Atheist billboard defaced

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

Unknown vandals unhappy about atheists' billboard in Charlotte, N.C., spray-painted "Under God" on the ad, the city's atheist association discovered Monday. The defaced message will remain in place until after July 4, the group reports, which is the soonest that workers can furnish a fresh billboard image. Here's how the vandalized billboard now looks:

http://l.yimg.com/a/p/us/news/editorial/3/e0/3e00551e6f24afd2f6fe0ef3adfc44d4.jpeg
The billboard reads, "One Nation Indivisible," which is the phrase preceding the 1954 insertion of the words "under God" to the Pledge of Allegiance, reports the Charlotte Observer's Tim Funk. The billboard was erected on Billy Graham Parkway last week. (Graham is, of course, the state's famous evangelical preacher.)

Similar North Carolina ads have gone up in Asheville, Greensboro, Wilmington, Raleigh, and Winston-Salem as a Fourth of July project by the area's atheist association. The group has filed a police report and will replace the billboard.

“It was done by one or two people off on their own who decided their only recourse was vandalism rather than having a conversation,” Charlotte Atheists & Agnostics spokesman William Warren said. “It does show how needed our message is. As atheists, we want to let people know we exist and that there’s a community here.” Warren told the Observer when the sign first went up that its location wasn't intended as a rebuke to the Rev. Graham.

He said the group has added more than 50 members since the ad went up. Atheist ads are often a target for vandals. Three of 10 atheist billboards erected in Sacramento, Calif., were defaced in February, and a series of atheist bus ads was recently vandalized in Detroit.

According to a 2007 study by the Pew Research Center, about 6 percent of Americans are secular. Less than 2 percent of all Americans identify as atheist.

An act of Congress changed the language of the Pledge of Allegiance during the height of the Cold War. Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist, composed the original pledge in 1892.

[People's War]

Ah, the intolerance of religion strikes again. So much for America being secular when they insist on keeping 'Under God' in the Pledge of Allegiance.

[Fietsketting]

Having an atheist association is truelly an odd thing. Wtf happens there? People sitting in a circle and state that they don´t believe in a <insert random god here> and then discuss why they don't?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Having an atheist association is truelly an odd thing. Wtf happens there? People sitting in a circle and state that they don´t believe in a <insert random god here> and then discuss why they don't?
I think it's more along the lines of them discussing how to get atheists accepted(We are the least trusted group in America) and promoting secular government/separation of Church and State. I know the Atheist Experience says they're promoting "positive atheism" which probably means trying to show that we're not devil worshipers or something similar.

[DecDoom]

I know the Atheist Experience says they're promoting "positive atheism" which probably means trying to show that we're not devil worshipers or something similar.

On a similar note, I've had people try to tell me that by being an Atheist, I'm also a Pagan. :confused:

[leftace53]

If someone defaced a religious (specifically christian) the government/police/media would be all over it. Trying to find out who did it, charging them for going against "human rights" (discrimination of religion/hate crime) or some other crazy thing.


Having an atheist association is truelly an odd thing. Wtf happens there? People sitting in a circle and state that they don´t believe in a <insert random god here> and then discuss why they don't?
Don't religious organizations just sit in a circle stating they believe in <insert random god here> and then discuss why they do?

[Fietsketting]

Don't religious organizations just sit in a circle stating they believe in <insert random god here> and then discuss why they do?
After wich you could state that athiesm is an religion despite its intentions. :D

[Ravachol]

What I find equally disturbing is the 'une nation, indivisible' slogan of the atheist group. To hell with national unity, to hell with social peace!

[A Revolutionary Tool]

On a similar note, I've had people try to tell me that by being an Atheist, I'm also a Pagan. :confused:
You're not a Pagan :confused:

[Robocommie]

On a similar note, I've had people try to tell me that by being an Atheist, I'm also a Pagan. :confused:

Lawl, it's true, if you don't believe in any god, you actually believe in several.

[Sean]

Actually, the whole joke was that any ass who did would look unpatriotic for defacing the flag. Everyone knew it would happen though. I don't know how it was unknown, any reporter worth his salt would have left a camera rolling at that thing around nightfall.

[leftace53]

After wich you could state that athiesm is an religion despite its intentions. :D
:lol::lol:
Well both religion and athiesm addresses the same issue of god, I was pointing out how absurd it is to wonder what an atheist club does, but not what a religious one does.

[gorillafuck]

The original message is a sign promoting national unity. I really don't care if someone defaces a billboard like that.

