http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/jul/12/christian_right_activists_disrupt_hindu_chaplain_in_the_senate

Needless to say, this was very rude and uncalled for.  On the other hand, something that's not being addressed at all:  Having this Hindu chaplain pray seemed to be a painfully transparent attempt at coming off as "tolerant" toward non-traditional religions, but as long as we're practicing some sort of iconoclasm here, why should there be prayer at all in the Senate? 

The religious right says that only the Christian God should be recognized in the Senate. 

The sensitive left says that every religion should be recognized in the Senate. 

I say, abandon religion in the political arena altogether.  Honestly, the prayer just seems like a religious formality that causes more trouble than it ought to, as evidenced in this video.  Like the conservatives, I think it's a valid point that the non-Hindu folks shouldn't have to recognize a Hindu prayer in their house of legislation, but I find the same true for Christian prayer.

Fundamentalist always have to ruin everything.  Good Old Senator Bob Casey Jr.  I knew I'd figure out a reason why I voted for him.

I say, abandon religion in the political arena altogether.  Honestly, the prayer just seems like a religious formality that causes more trouble than it ought to, as evidenced in this video.  Like the conservatives, I think it's a valid point that the non-Hindu folks shouldn't have to recognize a Hindu prayer in their house of legislation, but I find the same true for Christian prayer.



   Appalling behavior...

   And I think you're trying to say that the Senate chamber should be a place of reason, not faith...

   Should be...

  Please Lord, protect us from your followers...

These are the kinds of "Christians" who give the rest of us a bad name.

Their own press release proclaims their ignorance:

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!"

I guess they forgot that a lot of them were Jewish.  In fact, at one time it was seriously suggested that the "Official Language" of the new United States be changed, to help sever ties from England.  The 2 main choices were German and Hebrew.

Oy vey, those fundies are absolutely meshugena!!!!!

These are the kinds of "Christians" who give the rest of us a bad name.

Their own press release proclaims their ignorance:

"Not one Senator had the backbone to stand as our Founding Fathers stood. They stood on the Gospel of Jesus Christ!"

I guess they forgot that a lot of them were Jewish.  In fact, at one time it was seriously suggested that the "Official Language" of the new United States be changed, to help sever ties from England.  The 2 main choices were German and Hebrew.

Oy vey, those fundies are absolutely meshugena!!!!!


The funny thing is that Bob Casey is the shyest guy you'd ever want to meet.  I guess it takes a newbie to have the guts to tell people to shut up.  Jewish politicians are kind of known to just sit back and not act on too much.  I'm surprised Arlan Spector or Joe Bidden didn't say something. 

I really hate people who spew hate and I don't care what religion or other group they call themselves. That why I hate Bill O'Reilly because he spews hate against the "secular liberal left". Don't they know that hate begets hate.

"And another eye for another eye until everyone is blind."



Cat

I really hate people who spew hate and I don't care what religion or other group they call themselves. That why I hate Bill O'Reilly because he spews hate against the "secular liberal left". Don't they know that hate begets hate.

"And another eye for another eye until everyone is blind."



Cat


What's wrong with secularism?  Secularism is the brave notion that other people, and other ideals exist. and are just as important as your own.

Mahatma Gandhi more people should listen to what he was saying

What's wrong with secularism?  Secularism is the brave notion that other people, and other ideals exist. and are just as important as your own.

Mahatma Gandhi more people should listen to what he was saying



Don't ask me, ask Bill. He is the one who is spewing hate about it.



Cat

Don't ask me, ask Bill. He is the one who is spewing hate about it.



Cat


It was a rhetorical question.  Bill doesn't really care what we think.  Nor would he even condescend to give us an answer.

I get misty eyed just thinking about it.


We should have just let Joe get on with things..

We should have just let Joe get on with things..


What the hell?  You're supporting communists now?  Have you forgotten your fascist roots, boy?

What the hell?  You're supporting communists now?  Have you forgotten your fascist roots, boy?


Joe...sef Mengele.

Stupid boy.

Joe...sef Mengele.

Stupid boy.


Oh damn, I've read of him before, I even referenced him to one of my friends fairly recently.  Should have known.

This is why I'm for separation of church and state.

Leave state business to he state and church business to the church.

Othewise, we end up arguing over whose god is the right god for all of us, and that's not what freedom of religion is about.

I wouldn't trust those neurotic SOBs on Capitol Hill to decide what color to paint the kitchen let alone decide on the supreme deity of the universe!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/help.gif

These are the kinds of "Christians" who give the rest of us a bad name.



I agree! ;)


I really hate people who spew hate and I don't care what religion or other group they call themselves. That why I hate Bill O'Reilly because he spews hate against the "secular liberal left". Don't they know that hate begets hate.

"And another eye for another eye until everyone is blind."



Cat


I agree...and that's why I usually stay clear of the political boards...because no matter when I come here...someone is generalizing all religious people into one category.

I really hate people who spew hate and I don't care what religion or other group they call themselves. That why I hate Bill O'Reilly because he spews hate against the "secular liberal left". Don't they know that hate begets hate.

"And another eye for another eye until everyone is blind."



Cat


I agree.

I guess they forgot that a lot of them were Jewish.  In fact, at one time it was seriously suggested that the "Official Language" of the new United States be changed, to help sever ties from England.  The 2 main choices were German and Hebrew.


This is a popular thing for German teachers in the US to tell their students. But I read that it was a myth, and that there was never a question as to an official language because the percentage of Americans who speak German natively has never gone above four percent. Also, the US has never had an official language to change (on the federal level), and to this day still does not.

I agree! ;)

I agree...and that's why I usually stay clear of the political boards...because no matter when I come here...someone is generalizing all religious people into one category.


Why do you have this needless victim mentality whenever you come to the political boards?  Coincidentally most of us are very religious in our own way.

Why do you have this needless victim mentality whenever you come to the political boards?  Coincidentally most of us are very religious in our own way.


My religion is my conviction that creates my hatred of their religion.  :)

Which is basically the same as all religions, an absence of logical thought causing hatred of all that is unacceptable.

My religion is my conviction that creates my hatred of their religion.  :)

Which is basically the same as all religions, an absence of logical thought causing hatred of all that is unacceptable.


Most people are probably uncomfortable with it except for you.  Isn't that the way it usually works?

Most people are probably uncomfortable with it except for you.  Isn't that the way it usually works?


Well, most people are uncomfortable with me period.  ;D

Well, most people are uncomfortable with me period.  ;D


Sheer honesty does scare some folks.

This is a popular thing for German teachers in the US to tell their students. But I read that it was a myth, and that there was never a question as to an official language because the percentage of Americans who speak German natively has never gone above four percent. Also, the US has never had an official language to change (on the federal level), and to this day still does not.


The German thing is a perpetual urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

Hebrew?  Never heard that one.  Who was speaking Hebrew in the 18th century? 
???

The German thing is a perpetual urban myth.

http://www.snopes.com/language/apocryph/german.asp

Hebrew?  Never heard that one.  Who was speaking Hebrew in the 18th century? 
???


If you read carefully, it clearly states that it was a proposal.  Even the Snopes article states that this never happened, yet when you read down it lists not just one but 3 different proposals for such an action.  Of course, it's passage was never really a serious threat.  No more then Ben Franklin's proposal of making the Turkey the National Bird.

