being identified by "not" being something, which means you're kinda pushing to want a consistent theme across them to be established beyond being "atheist".

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Well, to clarify, once I saw what the hard-core atheist line was, I realized that's not what I was going for. It didn't actually change what I believed, it just made me realize there's not one big happy atheist group all we non-believers fit into.
    Well that might be because atheists aren't a big whole group. We have a spread of retards and idiots like any other large group of people and the key point of being identified by "not" being something, which means you're kinda pushing to want a consistent theme across them to be established beyond being "atheist".

    i love how the only conceivable reason we'd ever congregate would be to be a bunch of pricks and assholes. we couldn't possibly have actual grievances.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    FencingsaxFencingsax It is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understanding GNU Terry PratchettRegistered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Well, to clarify, once I saw what the hard-core atheist line was, I realized that's not what I was going for. It didn't actually change what I believed, it just made me realize there's not one big happy atheist group all we non-believers fit into.
    Well that might be because atheists aren't a big whole group. We have a spread of retards and idiots like any other large group of people and the key point of being identified by "not" being something, which means you're kinda pushing to want a consistent theme across them to be established beyond being "atheist".

    i love how the only conceivable reason we'd ever congregate would be to be a bunch of pricks and assholes. we couldn't possibly have actual grievances.

    I would like to be clear that this isn't what I think at all. I think that you're a bit irrational about irrationality (heh), but other than that, you simply seem to have the same grudge against religion that Dawkins does. Now, Dawkins position is mostly understandable, since most of the religious guys he talks to want to bitch about evolution. I don't know, maybe a religious guy punched you when you were a baby, or ran over your dog, or something. However, other than your blindspot, you're an okay guy. I don't actually know where I'm going with this anymore, other than to apologize for what you may have perceived as me being a prick preemptively earlier.

    Fencingsax on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Fencingsax wrote:
    I would like to be clear that this isn't what I think at all. I think that you're a bit irrational about irrationality (heh), but other than that, you simply seem to have the same grudge against religion that Dawkins does.

    apology accepted. that said,
    MrMister wrote:
    I'm not understanding exactly where you're going with "art is irrational." Do you mean to say that art is irrational because painters largely follow their emotions and instincts rather than painting by a strict formula? I don't see how that makes art irrational--after all, it is perfectly rational to paint by instinct rather than by design, since (too forced) design has been shown to produce bad art.

    Are you saying that it is irrational to love art, or produce art? I don't see how that's the case, any more than it's irrational to love milkshakes or cinnamon toast crunch. Rationality does not denying that our emotional or sensual responses to the outside world exist--it involves behaving in some basically reasonable ways, like not holding mutually contradictory positions.

    I think I need a better explanation for what "art is irrational" means, especially when it's being used to justify the statement "it is sometimes better to think and behave irrationally." I feel like often people try to demonstrate the statment "it is sometimes better to think and behave irrationally" by claiming that some obviously desirable behavior is irrational, but without fully demonstrating why that behavior is irrational in any meaningful way.

    i still don't see why it behooves me to respect irrationality as a positive force, social or otherwise.

    also, i've been over my grievances and the reasons for them in the past. i'll throw them out if someone actually wants to hear them again, but...

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    Salvation122Salvation122 Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Scooter wrote:
    Well, to clarify, once I saw what the hard-core atheist line was, I realized that's not what I was going for. It didn't actually change what I believed, it just made me realize there's not one big happy atheist group all we non-believers fit into.
    Well that might be because atheists aren't a big whole group. We have a spread of retards and idiots like any other large group of people and the key point of being identified by "not" being something, which means you're kinda pushing to want a consistent theme across them to be established beyond being "atheist".
    i love how the only conceivable reason we'd ever congregate would be to be a bunch of pricks and assholes. we couldn't possibly have actual grievances.
    Do I really need to link previous religion threads here? I mean, if the atheists here are at all indicative of the general tendancies of atheists in general, then yeah, pricks and assholes, pretty much, at least as regards theists.

    Salvation122 on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Do I really need to link previous religion threads here?

    yes.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Anyone who spends so much time thinking about insubstantial, inconsequential, and unhelpful ideas rather than living in the real world - be they theist or atheist - is skating on pretty thin ice, as far as I'm concerned.