[DecDoom]

You're not a Pagan :confused:

That's the point, I'm not sure why some people think Atheism = Paganism.

[Sean]

That's the point, I'm not sure why some people think Atheism = Paganism.

The reason mate, is that religious people don't like to admit that there's any possibility of a life outside god worship. Like I was raised a catholic and I went to a De La Salle Brother's school and all. Never did me any harm. We were taught all religions but 90% Christianity. But I'll tell you what, as you probably know yourself, outside of the new atheists of now and commie books, theres no mention of atheism. Here's where I'm going with it:

Not believing in god is off the agenda. Sure if you tell any hardcore licker of the altar rails that you're one they'll even just assume that you're pissed with god and not talking to him. If you're lucky they might even say a wee prayer for you. Not believing in god is worse than believing in him incorrectly and burning in hell for worshipping Odin. It's safer to bundle atheism with a sect even if it makes no sense, that way people can just say "its just a cultural thing savages do, its not our way but we'll pray they get to heaven too".

"Atheism is something silly hippies and brown people do" is an easier response than getting into philosophical arguments creationist pickle, which frankly has given the godless a lot more attention and speed than they otherwise would have.

[Glenn Beck]

Also, Christians tend to call everyone who doesn't follow an Abrahamic religion pagan, sort of like an analogue of the Islamic kafir (infidel).

And not to be a douche, but they were pretty much asking for it with that slogan. They just set it up real obvious for anyone who would want to do that.

[NGNM85]

After wich you could state that athiesm is an religion despite its intentions. :D

Only for people who are suffering from misconceptions about what atheism is. There's a deep, fundamental difference. Atheism is rooted in rationality and logic, while religion......isn't.

[Klaatu]

If you spell "GOD" backwards, you get "DOG."

Atheists are certainly the UNDER DOG in this country.

I hope the vandalism helps recruit more to the Atheist cause. Stuff like this usually does. ;)

[9]

What I find equally disturbing is the 'une nation, indivisible' slogan of the atheist group.!

exactly. It just underscores how ridiculous atheist liberals are.

[9]

Originally Posted by EnviroWhako
I hope the vandalism helps recruit more to the Atheist cause.Unless you mean sitting around and talking about how 'dumb' and 'brainwashed' are people who turn to religion to cope with reality, then there is no "atheist cause". There is only the cause to abolish the material conditions which sustain religious institutions and beliefs.

[Adi Shankara]

lol since when did this become an atheist forum? what is this doing outside the "religion" or "philosophy" sections?

and by posting threads like this, the guy who defaced the billboard got what he wanted: attention and IRL trolling factor.

also, request mod that this move to "religion" or "philosophy" section.

[praxis1966]

On a similar note, I've had people try to tell me that by being an Atheist, I'm also a Pagan. :confused:

I don't know what's worse, your experience or mine. I was once told a couple of people that I was an agnostic. Not only did I have to define agnosticism for them because they didn't actually know what it was, one of them looked me dead in the face and said, 'So your an atheist?' To which I said no and then tried to re-explain the whole uncertainty part of agnosticism. This time he insisted I was an atheist, and the other guy agreed with him.

At some point the discussion got to the first guy saying, 'Well, you have to believe in something.' To which I responded, 'Fucking says who?' Well, he didn't like that very much. Any fuckin' way...


That's the point, I'm not sure why some people think Atheism = Paganism.

Well, I was going to answer this with my usual, 'Because people are fucking stupid' line, but Sean's answer is much, well, nicer so let's go with that.

[9]

@thomas sankara
I don't think there's anything wrong with posting it. I don't particularly care about, but I don't think it belongs in "religion" either.

[Robocommie]

Having an atheist association is truelly an odd thing. Wtf happens there? People sitting in a circle and state that they don´t believe in a <insert random god here> and then discuss why they don't?

In Hinduism there's a parable about a man who spends every day telling himself, "There is no God, there is no God, there is no God." Then one day he dies, and boom, there he is, enlightened, because he spent each day with the name of God on his lips.

[Robocommie]

Someone said that there is no Atheist "cause," but perhaps there is, in a way. The objective is to get this
"god" stuff back into the genie bottle it came from, and out of the public square.

I think it's better to simply promote an attitude that other people's beliefs don't have to threaten us, one way or the other.

[Klaatu]

I think it's better to simply promote an attitude that other people's beliefs don't have to threaten us, one way or the other.

oops I deleted the post before I realized that you had replied to it - sorry :crying:

[Walt]

seems like that committed a sin by vandalizing a billboard. isn't disobeying the laws of the land a sin?