And remember, this all occured during the "Age Of Enlightenment".  Among Intellectuals both in the US and Europe, Hebrew had a large resurgence, both in reading ancient scripts, and amongst some as form of "Lingua Franca".  It was also closely tied with the growing interest in Freemasonry.  With it not being the "Official Language" of any nation at the time, in many circles in the era it filled a nitch that is now filled by Esperanto.  Or the way that Latin is currently used among the Catholic Church.

Why do you have this needless victim mentality whenever you come to the political boards?  Coincidentally most of us are very religious in our own way.


because everytime I set foot in a thread on this board...someone is making an offensive comment pertaining to Christians. I don't appreciate something to the effects being said that Christians should die in concentration camps. Besides, you are all granted to say whatever sh!t you want to say about other people's religious beliefs...but as soon as someone takes offense to something that one of you say....it becomes a problem. Whatever. double standard. I have the same views at Cat....respect EVERYONE'S beliefs...don't make fun of ANYONE'S beliefs..and that includes us horrible, misled christians. ::)

One more reason why I find Christian Right Activists, annoying.  ::)

A person should be aloud to talk in senate, without being interupted.

If this was a kindergarten class room, the interupter would be given a time out.

But then again kindergarteners behave alot better, than the douchbag, who did the interupting.  ::)

because everytime I set foot in a thread on this board...someone is making an offensive comment pertaining to Christians. I don't appreciate something to the effects being said that Christians should die in concentration camps. Besides, you are all granted to say whatever sh!t you want to say about other people's religious beliefs...but as soon as someone takes offense to something that one of you say....it becomes a problem. Whatever. double standard. I have the same views at Cat....respect EVERYONE'S beliefs...don't make fun of ANYONE'S beliefs..and that includes us horrible, misled christians. ::)

The one who said that, he likes to get a rise off of people, that's all.  I wouldn't pay him any mind.

The one who said that, he likes to get a rise off of people, that's all.  I wouldn't pay him any mind.


:-*

I do indeed.

But the question one has to ask oneself is.. how much do I actually believe? How much hate is there behind the lethargic and seemingly apathetic eyes?  ;) ;D

The one who said that, he likes to get a rise off of people, that's all.  I wouldn't pay him any mind.


I agree with you there Max.

But then comes the other side of the coin.  Why should I pay any attention to somebody who is obviously bigoted and openly insulting to people of other religious beliefs?  Somebody who is hostile to Christians is no better then somebody who is hostile to Jews, Muslims, Buddists, or Wiccans.  Ignorance is ignorance, and bigotry is bigotry.  And to me, anybody that proclaims hatred or disdain to somebody for their beliefs has shown themselves to be subhuman.

because everytime I set foot in a thread on this board...someone is making an offensive comment pertaining to Christians. I don't appreciate something to the effects being said that Christians should die in concentration camps.

Must have missed that one... I'm not sure that would be practical, though.


Besides, you are all granted to say whatever sh!t you want to say about other people's religious beliefs...but as soon as someone takes offense to something that one of you say....it becomes a problem. Whatever. double standard. I have the same views at Cat....respect EVERYONE'S beliefs...don't make fun of ANYONE'S beliefs..and that includes us horrible, misled christians. ::)

Sorry, I disagree: everybody's beliefs should be open to comment, to question... and, yes, to ridicule.  This isn't an anti-Christian sentiment: it's a generic position.  I am prepared to debate what I believe, and hold it up to critical argument, 'cause that's how I came to the atheistic position in the first place - OK, so atheism escapes the comic attacks because it simply isn't funny (especially when you compare it to the potential for humour in just about all the world's religions).

This is the bit that you're not going to like: I simply cannot respect a set of beliefs simply because somebody else holds it.  I don't find it hard to respect people (even those holding the most ridiculous of beliefs), but once you start requiring ideas to be shown respect without finding out whether they deserve respect, you are putting all the most ridiculous, extreme and unrealistic cults in the same basket as everything else.  The corollary to that, of course, is that if you start requiring evidence of "respectability" from others, then it has to apply to what you believe, too.  I'm happy with that; some see the very act of questioning as a lack of respect - I see that as their problem, not mine.

Take this article as an example (there are many more interesting articles on mwillett.org - it's well worth a browse).


But then comes the other side of the coin.  Why should I pay any attention to somebody who is obviously bigoted and openly insulting to people of other religious beliefs?  Somebody who is hostile to Christians is no better then somebody who is hostile to Jews, Muslims, Buddists, or Wiccans.  Ignorance is ignorance, and bigotry is bigotry.  And to me, anybody that proclaims hatred or disdain to somebody for their beliefs has shown themselves to be subhuman.

Can I draw a distinction between disdain for a person and disdain for their beliefs? Also, ignorance and bigotry are what they are, but poking fun at the evidently ridiculous is neither: and hostility and insult are often only in the mind of those who willfully seek such intent, seeing it when none was present (e.g. the cartoons depicting Mohammed).

Unfortunately, when you thow heaven and hell into the mix, then you've got the saved and the damned and nothing in between.  So, are you saved or are you damned?  If you haven't accepted Christ as your personal Lord and Savior, you are damned.  By that logic, if you care about people, you don't want to see them go to hell, so you go out and spread the Good Word.  If a person says, "Sorry, I don't believe in God," then it's your duty to inform that person he is going to hell.  Fair warning. 
Of course, that's a simplist explanation, but that's what we see with the Christian fundamentalists. 
With certain sects of Islamic fundamentalism, it's worse.  Kill the infidels!

I have met Christains--Catholic and Protestant--who respect the beliefs of others.  The Christians either take a more liberal interpretation of Scripture, which claims it is not all literal and what matters is whether or not you're a "good person."  Others are willing to live with a dichotomy:  The Bible does say those who do not accept Christ are going to hell.  But what about the majority of the good people in the world who aren't Christian? I don't know.  Leave the judging up to God.

The campus chaplains told me long ago, "Life has to be lived.  We have to get along with one another.  We see what happens when we don't." 

In fact, I think the majority of Christians and Muslims subscribe to that point of view.  You've got enough to worry about if you're trying to get to heaven yourself.  Mind your own business, look into your own back yard. 

We have seen on this board how obnoxious evangelism can make people.  They're mandated to go out and spread the Gospel.  Evangelical churches have also given their congregants the idea they are certain to go to heaven once they have named Christ as their personal Lord and Savior and taken Him into their hearts.  Mainstream Protestants don't do that.  Unfortunately, the evangelical attitude is infecting much of American Protestantism.  The Jenkins/LaHaye "Left Behind" series has sold something like 60 million copies.  More than Harry Potter.  And that's really smug.  "We're the Christians and if you don't join us, you're going to burn when the apocalypse comes, so ha ha!"
::)

Question . . . How can you be a Christian and respect everyone's beliefs?  That in itself goes against a majority of the forms of Christianity.  Double standard.  I fail to see where.  Perhaps one should look at history itself before deciding what is a double standard and what isn't. 


Sorry, but that alone screams of "Ignorance".  It is like saying "How can you possibly be black and conservative", or "how can you call yourself bisexual and be monogamous".  It simply screams of having a preconcieved notion of how somebody should behave, and refusing to understand when somebody does not follow how you think they should behave.