    Loren's whole spiel about logic & reason bettering humanity sounds pretty hollow, in the same way that an evangelist preaching about Jesus' love does. They're both patronising, combative and insecure.

    I'm more inclined to listen to someone like Shinto (not to single him out) who doesn't broadcast his beliefs, but actually goes out and does things to put those beliefs into practice.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Zsetrek wrote:
    Anyone who spends so much time thinking about insubstantial, inconsequential, and unhelpful ideas rather than living in the real world - be they theist or atheist - is skating on pretty thin ice, as far as I'm concerned.

    Loren's whole spiel about logic & reason bettering humanity sounds pretty hollow, in the same way that an evangelist preaching about Jesus' love does. They're both patronising, combative and insecure.

    I'm more inclined to listen to someone like Shinto (not to single him out) who doesn't broadcast his beliefs, but actually goes out and does things to put those beliefs into practice.

    -beliefs don't have real-world consequences?
    -isn't racism a form of belief? it's insubstantial, isn't it? it doesn't have anything to do with the real world, does it?
    -so, all i've been making is unqualified assertions? no arguments?
    -shinto doesn't broadcast his beliefs?
    Shinto wrote:
    anti-gay people are sick bigots.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    mccmcc glitch Registered User, ClubPA regular
    edited November 2006
    -so, all i've been making is unqualified assertions? no arguments?
    Yes.

    mcc on
  • Options
    electricitylikesmeelectricitylikesme Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Zsetrek wrote:
    Anyone who spends so much time thinking about insubstantial, inconsequential, and unhelpful ideas rather than living in the real world - be they theist or atheist - is skating on pretty thin ice, as far as I'm concerned.

    Loren's whole spiel about logic & reason bettering humanity sounds pretty hollow, in the same way that an evangelist preaching about Jesus' love does. They're both patronising, combative and insecure.

    I'm more inclined to listen to someone like Shinto (not to single him out) who doesn't broadcast his beliefs, but actually goes out and does things to put those beliefs into practice.

    This is a religion thread, in which we inevitably end up with an argument about how you can't actually make an argument for irrational behavior as a sound or beneficial choice.

    Your post, amounts to saying that using any type of, you know, argument in such an argument means you must be wrong.

    This is an internet forum, get real and remove the assumption that in fact the beliefs people talk about here might just actually be the ones they apply to the rest of their life as well.

    electricitylikesme on
  • Options
    TreelootTreeloot Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    While we may have seen a rise of atheists in recent years (I don't know for sure if there has been one), we've also had a rise of evangelical Christians in recent years.

    I find the rise of evangelical Christians rather worrying.

    Treeloot on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    mcc wrote:
    -so, all i've been making is unqualified assertions? no arguments?
    Yes.

    where? i'm fairly confident that i can cut and paste an argument that i've made to defend virtually any purportedly unqualified assertion i've made.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
  • Options
    ZsetrekZsetrek Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Zsetrek wrote:
    Anyone who spends so much time thinking about insubstantial, inconsequential, and unhelpful ideas rather than living in the real world - be they theist or atheist - is skating on pretty thin ice, as far as I'm concerned.

    Loren's whole spiel about logic & reason bettering humanity sounds pretty hollow, in the same way that an evangelist preaching about Jesus' love does. They're both patronising, combative and insecure.

    I'm more inclined to listen to someone like Shinto (not to single him out) who doesn't broadcast his beliefs, but actually goes out and does things to put those beliefs into practice.

    This is a religion thread, in which we inevitably end up with an argument about how you can't actually make an argument for irrational behavior as a sound or beneficial choice.

    Your post, amounts to saying that using any type of, you know, argument in such an argument means you must be wrong.

    This is an internet forum, get real and remove the assumption that in fact the beliefs people talk about here might just actually be the ones they apply to the rest of their life as well.

    You're right. I apologise.

    Zsetrek on
  • Options
    Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited November 2006
    Treeloot wrote:
    we've also had a rise of evangelical Christians in recent years.

    i really don't think we have.

    Loren Michael on
    a7iea7nzewtq.jpg
This discussion has been closed.