Some athiests

Post #155,511 by cwbrenn 5/17/04 3:29:17 PM 5/17/04 3:29:40 PM Reply	Some athiests are the most fanatically religious people I know. In every way that counts. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young Edited by cwbrenn May 17, 2004, 03:29:40 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #155,514 by inthane-chan 5/17/04 3:33:09 PM Reply	Judge not by one member. Judge by the group response. Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain. You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
Post #155,517 by cwbrenn 5/17/04 3:42:03 PM Reply	I didn't judge by one. That would be saying "If you want to know what IWETHEY is about, go read all of Marlowe's posts." But there were other luminaries who were willing to agree, mostly agree, or conspicuously quibble over other points: Ashton, Andrew, and Ben Tilly are three who immediately spring to mind. All of whom have claimed, in the past, to bear me no ill will. I have come to expect a rather noticeable current of hostility towards Christians on this board -- for the most part I ignore it, even though it is tiresome to be constantly called backward and ignorant and bigoted and all manner of other things by people who are, at least in theory, my peers. Perhaps I'm overracting, and "it's just the web," but I sort of draw the line when one of those peers says "the world would be better if every Christian in the world were dead, dead, dead," and a bunch of other peers chime in to say "well, you know, they are pretty universally useless." Well the world wouldn't be better for me. I'd just like to point out that one very important fact. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #155,519 by Nightowl 5/17/04 3:49:34 PM Reply	Wow.... Someone else feels the way I felt when I read that thread. Nightowl >8# "AHHHHH! Relatives coming out of the woodwork!!!!!!"
Post #155,521 by inthane-chan 5/17/04 3:54:03 PM Reply	You'll note... ...I didn't tell you which conclusion to draw. :) I've noticed that yes, there is a certain anti-"religious" bent - I don't believe it is targeted against Christianity specifically. I've also noticed that certain people (Al Qaeda, Ashcroft) who are not representative of a large portion of those religions are taking extreme hardline attitudes which are troublesome to those of us who have to deal with them outside of the framework of their beliefs. If it's the thread I think it is, Mike apologized later for his outburst. If not, then I've got the wrong thread, and I don't know what I'm talking about. And yes, there are indeed extremists in all organizations, whether they be political, religious, or otherwise. This tends to be more true in groups that feel they are under a great deal of pressure, whether or not the pressure really exists. I'd say these days a whole lot of groups are under a great deal of pressure, and the pressure will only increase by the "closeness" that world communications gives us. As for me, I'll continue believing that everybody has the right to believe what they will, as long as they don't attempt to enforce their belief structure on others. Tired of lying in the sunshine staying home to watch the rain. You are young and life is long and there is time to kill today. And then one day you find ten years have got behind you. No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun.
Post #155,539 by drewk 5/17/04 4:34:58 PM Reply	Hmm, interesting parallel I hadn't noticed before Some athiests are the most fanatically religious people I know. In every way that counts. I was going to reply to thane agreeing that I sense more of an anti-religious bent than a specifically anti-Christian one. One of the "rational" reasons for this, as I believe Ben has pointed out, is that once someone bases their morality on some external source, they really can't be swayed by any type of reason: what's right is right. This allows people to commit some truly heinous acts in service of their misguided beliefs. So even if some religion somewhere may actually be "right," it would be safer for society if people didn't base their morality on external sources. But to suggest that one's belief or actions should be based on what is safer is a typically evangelical tactic that atheists commonly refute. ie: "If you pray to a God and there is none, you haven't lost anything. But if you don't pray you risk eternal damnation." That doesn't really prove anything though. "If you base your morality on reason, you will end up living a good life. But if you base it on an external source you could end up killing people in the name of your God." That doesn't prove anything either. === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #155,554 by Andrew Grygus 5/17/04 5:14:56 PM Reply	Now CRC is going to get all riled up again . . I had a long battle with him a couple years ago as to whether athieism is a religion - he maintains it is not with religious zeal. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #155,559 by drewk 5/17/04 5:21:18 PM Reply	Shares the trait of being internally consistent Religion: If it is right it is good. God defines right. Atheism: If it is good it is right. I define good. This, of course, is why the religious have often accused the irriligious of "elevating themselves to godhood." === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #155,564 by ChrisR 5/17/04 5:25:55 PM Reply	Generalization Religion: If it is right it is good. God defines right. Atheism: If it is good it is right. I define good. As a matter of course, most people don't live in these extremes. Religion, or lack thereof, are much more fluid concepts than either side wants to credit. I am reminded of the more recent work by the author of "Why People Believe Things" (or some such title). It was his conclusion that smart people don't necessarily believe things because they are rational, but rather they are better at rationalizing their beliefs once chosen.