Myself, I see the 3 main Judeo-Christian faiths as being parts of the same religion.  And a large number of Christians feel the same way.  Although there are some that go around saying "We are right, the rest of you are going to hell".  But that is a fairly small minority.  And most Christians openly ridicule those that do, like Mr. Phelps.

The problem when people see fringe groups like this in the media is that they start to think that these represent "normal" thinking.  Just like some people think that all Muslims want to kill Jews, or that all Liberals want to convert the US to a form of Communism.  It is simply not true, and saying that it is shows how ignorant somebody is to others that do not share their views.


I have met Christains--Catholic and Protestant--who respect the beliefs of others.  The Christians either take a more liberal interpretation of Scripture, which claims it is not all literal and what matters is whether or not you're a "good person."  Others are willing to live with a dichotomy:  The Bible does say those who do not accept Christ are going to hell.  But what about the majority of the good people in the world who aren't Christian? I don't know.  Leave the judging up to God.


Actually, I take my rather open belief in what happens in the afterlife straight from the Bible.  And it is the exact opposite of what the Radical Fundamentalists want to believe.  After all, the 2nd Commandment clearly states:

you shall have no other gods before me.

Notice it does not say "I am the only God".  It does not state "There is no god but God".  It simply states that we should not place any god above God.  It does not say anywhere in the Scriptures that we should take up a Holy War and convert people by the sword.  And if God himself was comfortable giving such instructions to his people, who am I to argue?

Yes, I do believe in the existance of other gods.  And I believe that your soul after death will go to where it is most appropriate, according to both your belief and how you acted in life.

And if you are an atheist, I actually believe that you will get your wish, and your soul will dissolve into nothingness.  After all, is that not what such a person desires most?

And if you are an atheist, I actually believe that you will get your wish, and your soul will dissolve into nothingness.  After all, is that not what such a person desires most?

Sorry, but that alone screams of ignorance.  Being an atheist has nothing to do with "desires", simply the lack of belief in any god or gods.  Sure, I would desire a life after death - who wouldn't? - but desire has nothing to do with what happens in (or at the end of) real life.  Anything else is wishful thinking.

Sorry, but that alone screams of ignorance.  Being an atheist has nothing to do with "desires", simply the lack of belief in any god or gods.  Sure, I would desire a life after death - who wouldn't? - but desire has nothing to do with what happens in (or at the end of) real life.  Anything else is wishful thinking.


karma+1 :)

Sorry, but that alone screams of ignorance.  Being an atheist has nothing to do with "desires", simply the lack of belief in any god or gods.  Sure, I would desire a life after death - who wouldn't? - but desire has nothing to do with what happens in (or at the end of) real life.  Anything else is wishful thinking.


Being an atheist has more to do with rational thought than anything.

The reason I loathe religion and those who follow it so much, is that they all, in their own little way, have contributed to the downfall of society, by abandoning logic and reality (even just for an hour every Sunday possibly) they have thrown off the very thing that's taken humanity to the top of the food chain and in effect have said "Well, evolution was nice, now let's see if we can't become prey again."

Understand - As soon as you suspend rational thought, as soon as you allow a decision to be reached without any sort of factual basis, you are an idiot.. and I feel great hatred towards you.

Atheism (as Philbo pointed out) is simply looking at things from a factual standpoint and saying "Oh well, there's nothing there." and then getting on with life. It's being strong minded enough not to need God to take you to his cloudy bosom and give you a hug every time life gets a bit hard.  ::)

Sorry, but that alone screams of ignorance.  Being an atheist has nothing to do with "desires", simply the lack of belief in any god or gods.  Sure, I would desire a life after death - who wouldn't? - but desire has nothing to do with what happens in (or at the end of) real life.  Anything else is wishful thinking.


In actuality, the idea that atheists dissolve into nothing is not my idea.  It actually comes from another person who is an atheist.

If you have not done so, read "On A Pale Horse" bt Piers Anthony.  One thing I have always loved about Mr. Anthony's books is that he writes extensive postscripts, talking about what happened while he was writing, and how he sometimes places his own beliefs into the books.  The book was the influence for the TV series "Dead Like Me", and talks about the incarnation of Death, and how he reaped souls.  One of them was that of an atheist, and what happened when the person died.

In the afterward, Mr. Anthony said that it is also what he believes, and that after death there is nothingness. 

I agree with you there Max.

But then comes the other side of the coin.  Why should I pay any attention to somebody who is obviously bigoted and openly insulting to people of other religious beliefs?  Somebody who is hostile to Christians is no better then somebody who is hostile to Jews, Muslims, Buddists, or Wiccans.  Ignorance is ignorance, and bigotry is bigotry.  And to me, anybody that proclaims hatred or disdain to somebody for their beliefs has shown themselves to be subhuman.


You're differentiating between different religions.. I see them all as one thriving mass of ignorance together. You call me ignorant and bigoted because I'm hostile towards them? I call them ignorant and bigoted because they refuse to see past their own books of lies. Of the bunch, the Christians and Muslims are by far the worst, you mention Buddists and Wiccans, although I see them as somewhat misled, my issues with them come to almost nothing, they tend to talk the talk and walk the walk.

Hatred and Disdain are emotions just as human as Love and Respect, but I neither Love nor Respect the religious and therefor my opinions towards them swing to the other end of the school, hatred, disdain and shame.

When I was in college, in one class we were talking about religion. I asked the question why many religions focus on the afterlife instead of the life we are living now. Someone said something to the effect that the afterlife was the reason for religion. At the time, it stuck me as being very odd and over the years I have pondered that answer. I finally realized what he meant, that the focus of many religions (namely Christianity) is the afterlife. "Do this or that so you can have a place in Heaven when you leave this world."  My belief is you should focus on THIS life. You should do so-called "Christian acts" not for the promise of the afterlife but because it is the right thing to do. As for my own beliefs, yes I believe in an afterlife. What it is I couldn't tell you because I have never been there-at least as far as I remember. I have had experiences with people who have gone beyond (yes, I'm talking ghosts, spirits whatever you want to call them). I know that I will find out what is beyond soon enough-but I hope it won't be for a LONG, LONG time. But in the meanwhile, I will constraint on THIS life and the next life will take care of itself when the time comes.

The funny thing is, sometimes I think I act more Christian-like than some Christians do (I'm talking about the ones who spew hate not the ones who practice what they preach).  I hope that the Christians here on the board know that I am not talking about them personally. I'm talking about the people who were in the video and the Rev. Phelps of this world.



Cat

Let this atheist clarify that "atheism" should not be considered in the same realm as any organized religion.  Atheism is merely a conclusion.  I say this because there seems to be some talk here about what "atheists" believe about certain things, but the only common thread between us is a disbelief in deities.  No reason to assume doctrinal kinship; if one particular atheist says he thinks his soul dissolves into nothingness, that is his individual belief and does not reflect upon the beliefs of anyone else.  General philosophies and specific beliefs about the afterlife are not predetermined with the irreligious, hence we come up with our own ideas the best we can.