[Robocommie]

oops I deleted the post before I realized that you had replied to it - sorry :crying:

No worries. :) Sorry if you had wanted to let it lie, instead.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

seems like that committed a sin by vandalizing a billboard. isn't disobeying the laws of the land a sin?
Yes this is true, I remember reading that part of the Bible when I started thinking of myself as a communist. Something about follow the laws the King(referring to RL kings, not Jesus as a king) lays down because God put him in that place. That was one of the of the points where I said "F this religion I'm out" and stopped believing.

But anyways to people saying something about how atheists shouldn't being saying "one nation, indivisible..." I think you're missing the point that they were trying to make, which was that they didn't want God mentioned in our national anthem, just like many don't want "In God We Trust" on our money. They probably frame it in some separation between Church and State argument but I doubt most of them actually give a rat's ass about the national anthem(Who still does, I haven't said it or heard since I went to a baseball game).

[Robocommie]

Yes this is true, I remember reading that part of the Bible when I started thinking of myself as a communist. Something about follow the laws the King(referring to RL kings, not Jesus as a king) lays down because God put him in that place. That was one of the of the points where I said "F this religion I'm out" and stopped believing.


There's a couple of interpretations of that passage, actually, if you're referring to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."

[A Revolutionary Tool]

There's a couple of interpretations of that passage, actually, if you're referring to "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's."
No it's 1st Peters chapter 2, I memorized that:

2:13: Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme;
2:14: or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to those who do well.
2:15: For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
2:17: Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
2:18: Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the wicked.

[Adi Shankara]

No it's 1st Peters chapter 2, I memorized that:

2:13: Therefore subject yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether to the king, as supreme;
2:14: or to governors, as sent by him for vengeance on evil-doers and for praise to those who do well.
2:15: For this is the will of God, that by well-doing you should put to silence the ignorance of foolish men:
2:16: as free, and not using your freedom for a cloak of wickedness, but as bondservants of God.
2:17: Honor all men. Love the brotherhood. Fear God. Honor the king.
2:18: Servants, be in subjection to your masters with all fear; not only to the good and gentle, but also to the wicked.

Look at my signature if you want proof the Bible is absolutely communist in nature. it's not even vague; it's pretty straight forward.

[Yazman]

After wich you could state that athiesm is an religion despite its intentions. :D

Sorry, but this is just downright ignorant. Atheism is not a belief system of any kind, rather it is a simple lack of belief. To call it a religion is, well.. extremely, extremely ignorant.


lol since when did this become an atheist forum? what is this doing outside the "religion" or "philosophy" sections?

and by posting threads like this, the guy who defaced the billboard got what he wanted: attention and IRL trolling factor.

also, request mod that this move to "religion" or "philosophy" section.

Religion is a subforum of Opposing Ideologies for a reason. It didn't just happen that way by itself - we put it there.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Look at my signature if you want proof the Bible is absolutely communist in nature. it's not even vague; it's pretty straight forward.
How does your signature prove the Bible to be communist in nature, the Bible says that happened that's all it looks like to me. The Bible says a lot of things happened which God doesn't want. Anyways what I was quoting was a passage of the Bible which says you should be subservient to even the most evil oppressors because they are in that place because God put them there. That says to me that violent revolution is bad in God's eyes. You can try and get to communism peacefully but I think it's utopian, so did other revolutionary leaders which you think are so great. Which is why I find it extremely dishonest to yourself if you're a Christian that you just cherry pick which parts of the Bible you want to follow and which parts are inconvenient so you don't.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

lol since when did this become an atheist forum? what is this doing outside the "religion" or "philosophy" sections?

and by posting threads like this, the guy who defaced the billboard got what he wanted: attention and IRL trolling factor.

also, request mod that this move to "religion" or "philosophy" section.
Didn't you post not a few days ago a thread talking about what Karl Marx thought about religion right here in politics? Hypocritical much?

[Robocommie]

Which is why I find it extremely dishonest to yourself if you're a Christian that you just cherry pick which parts of the Bible you want to follow and which parts are inconvenient so you don't.

Well, not all Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Catholics, for example, generally do not.