Post #155,571 by drewk 5/17/04 5:35:47 PM Reply	Michael Shermer: Why People Believe Weird Things [link\|http://skeptic.com/b62pb.html\|Why People Believe Weird Things: Pseudoscience, Superstition, and Other Confusions of Our Time] [link\|http://skeptic.com/books.html\|More books] === Implicitly condoning stupidity since 2001.
Post #155,573 by ben_tilly 5/17/04 5:37:11 PM Reply	"Why People Believe Weird Things" - by Michael Shermer To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,612 by Silverlock 5/17/04 8:20:17 PM 5/17/04 8:21:21 PM Reply	Heinlein said it best 'Man is not a rational animal. He is a rationalizing one.' ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko Edited by Silverlock May 17, 2004, 08:21:21 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #155,613 by Silverlock 5/17/04 8:20:25 PM 5/17/04 8:21:00 PM Reply	Dup. Ignore ----------------------------------------- It is much harder to be a liberal than a conservative. Why? Because it is easier to give someone the finger than it is to give them a helping hand. Mike Royko Edited by Silverlock May 17, 2004, 08:21:00 PM EDT Expand All History
Post #155,561 by Ashton 5/17/04 5:22:11 PM Reply	Right.. we've had that one. Given the inadequacy of both atheism, agnosticism to er 'fully characterize' Anyone's actual POV -- I thought it was agreed that agnosticism [I Don't Know] was the neutral course, whereas ummm "accepting final 'proof' of a Negative?" - appears indistinguishable from its obverse, in the attitude of one's mentation. Oh well. Ashton
Post #155,570 by ben_tilly 5/17/04 5:35:10 PM Reply	Well, atheism is not a religion Atheists lack a particular kind of belief. Now there are many atheistic belief systems that share a lot with religion - enough to possibly be called religions. Two well-known ones are communism and a particularly literal belief in Science over all. However atheism is not a religion. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,585 by boxley 5/17/04 6:00:03 PM Reply	well it is a belief system with some more rabid followers than others, shares symbols much like a religion and has organized congregations. thanx,. bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #155,605 by ben_tilly 5/17/04 6:41:25 PM Reply	Excuse me? That's an interesting set of claims. Every one at odds with my understanding and experience. Care to expand on how atheism is a belief system, shares symbols, and has organized congregations? Perhaps it would clarify my position for me to say that atheism is to me no more a religion than monotheism or polytheism are religions. There are many things you could claim to be religions that fall into one of those 3 categories, but the category itself is not a religion. (Some belief systems fall into more than one, for instance wicca arguably falls into all three.) If you have concrete evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in hearing it. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,606 by boxley 5/17/04 6:54:30 PM Reply	here ya go [link\|http://www.positiveatheism.org/mail/eml9860.htm\|http://www.positivea.../mail/eml9860.htm] darwin fish, American Atheists congregation symbal and the secular humanists symbol congregations where they worship together [link\|http://www.atheistalliance.org/aai/members.html\|http://www.atheistal.../aai/members.html] belief systems vary by believer just like other organized religons, some are more rabid than others, back when Nick declared himself an atheist and someone like yourself who I would almost hesitate to declare you as an absolute atheist but you clearly can demonstrate all of the rationals used. thanx, bill Time for Lord Stanley to get a Tan questions, help? [link\|mailto:pappas@catholic.org\|email pappas at catholic.org]