Give me a break. Are you also going to hold a grudge against families who had relatives that had and mistreated slaves?  Just because one group of people who professed themselves as Christians...were horrible people and did horrible things...does that mean that ALL Christians are bad people and out to get you? I think you are paranoid..I have seen your posts about the mean bad Christians that you are "afraid" of...please. ::) I am not asking you to be a Christian...all I'm asking for is a little respect...toward my beliefs. And I am NOT trying to impress anyone, believe me...so I don't appreciate being called a drama queen. I just find certain things that people say to be offensive.  I would imagine that if someone else's religion was being ridiculed...they would be offended as well.
I have always considered myself to be open-minded about other's beliefs. If you want to believe in God, Buddha, a rock, nothing...that's fine...you won't hear me making fun of any of them....however, I just would appreciate the same respect out of others...concerning what I happen to believe in. I never said that I would believe what others may believe...however I still RESPECT their beliefs.  Obviously nothing you say is ever going to change how I feel about things...and vice versa...and that's fine.  I don't know...maybe I am just different than most people...but I'm not going to apologize for getting upset about something that I value in my life. If you can't understand that...then I'm really sorry.

I happen to be a Christian who has all sorts of friends...who happen to have all sorts of different beliefs. Some believe in God, some don't....do I hold that against them...no, I do not. The only thing I can do is tell them what I happen to believe in..if they choose to believe the same, that's up to them...I have never been the type to chase after people and force feed them a particular belief. It's up to them what they want to believe in..not me.  Am I going to change my ways and start believing the way that some of them do? Nope, probably not. Am I going to respect ALL of them enough not to say damaging things regarding something that they strongly believe in...YES, I am. That's all I am asking for in return.

Let this atheist clarify that "atheism" should not be considered in the same realm as any organized religion. 


Actually, I do consider it a religion.  And a lot of those who follow it are just as "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical" as those who follow the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddah.  They want to convert you to their way of thinking, because to them, it is the only correct way.

Whether the idea is to follow God, Allah, Enlightenment, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Nihilism is largely irrelevant.  They are all preaching their own view of Creation and The Afterlife, and want to gain converts to their side.

And in fact, they are often even more Evangelical then most Christians are.  I do not go around trying to convert people to my beliefs, but I know quite a few Atheists who try to convert people to theirs.  I think that is why so many people find "Fundamentalist Atheists" so offensive.  Because instead of going around saying "My God is more powerful then your God", they pretty much all go around saying "Your god is a bunch of crap, so frack you".

Because if somebody is truely an Atheist, they would not give a danm what I choose to do with my beliefs.  Since there is no God, my prayers go nowhere.  And this kind of action hurts nobody.  I may think somebody praying to the Invisible Pink Unicorn may be silly and stupid, but that is their right after all.  And I certainly have no right to go to them and tell them that they should not do it.


I happen to be a Christian who has all sorts of friends...who happen to have all sorts of different beliefs. Some believe in God, some don't....do I hold that against them...no, I do not. The only thing I can do is tell them what I happen to believe in..if they choose to believe the same, that's up to them...I have never been the type to chase after people and force feed them a particular belief. It's up to them what they want to believe in..not me.  Am I going to change my ways and start believing the way that some of them do? Nope, probably not. Am I going to respect ALL of them enough not to say damaging things regarding something that they strongly believe in...YES, I am. That's all I am asking for in return.


Bravo to you Quirk.  10 Karma to you if I could do it.  The problem is that some people see people like Reverend Phelps, and automatically assume that is the norm for how Christians behave.  They are so ignorant, they do not even know how ignorant they are.  Yet they are often the first to go around screaming that their rights are being violated.

In actuality, the idea that atheists dissolve into nothing is not my idea.  It actually comes from another person who is an atheist.

It wasn't the suggestion that people dissolve into nothing: it was your suggestion that we have the *desire* to dissolve into nothing - I was simply saying that desire doesn't affect what actually happens.


If you have not done so, read "On A Pale Horse" bt Piers Anthony.

I have, but not for a while: <fx: goes out and counts> I've got seventeen of his books on the shelf (I love an author with a sense for corny puns - favourite would probably be the "Sophis-tree")


Actually, I do consider it a religion.  And a lot of those who follow it are just as "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical" as those who follow the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddah.  They want to convert you to their way of thinking, because to them, it is the only correct way.

Whether the idea is to follow God, Allah, Enlightenment, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Nihilism is largely irrelevant.  They are all preaching their own view of Creation and The Afterlife, and want to gain converts to their side.

Sorry, but that's a wholly flawed impression from your side - atheism is about as completely the opposite to religion as you can get.  There is no other belief/attribute/opinion you can ascribe to an atheist other than not believing in any kind of god.  The overwhelming majority of atheists don't preach, don't try and gain converts - the Richard Dawkinses of this world are the exception, not the rule.


Because if somebody is truely an Atheist, they would not give a danm what I choose to do with my beliefs.

That's what I used to think: the problem I have had, and the reason I have become a far more vociferous and argumentative atheist is because I get religious rubbish forced on me, every day.  And comparatively it's mild on this side of the pond.  When people start doing things which affect me because they're listening to some imaginary friend, then I start arguing back.

That's what I used to think: the problem I have had, and the reason I have become a far more vociferous and argumentative atheist is because I get religious rubbish forced on me, every day.  And comparatively it's mild on this side of the pond.  When people start doing things which affect me because they're listening to some imaginary friend, then I start arguing back.


But with very few exceptions, I seriously doubt that such an action has happened to you from this message board.  In fact, the individuals who would have most likely have done that were routinely attacked as vigerously by people like myself as they would have attacked you.

Personally, I hate any kind of intollerance.  I do not care what anybodies faith (or lack thereof) is, as long as they do not try to make me conform to their belief.

And there is a term for somebody that follows the instructions of some imaginary friend.  It is not "Christian", but "Schizophrenic".  The God I follow does not tell me to go out and convert people to Him, but to love and respect everybody equally reguardless of their beliefs.

Let this atheist clarify that "atheism" should not be considered in the same realm as any organized religion.  Atheism is merely a conclusion.  I say this because there seems to be some talk here about what "atheists" believe about certain things, but the only common thread between us is a disbelief in deities.  No reason to assume doctrinal kinship; if one particular atheist says he thinks his soul dissolves into nothingness, that is his individual belief and does not reflect upon the beliefs of anyone else.  General philosophies and specific beliefs about the afterlife are not predetermined with the irreligious, hence we come up with our own ideas the best we can.


  That's a problem I have with atheism...

  It seems that atheism demands a stricter objectivity in life than other ways of thinking.  But given the number of myths that atheists blindly subscribe to, the criteria for excluding myths seems to be about gods.  Atheistic rejection is primarily aimed toward the Abramic tradition, which the rest of the theistic world sees as just as whacked as the atheists tend to view it.  Thus, broad rejections of mythical ideas are selective among atheists, who live, as the majority of people do, in ignorance of the myths they blindly subscribe to.  Pick any one of these myths, and ask whether it's a factor in your life..?

The myth of the car (particularly poignant in the Bay Area, as transportation has become quite an issue of local politics...)
The myth of the state...
The myth of the President of the United States...
The myth of the value of a US dollar...
The myth of patriotism...
The myth of familial obligation...
The myth of social propriety...
The myth of artistic soul (e.g. music, painting, drama, &etc...)
The myth of right and wrong...
The myth of men and women...
The myth of environmentalism...
The myth of rights...

  Here's another myth: The American Way.  Anyone care to figure what that represents..?

