"A free thinker is Satan's slave"

[koshergrl]

The only zombies I see here are the zombies who get "angry" over the spiritual life of other people.

 

[Dragon]

Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me. However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?

We're just having a discussion, right? But I can give you Jefferson's answer: "For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

People can believe what they choose, but it would be nice if they were free to do so without threat of force.

 

[Si modo]

Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me. However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?

We're just having a discussion, right? But I can give you Jefferson's answer: "For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

People can believe what they choose, but it would be nice if they were free to do so without threat of force.

I couldn't agree more.

I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though. I know it happens around the world, but I'm pretty sure it's quite rare here.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what you are saying.

 

[Dragon]

I've never been physically abused by any member of organized religion.

Abuse doesn't have to be physical and most abuse isn't. When I see people conflate all religion and spirituality together and tar it with the same brush as the authoritarian dogmatists, which are the people you're talking about, I also see an irrational, emotion-driven reaction, and so I look for an emotional motivation. Don't have to look very hard, either.

As Intense said above, genuine religion, or genuine spirituality as I prefer to call it, comes from within, and is a very personal thing having nothing to do with objective claims of fact, or proof or disproof of any kind. On another thread, I categorized the elements of religion as the four Ms -- morality, mysticism, myth, and make-believe. The last three are quite distinct things. Mysticism is a perception that can't be put into words, and so cannot be shared, although one can share guidance on how to achieve the informing experience. Myth is a symbolic or allegorical tale (which may or may not also be literally true, but its literal truth isn't the point even if it is) that can help to unlock the experience of mysticism; its underlying meaning is also something that can't be told. And make-believe is basically anything else in religion, or myth when it has been forgotten what myth is for.

All of the complaints that you have about religion apply only to dogmatic religion, and that's true as well of all atheists who make a point of proclaiming their atheism. That makes it obviously a rebellion against dogmatic religion.

And that of course gives you and me a common foe, but I feel it's important not to get so caught up in the fury that the baby is tossed with the bathwater.

 

[Dragon]

I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.

Sure they do. What do you think Hell is, if not a threat of force?

Now, I don't believe that this particular force is real, and that means the threat can never be carried out. But what does that matter if its victims think it's real? You can rob someone with a toy gun, if it's a well-made, realistic toy and you are never called upon to actually shoot it.

 

[Si modo]

I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.

Sure they do. What do you think Hell is, if not a threat of force?

Now, I don't believe that this particular force is real, and that means the threat can never be carried out. But what does that matter if its victims think it's real? You can rob someone with a toy gun, if it's a well-made, realistic toy and you are never called upon to actually shoot it.

Oh. I was thinking about force in real life.

 

[Big Fitz]

Actually, what I see atheists hating is the nuns that used to whack them with rulers, or the equivalent in other denominations. I have yet to meet an atheist who made a point of being one, who was not an abused ex-Christian and still angry about it.

As I said above, that probably doesn't describe all atheists, but it does seem to describe all the ones who make a point of talking about it.

No. They hate the CONCEPT of ANY supreme being and anyone who disagrees with them. Don't worry though, we know it's not a personal hatred. It's like hating another race. Generalized, based on emotion and inference with no grounding in fact. So, a distinction without a difference.

You are almost half right. It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress. It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

 

[koshergrl]

Obviously, he has a religion that is not one of the Big Three, and that's fine by me. However, as with any of our many self-proclaimed atheist proselytizers, I have to ask why it is so important to him what, why, and how others believe?

We're just having a discussion, right? But I can give you Jefferson's answer: "For I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility toward every form of tyranny over the mind of man."

People can believe what they choose, but it would be nice if they were free to do so without threat of force.

Who has tried to force you to believe?

Wait..didn't I just ask this? Yes, I did. The answer is NOBODY.

The threat of force always lies with the anti-Christians....

 

[koshergrl]

I'm trying to think if many religious practices in the USA force, though.

Sure they do. What do you think Hell is, if not a threat of force?

Now, I don't believe that this particular force is real, and that means the threat can never be carried out. But what does that matter if its victims think it's real? You can rob someone with a toy gun, if it's a well-made, realistic toy and you are never called upon to actually shoot it.

No, hell is not "threat of force".

If we said we were going to SEND you to hell for not believing, that would be a sort of threat, I suppose..but a threat is NOT force.

But we don't say we're sending you to hell. We just let you know the way it is.

 

[koshergrl]

FORCE:

"violence, compulsion, or constraint exerted upon or against a person or thing "

Force - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Cripes. Words mean something, you ignorant piece of shit.

 

[HUGGY]

No. They hate the CONCEPT of ANY supreme being and anyone who disagrees with them. Don't worry though, we know it's not a personal hatred. It's like hating another race. Generalized, based on emotion and inference with no grounding in fact. So, a distinction without a difference.

You are almost half right. It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress. It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

 

[ABikerSailor]

My position is that True Religion starts from within, it is not external.

See, I don't have any problem with this at all. It's not religion that bothers me, it's dogmatism and the imprisonment of the mind. In fact, dogma works AGAINST genuine spirituality, which is one of the biggest evils to lay to its blame.