Post #155,608 by ben_tilly 5/17/04 7:06:32 PM Reply	I don't consider that example nearly sufficient (new thread) Created as new thread #155607 titled [link\|/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155607\|I don't consider that example nearly sufficient] To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,551 by Andrew Grygus 5/17/04 5:11:08 PM Reply	Re: I didn't judge by one. Bull. I have not called for your death or the death of your family - or any other broad class or group. I am on record for saying we would be better off without the three "revealed religions" because of their historically well proven tendency to repress and/or slaughter each other and members of any other faith or opinion. This has resulted in constant bloodshed. I have never called for the killing of members of these religions as an acceptable way to diminsh them, in fact, I recently called someone else on his opinion that Muslims should be killed indiscriminently. I continue to urge resistance against the fundamentalists in these religions because their prime objective is to supress my freedom to hold the opinions and beliefs I choose, and the near certainty they would eagerly kill those of all other faiths if they were allowed to, as they have done in the past and as all three are doing today in the Near East, Africa, Indonesia, the Philippines, Thailand and elsewhere. I have stated there will likely come a mass slaughter of Islam but did not endorse this slaughter. I think it is a high probability because there is no strong moderate faction to hold the radicals in check - moderate is not allowed by Islam. Given the easy availability of WDMs, the radicals are likely to do something that will cause someone to turn Mecca into a glassy crater, and then all hell breaks loose. Currently moderate Jews and Christians are suspicious of their own fundamentalists and help to keep them in check. This is good, but the fundies still bear careful watching because they know how to leverage religious afinity with other Christian groups to get them to support things they don't really agree with. If your faith is so fragile you cannot stand up to the kind of pressure non-Christians have to stand up to all day every day, that is your problem, not mine. [link\|http://www.aaxnet.com\|AAx]
Post #155,575 by cwbrenn 5/17/04 5:44:30 PM Reply	Ah yes, the old "We get death threats every day, it's about time you got yours!" rote. I don't get riled up when I see that kind of crap in any old forum. I do get riled up when I see it spewing out of people I reckon ought to know better. I can't believe Mike didn't realize that there were people he KNEW who he'd put on that oh-so-broad list... so all of a sudden I found myself categorized as "acceptable losses." What the fuck, Andrew? What the hell does that have to do with fragile faith? When did I ever call for Mike's death? I'm not talking about some religious nutjob you read about in the paper -- I'm talking about ME. Yes, that IS a lot more personal and it IS very different. But hey, I guess I deserve it somehow. How grand that I'm finally getting a taste of my own. And for the record, since your only participation in that thread was to support parts of Mike's original statement, I assumed by your silence that you were there simply to back him up. That may have been wrong but it is reasonable. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young
Post #155,567 by ben_tilly 5/17/04 5:31:40 PM Reply	Excuse me, why am I in that list? What are my stated opinions on religion? See posts like [link\|http://z.iwethey.org/forums/render/content/show?contentid=155047\|http://z.iwethey.org...?contentid=155047] to see them stated. Ah. Right. Religiously mandated violence is a symptom, not a cause. And I supported that with the example of one of the worst genocides in the 20'th century - done by people who were at least nominally atheistic. As for why I didn't say more in that thread, I long ago lost my taste for certain arguments about religion. I do not feel the need to speak on every issue where I have an opinion. But my silence should not generally be construed as agreement with any given position. Cheers, Ben To deny the indirect purchaser, who in this case is the ultimate purchaser, the right to seek relief from unlawful conduct, would essentially remove the word consumer from the Consumer Protection Act - [link\|http://www.techworld.com/opsys/news/index.cfm?NewsID=1246&Page=1&pagePos=20\|Nebraska Supreme Court]
Post #155,578 by cwbrenn 5/17/04 5:48:00 PM Reply	You're right -- I owe you an apology I'm not sure why I got it in my head you were endorsing Mike's post. Again, I apologize. "We are all born originals -- why is it so many of us die copies?" - Edward Young

Welcome to IWETHEY!