  The simple problem I have with my atheistic world was that there was nobody to share the magic with.  It's a tragedy, all that beauty and beauty, being intangible, becomes a mere arrogance.  I'm well aware that atheism isn't uniformly this soulless, but that's just part of another myth I have faith in, the myth of human diversity.  I could reject that myth, but then atheists and all humans alike become worth nothing more than their weight in fertilizer for the daisies groove ;) on...

I could reject that myth, but then atheists and all humans alike become worth nothing more than their weight in fertilizer for the daisies groove ;) on...


Hey, humans are worth much more then that!

http://a1.vox.com/6a00c2252a3d018e1d00d41431d0496a47-500pi

And for those who truely want to "Think Green":

http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2006/07/soylent_green.jpg

Please stop the bickering and stereotyping people, if you don't have anything nice to post, DON'T POST IT.

But with very few exceptions, I seriously doubt that such an action has happened to you from this message board.
Nobody on this (or any other) messageboard has affected my life off it - I meant people in the "real" world.  Sure there have been the occasional assumptions of immorality (argument: if morals come from god, then godless atheists are obviously immoral creatures) over the years, but I enjoy that kind of sparring.



Personally, I hate any kind of intollerance.  I do not care what anybodies faith (or lack thereof) is, as long as they do not try to make me conform to their belief.

The form of intolerance that (currently) annoys me most is the religious downer on certain types of people, especially homosexuals - what somebody's sexuality is has absolutely nothing to do with anybody else, yet some religious leaders blame them for causing God's wrath; others simply say they should be killed.  And what gripes is 'cause these views are religiously held, and we are a "tolerant" multi-faith society, I am expected to tolerate these other bigots' lack of tolerance.

Religion is the only thing that can get away with this sort of intolerance, and in a completely hypocritical lack of reciprocity expects to be protected against the intolerance of others.


And there is a term for somebody that follows the instructions of some imaginary friend.  It is not "Christian", but "Schizophrenic".  The God I follow does not tell me to go out and convert people to Him, but to love and respect everybody equally reguardless of their beliefs.

er... just 'cause your imaginary friend tells you to do something nice, does that mean he's really there?


Atheistic rejection is primarily aimed toward the Abramic tradition, which the rest of the theistic world sees as just as whacked as the atheists tend to view it.
er... no, it's not - it's all gods, period.  Maybe most argument goes against the Judeo-Christian YHVH sort, but that's purely 'cause there are more people arguing *for* that sort of god around.



The myth of the car (particularly poignant in the Bay Area, as transportation has become quite an issue of local politics...)
...
The myth of rights...

  Here's another myth: The American Way.  Anyone care to figure what that represents..?

Not sure about that list - it was a bit hit and myth.  Offhand, I can't think of any myths I buy into - certainly none that rate alongside the concept of infinite deities who take an interest in people's sexual orientation.


  The simple problem I have with my atheistic world was that there was nobody to share the magic with.  It's a tragedy, all that beauty and beauty, being intangible, becomes a mere arrogance.  I'm well aware that atheism isn't uniformly this soulless, but that's just part of another myth I have faith in, the myth of human diversity.  I could reject that myth, but then atheists and all humans alike become worth nothing more than their weight in fertilizer for the daisies groove ;) on...

I don't see why beauty becomes arrogance without a creator - the emotional impact of something beautiful is still there.  Yep, there is nobody to share the magic with, but willing a god into existence as a moment-sharing-buddy doesn't make him there...

Hey, humans are worth much more then that!

http://a1.vox.com/6a00c2252a3d018e1d00d41431d0496a47-500pi

And for those who truely want to "Think Green":

http://www.bbspot.com/Images/News_Features/2006/07/soylent_green.jpg


  Dang, you know, I still have yet to watch Soylent Green...

 

Please stop the bickering and stereotyping people, if you don't have anything nice to post, DON'T POST IT.


  I'm not sure who that was aimed at...

  I'm not sure who that was aimed at...

And was it nice?


;)

  I'm not sure who that was aimed at...


More of a general warning to everybody.

And was it nice?


;)


  Egads...

  A dubious honor, well, sort of...

Actually, I take my rather open belief in what happens in the afterlife straight from the Bible.  And it is the exact opposite of what the Radical Fundamentalists want to believe.  After all, the 2nd Commandment clearly states:

you shall have no other gods before me.

Notice it does not say "I am the only God".  It does not state "There is no god but God".  It simply states that we should not place any god above God.  It does not say anywhere in the Scriptures that we should take up a Holy War and convert people by the sword.  And if God himself was comfortable giving such instructions to his people, who am I to argue?

Yes, I do believe in the existance of other gods.  And I believe that your soul after death will go to where it is most appropriate, according to both your belief and how you acted in life.

And if you are an atheist, I actually believe that you will get your wish, and your soul will dissolve into nothingness.  After all, is that not what such a person desires most?

It also states that your God is a jealous God, which always bugs me because it is a sin for us humans to be jealous, yet He reserves it for Himself.  Jealousy on His part implies He does not want His flock to pay homage to any other deities.  Period.  Otherwise, it’s like a spouse saying, “I don’t mind if you fool around just as long as you keep the marriage sacred.â€�  Furthermore, there is no God but God, hence monotheism.  Worship of other deities would be considered blasphemous idol worship, as proscribed in the 2nd Commandment. 

If the soul dissolves into nothingness, I must ask the atheist: What is this “nothingness�?

That’s why I consider myself agnostic. 



Understand - As soon as you suspend rational thought, as soon as you allow a decision to be reached without any sort of factual basis, you are an idiot.. and I feel great hatred towards you.



If secular history and psychology teaches us anything, it is that hatred and condemnation of others leads to mutual misery.  Thus, I cannot call your hatred and condemnation of religion and religious people anything but irrational. 


Furthermore, “Atheism� cannot ipso facto be a religion; however, the atheists dogmatic belief in “no god� can mimic religion.


Please stop the bickering and stereotyping people, if you don't have anything nice to post, DON'T POST IT.

Do you mean "nice" as in "civil" or "nice" as in "passive" or "non-confrentational."  The latter stifles all debate on significant matters.  There needs to be a place for robust debate.  I don't mind clarified guidelines on abusive conduct. 

It also states the your God is a jealous God, which always bugs me because it is a sin for us humans to be jealous, yet He reserves it for Himself.  Jealousy on His part implies He does not want His flock to pay homage to any other deities.  Period.  Otherwise, it’s like a spouse saying, “I don’t mind if you fool around just as long as you keep the marriage sacred.â€�  Furthermore, there is no God but God, hence monotheism.  Worship of other deities would be considered blasphemous idol worship, as proscribed in the 2nd Commandment. 


Very true.  But those instructions were for His choosen people, not everybody else in the world.  Other people in other areas of the world (which at that time included such far away places as Egypt and Syria) did not matter.  Basically, the law basically a law against apostasy.

Other people were free to worship whoever and however they wanted.  Among monothestic religions, the Jews are pretty much the only group that did not go into conversion.

Other people were free to worship whoever and however they wanted. 
And then roast on a spit with Lucifer in the hereafter!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

If God is the only God and there is only heaven and hell in the hereafter, and the only way to heaven is through Him, then people who believe differently are damned.  Christianity as we know it never sold the dogma that God created only some of the people and those are the only people who will go to hell for not worshipping Him.