[Sam_b]

I think it's more along the lines of them discussing how to get atheists accepted(We are the least trusted group in America)

I have a feeling the Muslim community may beg to differ

[Robocommie]

I have a feeling the Muslim community may beg to differ

Heh, I had a friend in college several years back, he was Indian-American, still had a thick accent even though he was born here. A week or two after 9/11 I ran into him in the cafeteria and I said hello, and told him, "How have you been? You must have had a bit of a rough time lately with everything that's going on." He nodded and said, "Yeah, it's been rough, but it's going to get worse." "Why's that?" I asked. "I've decided to grow out my beard. Fuck 'em."

[9]

Look at my signature if you want proof the Bible is absolutely communist in nature. it's not even vague; it's pretty straight forward.

This is really absurd. I don't know what the Christian Bible is like, but I know that the five books of Moses is part of it, and there is nothing even remotely 'communist' about them.

[Sean]

Also, Christians tend to call everyone who doesn't follow an Abrahamic religion pagan, sort of like an analogue of the Islamic kafir (infidel).

And not to be a douche, but they were pretty much asking for it with that slogan. They just set it up real obvious for anyone who would want to do that.
Oh yeah there's a quote from someone who said research proves that atheism is a branch of islam. Big rep/internets if anyone can find that and link it here cause its infuriatingly funny and pertinent.

[Robocommie]

This is really absurd. I don't know what the Christian Bible is like, but I know that the five books of Moses is part of it, and there is nothing even remotely 'communist' about them.

There are certain elements within the New Testament, elements which lend themselves to a particularly populist kind of Judgement Day which can be likened to the hopes of the oppressed for Revolution. This language has even been adopted by writers such as Frantz Fanon, talking of how "the last shall be first, and the first shall be last." Language about how "blessed are they who hunger and thirst for righteousness, they shall be satisfied." In the New Testament, Christ both admonishes the wealthy who ignore the sick and the poor, and warn them that their actions in the here and now will be remembered on the Last Day. Christ also states to his followers that he has come not to bring peace, (to preserve the old order), but a sword (to disrupt it). Liberation theologists have used this and combined it with Marxist class struggle to create a genuinely revolutionary doctrine, in which the oppressed become crucial in the self-actualization of the coming of Judgement Day.

As I see it, Marxists with religious beliefs should co-opt this language, and make use of it to appeal to communities of people to whom religion is important. There are already movements like this, Red Shi'ism in Islam, and liberation theology in Catholicism and to some extent, Protestantism, particularly among African Americans for whom religion was a strong backbone of the community during slave times and later. People like Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr (and his later turning towards socialism) demonstrate how the religion of the oppressed can become a religion of revolution.

If we don't, and we solely take an oppositional stance, then we risk becoming merely another voice of opposition to which all religious communities have become sorely accustomed.

[Sean]

If we don't, and we solely take an oppositional stance, then we risk becoming merely another voice of opposition to which all religious communities have become sorely accustomed.
I completely disagree. Sidestepping bits of the good book is what all successful people and organisations have done and will continue to do.

I'll be honest, even the notion of pulling a bible quote out your backside is morally repugnant to me (and you need to know me to know how low that makes it).

If you pander to people that way they never shake off the shackles and then all you've got is a minority of revs and a majority of cultists.

[Robocommie]

I completely disagree. Sidestepping bits of the good book is what all successful people and organisations have done and will continue to do.

I'll be honest, even the notion of pulling a bible quote out your backside is morally repugnant to me (and you need to know me to know how low that makes it).

If you pander to people that way they never shake off the shackles and then all you've got is a minority of revs and a majority of cultists.

It's not about pandering. That's why I said this co-opting has to be the work of religious Marxists, who have sincere belief, because otherwise it's just manipulative and cynical.

But this term, "cultists" is inherently condescending. The key point of my post is that the religion of the oppressed becomes a religion of genuine revolution. Anyone who thinks that religion can only lead to passivity has not witnessed the power of a Civil Rights movement in which the disenfranchised and the oppressed join hands and refuse to be moved as they sing, "We Shall Overcome." Resistance and struggle is not accomplished solely by tanks, mortars and bombs, though anyone who has seen that picture of Malcolm X standing at the window with a rifle, or read about John Brown, the deeply religious man whose convictions led him to attempt a bloody insurrection to free slaves, understands that that can remain an option. John Brown's raid used .54 Sharps rifles, also known in the US as "Beecher's Bibles" because the abolitionist minister Henry Ward Beecher, who supplied said rifles to anti-slavery immigrants in Kansas, that the rifle was a "truly moral agent" in fighting slaveholders.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't know where people get this idea that religion and communism are mutually exclusive, I really don't. Bakunin may have rallied against religion in "God and the State" and Marx himself didn't believe religion, but he said it had it's uses to "soothe the soul of man" [sic], but I still don't see why that means religion has to be shunned. again, most of the Sandanistas, most of the EZLN,and almost all of the communists in Nepal (and it's not like Nepal is an un-open society, it's rather open compared to western standards) have belief religion with them...Prachanda himself (leader of the Maoists in Nepal) admitted he was a He wasn't an atheist.

