Hmm, interesting parallel I hadn't noticed before

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]

Welcome to IWETHEY!