The Catholics got the idea it wasn't fair to damn to hell those had no choice to believe in the Holy Trinity through consent of the will.  That's why they made up this place called "Limbo," as described in Dante's "Inferno."  All peoples who had no opportunity to receive Christ, including unbaptized babies, went to a rather boring and sad place called "Limbo" because heaven is an exclusive club.  Oh, there's also "Purgatory," the big time-out in the sky!  That was drafted into Catholicism to prevent crime and saturnalia among those who had already committed mortal sins. 
"If I'm goin' to hell, there's nothing to lose today, so it's party time, baby!  Let 'er rip!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/devilfinger.gif
"Purgatory" is the same kind of incentive as parole in a life sentence; the jailer doesn't want prisoners with nothing to lose!

And then roast on a spit with Lucifer in the hereafter!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/08/sagrin.gif

If God is the only God and there is only heaven and hell in the hereafter, and the only way to heaven is through Him, then people who believe differently are damned.  Christianity as we know it never sold the dogma that God created only some of the people and those are the only people who will go to hell for not worshipping Him.

The Catholics got the idea it wasn't fair to damn to hell those had no choice to believe in the Holy Trinity through consent of the will.  That's why they made up this place called "Limbo," as described in Dante's "Inferno."  All peoples who had no opportunity to receive Christ, including unbaptized babies, went to a rather boring and sad place called "Limbo" because heaven is an exclusive club.  Oh, there's also "Purgatory," the big time-out in the sky!  That was drafted into Catholicism to prevent crime and saturnalia among those who had already committed mortal sins. 
"If I'm goin' to hell, there's nothing to lose today, so it's party time, baby!  Let 'er rip!"
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/devilfinger.gif
"Purgatory" is the same kind of incentive as parole in a life sentence; the jailer doesn't want prisoners with nothing to lose!



The truth be known (as I have stated before) NONE of us know what is on the other side. Who knows, we may all end up in a steambath.


Cat

er... no, it's not - it's all gods, period.  Maybe most argument goes against the Judeo-Christian YHVH sort, but that's purely 'cause there are more people arguing *for* that sort of god around.


  To be strictly objectivist, I can only conclude that the sample I have experienced in my life indicates that atheism is too clumsy in its rejection of the intangible, and too arbitrary in its acceptance, while also being too blind to tell the difference.  It really does seem that the primary impetus of atheism, when identified, is aimed at a dominating religion and thus seals itself primarily in that regard, and applying objectivity to myth according to a mythical definition of objectivity.  That is, atheism is both arbitrary and selfish as a root philosophy...


Not sure about that list - it was a bit hit and myth.  Offhand, I can't think of any myths I buy into - certainly none that rate alongside the concept of infinite deities who take an interest in people's sexual orientation.

  Shall I explore each?  It would be inappropriate of me to assume that any atheist does or does not understand the sense of myth in each instance above... 

I don't see why beauty becomes arrogance without a creator - the emotional impact of something beautiful is still there.   Yep, there is nobody to share the magic with, but willing a god into existence as a moment-sharing-buddy doesn't make him there.

  My brother, for instance, has impeccable taste in music.  Well, in rock and roll.  Get him to see a jazz or blues show?  No, way.  While he denies the sense of aggression his choice musics give him, he prefers AC/DC, Soundgarden, Metallica, and so forth because they "kick ass".  But it has to be said that way.  You can't point out that it makes him feel superior, empowered, and aggressive or else you're just another f**king music-hater.  Yet he won't go see jazz or the old farts playing the blues.  Stevie Ray Vaughan wasn't good because he played with soul, but because his cover of Voodoo Chile kicked ass...

  Movies?  Sure.  Eye-candy, eye-candy, eye-candy.  Anything short of mass effects and explosions is a "chick flick", meant only to be viewed as a concession toward getting laid.  Theatre?  Not a chance...

  In such arts, it is hard to quantify his taste for comedy.  That's something about acceptance, I think, since he only likes comedy according to two criteria (A) Is it popular? (B) Does it agree with what I already believe?  I think he believes Seinfeld to be a documentary series...

  My late father, by some odd circumstance, had come to believe that music was an environmental factor, and should never be the focus of anyone's attention...

  But what is it about a painting that is particularly affecting?  Okay, to simplify according to my experience with atheists:  In that scene in Ferris Bueller's Day Off (have you seen it..?) (http://us.imdb.com/Title?0091042), when Cameron (Alan Ruck) is viewing the Seurat, focusing ever inward on each point until the frame is filled with unintelligible texturing, why is he doing this?  That is, what intangible sensation is drawing him to obsess for whatever period over what he sees?  What subjective connection does the painting have to what is in his consciousness?  It is the soul of the painting.  And the lack of this soul is among the tragedies that I have observed, not only in the immediate examples of family atheists, but among those I've known in general...

  What is it about McCammon or Bradbury that moves us so deeply?  Randall Kenan?  James Joyce?  Joyce Carol Oates?  How about Shel Silverstein?  Anyone care to quantify the whole experience?  What makes Emily Dickinson so easily-related?  What is it about the written word, the tale spun, the fiction and the poetry, that keeps people interested groove ;) on...

 

Please stop the bickering and stereotyping people, if you don't have anything nice to post, DON'T POST IT.


My Mother says the same thing.  She's a retired elementary school teacher. :)

Actually, I do consider it a religion.  And a lot of those who follow it are just as "Fundamentalist" and "Evangelical" as those who follow the teachings of Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddah.  They want to convert you to their way of thinking, because to them, it is the only correct way.

Whether the idea is to follow God, Allah, Enlightenment, The Flying Spaghetti Monster, or Nihilism is largely irrelevant.  They are all preaching their own view of Creation and The Afterlife, and want to gain converts to their side.

And in fact, they are often even more Evangelical then most Christians are.  I do not go around trying to convert people to my beliefs, but I know quite a few Atheists who try to convert people to theirs.  I think that is why so many people find "Fundamentalist Atheists" so offensive.  Because instead of going around saying "My God is more powerful then your God", they pretty much all go around saying "Your god is a bunch of crap, so frack you".

Because if somebody is truely an Atheist, they would not give a danm what I choose to do with my beliefs.  Since there is no God, my prayers go nowhere.  And this kind of action hurts nobody.  I may think somebody praying to the Invisible Pink Unicorn may be silly and stupid, but that is their right after all.  And I certainly have no right to go to them and tell them that they should not do it.


Of course "a lot" do such and such a thing.  Out of any given group large enough, you could very well find a lot of people who are inexplicably attracted to toaster ovens.  This does not mean one should go around accusing the entire group of inappropriate appliance relations.  Actually, most atheists do not actively attempt to convert people to the belief that there is no God--although even if they did, this could hardly be criteria for a religion.  A religion is an organized system of faith and worship.  Although you could refer to certain individuals (Richard Dawkins was mentioned) as "atheist evangelists", you still could not refer to them as religionists because there is no demanding of faith involved.  You can find apologists for all sorts of things--solar powered cars, government surveillance, troop withdrawal, just about anything that stirs the passions.  Yet, you would not refer to someone as a religious fundamentalist simply because they want to get their point across about nurturing a cleaner environment.  The whole premise here seems to be more or less:  "Certain atheists are more militant about their beliefs than I am about mine, therefore atheism itself is a religion."  It is on the same plane of ignorance as saying that all Christians want to kill Jews, or that all Italians enjoy tossing said Christians into an arena of lions.