Maybe it's your perspective. Try looking at Dogma,, like training wheels, which serve a purpose for a time, they are restrictive, they have purpose, they also have limits we outgrow. Who holds the keys to Salvation? Who points you in the right direction? There is One God, if You believe, it is not Me or You. Are we of God, yes. Do we define or limit what God is? I wouldn't try. Do we seek positive direction and growth? The smart ones do. Do we proceed, with endeavors that we know inside are wrong? To our peril, if we are stubborn enough to take it that far. Do I think for Each of us, the real Battle is Internal? Yes. So are we driven by external or Internal Forces? That's the choice, isn't it?

See, this is one of the thoughts that I've come up with while growing up, religion is basically like a spiritual school to give us an awareness of God, but as we grow up and start to learn for ourselves, we should also question the belief systems that we start out with to see if there are other points that those systems miss.

I mean..........if you can't question God, then why did Abraham argue with Him about Sodom and Gomorrah? If you're not supposed to compete with God, then why did He show up and wrestle with Jacob? If you're supposed to have a blind following of God, then why did Jonah run away from his mission, finally ending up in the belly of a fish to be taken to where he was supposed to deliver a message from God?

All of those examples are in the Bible, and all of those examples show PEOPLE questioning God.

No, I think there is plenty of room for free thinkers in all religions, because that is what Martin Luther was when he challenged the dogma of the Catholic church because he saw all the corruption going on in the form of indulgences as well as other things.

 

[koshergrl]

You are almost half right. It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress. It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

I'm doing fine, reading along, thinking ok this looks alright..until I hit glaring dumbshit error #1 and dismiss the rest of the post as too stupid to waste effort reading:

"All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion."

I think, reeeaaaalllly...ALL evidence, hmm...how odd that so many choose to believe in the face of such astounding and overwhelming evidence!

Which of course isn't true because there IS no such evidence. And so while your post probably has some good stuff in it, anyone with half a brain stops right there, because you have chosen to include a blatant, and stupid, lie. In the first few sentences, no less.

 

[Big Fitz]

You are almost half right. It is "general hatred" in that witnessing others fall into the trap of religion, although not a direct personal injury, is more BS to wade through in life..more idiots carrying the water for religion and getting in the way of human progress. It IS personal when these zombies are convinced that they are required to act on their dogma and promote law and convention in society that is willfully ignorant, destructive and affects all in that society including myself.

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

Atheists have their own style of dogma. It's usually very short.

Nothing not provable by natural law can exist. Dogma does not have to be 2000 books of church tradition and ritual wrapped around a religious tract, with enough pomp and circumstance to kill a small town in Guadalahara.

But then there's always the balance of the argument. If I'm wrong, and there is no heaven or hell, what have I lost?

On the other hand, if you're wrong and there IS a heaven and hell, what have YOU lost?

Is that chance something your willing to risk something that is eternal for? Maybe you don't think it's that important... but what if you're wrong and someone or something out there DOES?

 

[HUGGY]

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

Atheists have their own style of dogma. It's usually very short.

Nothing not provable by natural law can exist. Dogma does not have to be 2000 books of church tradition and ritual wrapped around a religious tract, with enough pomp and circumstance to kill a small town in Guadalahara.

But then there's always the balance of the argument. If I'm wrong, and there is no heaven or hell, what have I lost?

On the other hand, if you're wrong and there IS a heaven and hell, what have YOU lost?

Is that chance something your willing to risk something that is eternal for? Maybe you don't think it's that important... but what if you're wrong and someone or something out there DOES?

I don't waste a lot of time trying to prove or disprove that which is not known. You(the religious) have invented one so-called possibility. The imagination could come up with an infinite number of ideas...I won't call them theories because they are not based in any facts...Theories are at least grounded in some real evidence. When science believes it has enough information it publishes or in some traceable manner how the latest theories were built. I do try to follow some of the latest theories..even if it is just seeing if my mind can wrap itself around it.

Trying to believe in a sky fairy that is completely focused on humans knowing that there are billions of potential life supporting planets out there is speculation on sterroids. Then to take this idea way out past anything resembling proveable..I am supposed to believe that this sky fairy knows ME..and is in direct charge of what I think and do..in regards to if I am pleasing this sky fairy or not! Oh and it isn't just me..this sky fairy pays the same ammount of attention to all humans...all at the same instant..from the beginning of time and on past our time into the infinite future. You couldn't have hatched a less likely plot if you took two thousand years to work on it.

 

[HUGGY]

One man's "trap"it seems is the other man's escape. The catch is, neither of us will KNOW for sure till the 'trap' closes on one of us.

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

I'm doing fine, reading along, thinking ok this looks alright..until I hit glaring dumbshit error #1 and dismiss the rest of the post as too stupid to waste effort reading:

"All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion."

I think, reeeaaaalllly...ALL evidence, hmm...how odd that so many choose to believe in the face of such astounding and overwhelming evidence!