[Adi Shankara]

I don't know where people get this idea that religion and communism are mutually exclusive, I really don't. Bakunin may have rallied against religion in "God and the State" and Marx himself didn't believe religion, but he said it had it's uses to "soothe the soul of man" [sic], but I still don't see why that means religion has to be shunned. again, most of the Sandanistas, most of the EZLN,and almost all of the communists in Nepal (and it's not like Nepal is an un-open society, it's rather open compared to western standards) have belief religion with them...Prachanda himself (leader of the Maoists in Nepal) admitted he was a Hindu.

Scratch that; this was what I was referring to:

http://www.telegraphnepal.com/news_det.php?news_id=6180


“I respect all the religion”, said Prachanda....“However, do not take the Maoist Party as an atheist party”, further added Prachanda.
[Prachanda] on Tuesday September 1, 2009 attended a religious ceremony in Kathmandu to inaugurate the week long Srimad Bhagwat Mahapuran.

[Ravachol]

But anyways to people saying something about how atheists shouldn't being saying "one nation, indivisible..." I think you're missing the point that they were trying to make, which was that they didn't want God mentioned in our national anthem, just like many don't want "In God We Trust" on our money. They probably frame it in some separation between Church and State argument but I doubt most of them actually give a rat's ass about the national anthem(Who still does, I haven't said it or heard since I went to a baseball game).

The point is I don't want a 'national anthem' at all nor a state to be seperated from a church. Leaving 'one nation, indivisible' in but leaving 'under god' out is just plain ridiculous.

I also see a lot of idealistic reasoning with regards to religion. Whilst I share the frustration during discussions with particularly irrational religious folks, religion must be understood as a discours produced by a framework of dominant institutions with objective class interests (be they economic or power-related in nature). These institutions perpetuate themselves because of material reasons and ought to be abolished in the material realm, not through idealist propagandism.

This can be done outside relgious logic or from within. For example, the 17th century English Ranters where an anabaptist christian sect very close to Anarchism. Their ideas of god's immanence, ie His prescence in each and everyone of us, reachable by each and everyone of us without the need for intermediaries such as priest and church effectively abolish religion as such within it's own discours. Their idea that belief in god was a free choice and being baptised should be as well is especially radical for 17th century christians and has far deeper reaching implications than one might think at first.

Sure, religion is nonsense but simply telling people this isn't going to convince them when their entire worldview is rooted in religion. Religion and the institutions propagating it effectively become centres of 'truth production' that aren't simply swept away with propagandist words, it requires a radical transformation of social practice, often (seemingly) within the logic of religion itself.

[Rusty Shackleford]

i was in an atheist club for a semester. it got rather old. i was more interested in advocating socialism than bashing religion and theism.

yes im an anti-theist but i had better things to do with my time than to watch bill mahr. it was nice to see a teacher advocating militant anti-theism though. but that just annoys people.

what im getting at is "i dont care if this billboard was defaced" plus it has a fucking american flag and a shitty slogan on it. it defaced itself.

[Fietsketting]

Sorry, but this is just downright ignorant. Atheism is not a belief system of any kind, rather it is a simple lack of belief. To call it a religion is, well.. extremely, extremely ignorant.

You feel those muscles in your face, around the mouth and cheeks? Try moving them upwards and keep them there for a short period. Then produce a sound like wich roughly goes like Ha Ha HA.

We we;re having a laugh ;)


Religion is a subforum of Opposing Ideologies for a reason. It didn't just happen that way by itself - we put it there.We're more coming from the idea that despite they lack a religion they sure preach it alot. ;)

[Adi Shankara]

Religion is a subforum of Opposing Ideologies for a reason. It didn't just happen that way by itself - we put it there.

I don't see how religion opposes communism in any way, just by judging the number of religious communists around the world...but hey, you're the mod.

as far as whether atheism constitutes a religion or not, I believe some of the more dogmatic forms do (like, I think Dawkins treats atheism like a religion, but that's just my opinion alone), but most forms don't. depends on whether it's of the "strong" variety or not. I'm not going to get into that though because it's irrelevant and it will just evolve into a pointless flame war, and my opinions seem to be controversial enough as it is.