To respond to your last paragraph:  Debating a concept you don't believe in is practiced all the time and does not invalidate the integrity of the dissenter's disbelief.  Using this logic, anyone who has argued against atheism is some sort of closet atheist, people who were skeptical of global warming were really convinced, and so forth.  Personally, I will not argue with someone's belief in God unless I am provoked (and even then I try to keep it civil), but the fact that there are people who find the idea of a supreme deity odd enough to argue openly about it does not mean they are not "true atheists".  Many people find the presence of religion threatening to freedom, for example; that could be a reason they argue.  Similarly, many others just want to show how clever they are.  It really varies between individuals, and once again, that's what people need to understand about "atheists":  we are all individuals who happen to disbelieve in deities, and are otherwise totally unaffiliated with each other.  There are atheist Buddhists, Unitarians, Rationalists, etc., but "atheism" itself is just one simple conclusion--the only reason it is such a conspicuous one is because of its minority stance.

If the soul dissolves into nothingness, I must ask the atheist: What is this “nothingness�?



Though I don't know the answer (nor does anyone else for that matter), my guess is it's like when the dentist gives you that stuff that knocks you out when you have major dental surgery: conscious one minute, nothing the next. No waking up 45 minutes later with a mouth full of gauze though, which I suppose is a plus...

Personally, I wish there were an afterlife that consisted of my dreams, but there is zero evidence to support such a wish.



Do you mean "nice" as in "civil" or "nice" as in "passive" or "non-confrentational."  The latter stifles all debate on significant matters.  There needs to be a place for robust debate.  I don't mind clarified guidelines on abusive conduct. 



He means the former: civil.  Not to be condescending at all, but perhaps a reread of the Political Board Etiquitte, especially the bolded lines, would be good for everyone.

Ant

Though I don't know the answer (nor does anyone else for that matter), my guess is it's like when the dentist gives you that stuff that knocks you out when you have major dental surgery: conscious one minute, nothing the next. No waking up 45 minutes later with a mouth full of gauze though, which I suppose is a plus...



That's usually "conscious sedation."  It's more like sleeping than "nothingness."  Even general anesthesia is in no way "nothingness." 

I would have to agree with you if you ask require concrete scientific proof that there is or is not a hereafter.  However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

Do you have a soul?  Is there a plane of reality beyond this corporeal incarnation?

I can't say there is because every person who might know about it is dead.

Now, some will tell you about near-death experiences.  I am a skeptic.  When your brain is fighting to retain this life, your consciousness might manifest profound dream states.  What about the similar reports from individuals who have had near-death experiences: "There was a long tunnel full of light, etc., etc."  Our brains are all composed of the same stuff, ergo, the probability of similar reactions in altered states of consciousness.  How many of you have had a dream in which you are trying to run, but you cannot move.  How many of you have had a dream in which you are falling, but you awake before you hit the ground?  People who have taken LSD (which I do not promote) report "acid trips" that manifestly are unique, but are latently quite similar when analyzed. 

I am a skeptic, which is not the same as a non-believer.  Perhaps those who have returned from nearly dying have indeed seen a discrete plane of reality unknown to the living.  I don't know.  Agnostic.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif

If secular history and psychology teaches us anything, it is that hatred and condemnation of others leads to mutual misery.  Thus, I cannot call your hatred and condemnation of religion and religious people anything but irrational. 


Why let hate be your guiding force right?

Simple - Because it's natural, it's as natural as loving your fellow man, hate is simply the antithesis of love, just like there must be a night after the day, there must be hate in the world. I can't really explain it, but put it this way, I'm far happier and less volatile when I have a focus for all my hatred.

That's usually "conscious sedation."  It's more like sleeping than "nothingness."  Even general anesthesia is in no way "nothingness." 



I respectfully disagree. The sedative used (which I believe was one of the fentanyls, though I may be mistaken) when I got my wisdom teeth pulled was very much a "lights out" switch: there was virtually no grogginess nor semiconsciousness. I went from awake to "nothing" in maybe 5 seconds.


I would have to agree with you if you ask require concrete scientific proof that there is or is not a hereafter.  However, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 



True, however I think Occam's Razor comes into play: which is more likely, that one goes into a heavenly kingdom (or firery hellhole), preconstructed, eternal and designed by basically omnipotent beings, or that our energy simply fades away to nothingness when we die, just as it formed when we were born?


Do you have a soul?  Is there a plane of reality beyond this corporeal incarnation?

I can't say there is because every person who might know about it is dead.



Soul is an odd word to me, due to all the definitions. Most have to due with how we become over our lives. When our lives our over, I believe any "soul" is too.


Now, some will tell you about near-death experiences.  I am a skeptic.  When your brain is fighting to retain this life, your consciousness might manifest profound dream states.  What about the similar reports from individuals who have had near-death experiences: "There was a long tunnel full of light, etc., etc."  Our brains are all composed of the same stuff, ergo, the probability of similar reactions in altered states of consciousness.  How many of you have had a dream in which you are trying to run, but you cannot move.  How many of you have had a dream in which you are falling, but you awake before you hit the ground?  People who have taken LSD (which I do not promote) report "acid trips" that manifestly are unique, but are latently quite similar when analyzed. 



NDEs can be mainly attributed to the brain producing DMT (a very powerful hallucinogen), or a near DMT like substance when you are about to die. Other powerful drugs, such as LSD or better (?) yet, Ketamine, can produce NDEs as a matter of course.

Brain chemistry is still very poorly understood. For example, you won't find many anti-depressants with any concrete method of action. Google any of the the numerous drugs on the market for schizophrenia, depression, etc, and I doubt you'll find much other than this:

"The exact workings of XXX is unknown".

Yeah, they go on to say they work on serotonin, dopamine, receptors, blah, blah, blah. Truth is no one knows exactly how they work.


I am a skeptic, which is not the same as a non-believer.  Perhaps those who have returned from nearly dying have indeed seen a discrete plane of reality unknown to the living.  I don't know.  Agnostic.
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/12/dontknow.gif


I'm not a complete non-believer in the afterlife, however, I don't believe for a second that any possible afterlife is similar to what is described in religious texts. I don't totally discount the possibilty, but I do discount the probability. It would be like me winning a Powerball Lottery in which there are 100 balls in the machine, numbered 1-100, and the draw is 20 balls.  100 x 99 x 98 ... x 81 is, well, too big a number for even my scientific calculator to compute....

Going back to NDEs, if you have the chance, ask a person coming out of a K-hole if s/he believes in an afterlife... having done that once or twice, I can tell you it is very much like the stereotypical NDE... and in many ways, more bizarre, glorious and downright frightening.

Ant

And the lack of this soul is among the tragedies that I have observed, not only in the immediate examples of family atheists, but among those I've known in general...

And your point is what, exactly?  There is nothing in this which could count as evidence for or against any kind of god, merely that people are different in their interpretation of things around them.


  What is it about McCammon or Bradbury that moves us so deeply?  Randall Kenan?  James Joyce?  Joyce Carol Oates?  How about Shel Silverstein?  Anyone care to quantify the whole experience?  What makes Emily Dickinson so easily-related?  What is it about the written word, the tale spun, the fiction and the poetry, that keeps people interested groove ;) on...

Art & literature, therefore God?  Sorry, doesn't work for me at all.