Which of course isn't true because there IS no such evidence. And so while your post probably has some good stuff in it, anyone with half a brain stops right there, because you have chosen to include a blatant, and stupid, lie. In the first few sentences, no less.

OK halfwit... cite one single piece of real evidense that proves there is a god. If you cannot then all other evidense points away from an existance of a supreme being.

 

[whitehall]

That's a billboard making the rounds, allegedly put up by various churches. I can't verify that it isn't a hoax and it may be. But whether or not any churches have actually displayed that billboard, that IS the thinking of many conservative Christians. I've seen it expressed by certain posters here.

In fact, I think we can take it a bit further: traditional Christianity and freedom in general are enemies. Freedom is a value that's antithetical to traditional Christianity. Not to the teachings of Jesus, mind -- but to traditional Christian teaching.

To a traditional Christian, there is a very, very narrow range of thought, feeling, and action that are permissible. To think freely is to be a heretic or an unbeliever. To feel freely is to lust, to desire, almost certainly to be an adulterer or fornicator in one's imagination, and in some cases to be a homosexual; it's to be angry at times, to long for what traditional morality says should not be yours, to envy and resent.

Freedom means nothing if it is not freedom to sin. Traditional Christianity is opposed to sin. Therefore, traditional Christianity is opposed to freedom.

You have to wonder about people who subscribe to the skewed logic that somehow their freedom is jeopardized by organized ( Christian, never Muslem) religion and at the same time they systematically trample on the freedom of Christians to practice their religion and engage in their 1st Amendment rights. The Founding Fathers knew that the Bill of Rights was intended as a limitation of the power of government but today's liberal idiots seem to have missed that class in Constitution 101.

 

[koshergrl]

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

I'm doing fine, reading along, thinking ok this looks alright..until I hit glaring dumbshit error #1 and dismiss the rest of the post as too stupid to waste effort reading:

"All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion."

I think, reeeaaaalllly...ALL evidence, hmm...how odd that so many choose to believe in the face of such astounding and overwhelming evidence!

Which of course isn't true because there IS no such evidence. And so while your post probably has some good stuff in it, anyone with half a brain stops right there, because you have chosen to include a blatant, and stupid, lie. In the first few sentences, no less.

OK halfwit... cite one single piece of real evidense that proves there is a god. If you cannot then all other evidense points away from an existance of a supreme being.

Er, wrong.

You made the statement that all evidence points away from God and all science points away. Prove your statement.

You can't because it's not true. I never said there was any evidence of God. The fact that I didn't, and can't, is not proof that your statement is true.

Logical fallacy. Dumbshit.

 

[Jess1182]

sir.... WHEN DOES THE NARWHALE BACON?!?!?! O///O

 

[Big Fitz]

That is the absolute point of contention is it not? The promise or threat of heaven or hell is not the same as "I don't know" or "Those are rediculous and obviously false claims". All evidense points towards the claims of the religious being wrong. All evidense of non believers such as science points away from religion. Still the religious think at worst it is a toss up and could go either way. As science keeps piling up evidense removing religious dogma from the library of facts the religious keep trying to move the goal posts with move and more nonsense such as "Intelligent Design or Creationism".

Atheists do not cling desperately to ANY dogma. We just look at the evidense as it comes forward and add it to the facts as they are revealed. The more facts that pile up..the dumber the fantasies of the fundamentalists appear and the more angry those looking for a rational discussion get.

Atheists have their own style of dogma. It's usually very short.

Nothing not provable by natural law can exist. Dogma does not have to be 2000 books of church tradition and ritual wrapped around a religious tract, with enough pomp and circumstance to kill a small town in Guadalahara.

But then there's always the balance of the argument. If I'm wrong, and there is no heaven or hell, what have I lost?

On the other hand, if you're wrong and there IS a heaven and hell, what have YOU lost?

Is that chance something your willing to risk something that is eternal for? Maybe you don't think it's that important... but what if you're wrong and someone or something out there DOES?

I don't waste a lot of time trying to prove or disprove that which is not known. You(the religious) have invented one so-called possibility. The imagination could come up with an infinite number of ideas...I won't call them theories because they are not based in any facts...Theories are at least grounded in some real evidence. When science believes it has enough information it publishes or in some traceable manner how the latest theories were built. I do try to follow some of the latest theories..even if it is just seeing if my mind can wrap itself around it.

Trying to believe in a sky fairy that is completely focused on humans knowing that there are billions of potential life supporting planets out there is speculation on sterroids. Then to take this idea way out past anything resembling proveable..I am supposed to believe that this sky fairy knows ME..and is in direct charge of what I think and do..in regards to if I am pleasing this sky fairy or not! Oh and it isn't just me..this sky fairy pays the same ammount of attention to all humans...all at the same instant..from the beginning of time and on past our time into the infinite future. You couldn't have hatched a less likely plot if you took two thousand years to work on it.

Of course. Your own ego won't tolerate the competition.

Sokay, I've known that personal limitation of yours for a long time.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IwLX2Wyl3-o]Hitchhiker's Guide To The Galaxy (2005) Zaphod on TV - YouTube[/ame]