The truth be known (as I have stated before) NONE of us know what is on the other side. Who knows, we may all end up in a steambath.


Cat
Can I have some lavender in mine? ;)

And your point is what, exactly?  There is nothing in this which could count as evidence for or against any kind of god, merely that people are different in their interpretation of things around them.
Art & literature, therefore God?  Sorry, doesn't work for me at all.


  If I'm any kind of theist I suppose it would be a-theist, just to clear the air.  You might remember rants of mine from years past...

  In my disbelief I'm faced with a conundrum when it comes to addressing matters of faith, that's all I was trying to get accross.  I'm not bothered by the "god/no god" thing here, since that, I consider, already to be a given for the purposes of this discussion...

  Perhaps a more succinct way of phrasing the problem:

  Can an atheist who believes in ghosts still be considered an atheist..?  I'll even throw in an assertion that comes from considerations of the points I've listed above: it seems to me that human beings are human beings, with largely common aspirations.  Atheism rejects God, that is, authority in the abstract, but responds otherwise to equally unproven standards...

  I'm curious about why this is groove ;) on...

  If I'm any kind of theist I suppose it would be a-theist, just to clear the air.  You might remember rants of mine from years past...

  In my disbelief I'm faced with a conundrum when it comes to addressing matters of faith, that's all I was trying to get accross.  I'm not bothered by the "god/no god" thing here, since that, I consider, already to be a given for the purposes of this discussion...

  Perhaps a more succinct way of phrasing the problem:

  Can an atheist who believes in ghosts still be considered an atheist..?  I'll even throw in an assertion that comes from considerations of the points I've listed above: it seems to me that human beings are human beings, with largely common aspirations.  Atheism rejects God, that is, authority in the abstract, but responds otherwise to equally unproven standards...

  I'm curious about why this is groove ;) on...


Of course an atheist can believe in ghosts.  I think this is becoming a semantic argument here--an atheist is one who does not believe in any gods.  You seem to be referring to Rationalist Empiricists (this was mostly pioneered by deists).  Am I correct?

Of course an atheist can believe in ghosts.  I think this is becoming a semantic argument here--an atheist is one who does not believe in any gods.  You seem to be referring to Rationalist Empiricists (this was mostly pioneered by deists).  Am I correct?


   I have to look up Rationalist Empiricist...

  Okay, God's not real, but the belief is, say the RE's?  I was about to say "no way" but you may have actually nailed exatly what I'm saying.  But I can't be sure, so stick with me until I have read-up on this a bit more...

  You're right, though, this could be just an exercise in semantic volleyball, or not...

  So, it's normal for atheists to accept such subjective mythologies as ghosts..?  Upon what foundation is that acceptance based..?
 

  I have to look up Rationalist Empiricist...

  Okay, God's not real, but the belief is, say the RE's?  I was about to say "no way" but you may have actually nailed exatly what I'm saying.  But I can't be sure, so stick with me until I have read-up on this a bit more...

  You're right, though, this could be just an exercise in semantic volleyball, or not...

  So, it's normal for atheists to accept such subjective mythologies as ghosts..?  Upon what foundation is that acceptance based..?


I could not speak for said atheists, especially since I have no belief in ghosts.  Remember that when I am referring to atheists in general, I mean in the most literal definition possible...anyone who does not believe in deities.  This is a broad spectrum of people, ranging from the nontheistic religious people (I mentioned Buddhists and Unitarians) to rationalists to people who have just casually looked at the issue and decided, "Hey, there is no God."  The kind of people you seem to be addressing are rationalists, and I think what you're trying to get across is that many atheistic people who are hung up on how logical and rational they are still choose to believe many other popular myths. 

Now, for the record...rationalism and belief in ghosts are not necessarily mutually exclusive.  Once again, I don't believe in them myself, but I have heard people lay out logical reasons to suspend disbelief for such things (although I disagree with them).  People have said, "All that energy has to go somewhere," and things like that.  As long as your opinions are all backed by reasons and not faith, one could still probably claim to be a rationalist.

   If I'm any kind of theist I suppose it would be a-theist, just to clear the air.  You might remember rants of mine from years past...

Have to admit, I was kind of confused - I couldn't work out exactly where you were going...

Re atheists believing in ghosts, I'm pretty much with LoOW (hold on a sec... wasn't Oscar Wilde... OTOH, better not go there): although there's not any real reason why not, it would be a bit of a dichotomy (or possibly simple hypocrisy) to believe in one lot of evidence-free phenomena but not another.

True, however I think Occam's Razor comes into play: which is more likely, that one goes into a heavenly kingdom (or firery hellhole), preconstructed, eternal and designed by basically omnipotent beings, or that our energy simply fades away to nothingness when we die, just as it formed when we were born?


Yes, it boils down to Occam's Razor.  I agree with you hear.  Until I see scientific proof demonstrated with a replicatable experiment, the hereafter is a matter of faith.  The difference is you rule out what we cannot prove scientifically; I'm willing to say what is not scientifically provable might exist. To "prove" the existence of a supernatural world would ipso facto make this supernatural world part of the natural world.  Perhaps if mankind achieves a higher level of understanding of the stuff of the universe, it will be possible to demonstrate the existence of what is now supernatural.  Try explaining the theory of relativity to a medieval peasant.  We understnd today phenomena that would have been inconceivable a thousand years ago.  Just because we can't see it now does not mean we won't find a way to see it in the future.  You can't "see" the atom, but no scientist today denies the atom exists.  Researchers into the paranormal are trying to scientifically demonstrate the existence of ghosts; however, they have yet to do so to satisfy a consensus of scientists.

The difference is you rule out what we cannot prove scientifically; I'm willing to say what is not scientifically provable might exist.


Not always: I'm willing to accept the possibility of some things without scientific evidence. For example, I have "faith", if you will, that the roof over my head is not going to collapse at any moment and kill me, even though I didn't see how it was built nor have I inspected the ceiling joists in many years. I would say that goes to probability more than faith though; not a lot of people (none perhaps) are killed each year by the ceilings over their heads suddenly, and without warning, collapsing.

I also don't rule out the possibility of extraterrestrial life elsewhere in the universe, though there is no evidence or proof of it.

I strongly favor probability over possibility. I do not discount the possibility, no matter how remote IMO, of anything though, because to do so would make me narrow minded and arrogant.

I don't play the lotto, yet I know that people win...

The reasons, however, for my being Athiest though have almost nothing to do with possibility or probability though... they are too deep and too many to go into here and now, but I will say this: I do think it is impossible that a sentient being, supposedly with the power to create the entire Universe, could or would ever allow the numerous and horrific events on Earth to occur. Someone/thing could have created the universe - if people want to call that "God", that's fine with me. It is possible, but not to the point that I'm going to believe he/she/it "offers" anything other than existence in the here and now, an existence of our own making, free will, and choice.

From Wikipedia:

"Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods, or rejects theism."

Bolding added by me...


Ant

Not always: I'm willing to accept the possibility of some things without scientific evidence. For example, I have "faith", if you will, that the roof over my head is not going to collapse at any moment and kill me,


Ant

Shhhhh....don't look up now, just don't!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/07/nono.gif


  I have to look up Rationalist Empiricist...


I'm an Empirical Rationalist myself, but je ne peux pas parler maintenant, I'm off to the Egghead Society meeting!
;)