[NecroCommie]

I don't see how religion opposes communism in any way, just by judging the number of religious communists around the world...but hey, you're the mod.
Communism per se is not mutually exclusive with religion. However self respecting dialectical materialists will either have to be atheists or inconsistent.


as far as whether atheism constitutes a religion or not, I believe some of the more dogmatic forms do (like, I think Dawkins treats atheism like a religion, but that's just my opinion alone),
Nope. Religion is based in faith, and religious dogmatists never have to explain themselves beyond the basic "I believe this so it is true to me..."-crap. No matter how dogmatic, atheists have to explain and reason their beliefs, which makes them entirely non-religious.

[ed miliband]

This is really absurd. I don't know what the Christian Bible is like, but I know that the five books of Moses is part of it, and there is nothing even remotely 'communist' about them.

One can come to radically egalitarian conclusions upon reading certain parts of the Bible. Acts of the Apostles, for example, features a primitive form of communism; certain elements of Jesus' purported rhetoric does seem to be aimed at the lower ebbs of society; Peter's letters have been compared to Lenin by Alain Badiou (and Zizek is fond of them too) - I have no idea why, though. History is full of interesting characters interpreting the Bible and leading admirable lives based on their readings; I'm particularly interested in Gerrard Winstanley and Abiezer Coppe. Some might argue that they've taken from the Bible what they wanted and disregarded the rest, but so what? The Bible is a text that's evolved slowly and is full of contradictions, and naturally there is a lot of awful guff in there, but some stuff is genuinely quite interesting (at least to me).

But to make it clear: I'm not religous at all.

[Robocommie]

Nope. Religion is based in faith, and religious dogmatists never have to explain themselves beyond the basic "I believe this so it is true to me..."-crap. No matter how dogmatic, atheists have to explain and reason their beliefs, which makes them entirely non-religious.

Except from a certain point of view, a lot of atheists can be just as stubborn and closed-minded as any Christian. Despite attempts to reason and present spirituality or religion as potentially something other than reactionary defense of the status quo, like with Malcolm X, some atheists simply refuse to respect this. They condescend, they patronize, and dismiss religious folks as superstitious morons who desperately need to be enlightened. Even the most tolerant of anti-religious folks around here seem to take the tack that religious people are basically children, and that eventually they'll grow up - completely precluding the possibility that religion actually offers them something which is real enough to them. I don't see how "reasonable" that truly is, to be so utterly condescending.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

...other people's beliefs don't have to threaten us, one way or the other.http://mahalogie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/inquisition.gif

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1130/1415837446_674650d2b4.jpg

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/crusades/images/crusades-5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Talibanbeating.jpg

http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Najibullah_3.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JpJR_J-5GyQ/SiP1tt2SACI/AAAAAAAAC3g/iDn1MtPzvgo/s400/george-tiller.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CoN-0dL6_hY/SQ9aIt4XckI/AAAAAAAAKQo/NsrHrSqXgJ0/s400/commie2.jpg

[Robocommie]

Hey, look at that, stereotypes and generalizations. This is kinda what I'm talking about, folks like you kinda take the stance towards Muslims that the most horrid conservatives do. You just don't discriminate and do it to everyone. I hardly see how that makes you more pleasant or civilized, just less particular.

[Nothing Human Is Alien]

I have a feeling the Muslim community may beg to differ

"Given the increasing religiosity of American culture, it's perhaps not too surprising that a new study out this month finds that Americans are not fond of atheists and trust them less than they do other groups. The depth of this distrust is a bit astonishing nonetheless.

"Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

"When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively...." - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1

[¿Que?]

"Given the increasing religiosity of American culture, it's perhaps not too surprising that a new study out this month finds that Americans are not fond of atheists and trust them less than they do other groups. The depth of this distrust is a bit astonishing nonetheless.

"Asked whether they would disapprove of a child's wish to marry an atheist, 47.6 percent of those interviewed said yes. Asked the same question about Muslims and African-Americans, the yes responses fell to 33.5 percent and 27.2 percent, respectively. The yes responses for Asian-Americans, Hispanics, Jews and conservative Christians were 18.5 percent, 18.5 percent, 11.8 percent and 6.9 percent, respectively.

"When asked which groups did not share their vision of American society, 39.5 percent of those interviewed mentioned atheists. Asked the same question about Muslims and homosexuals, the figures dropped to a slightly less depressing 26.3 percent and 22.6 percent, respectively. For Hispanics, Jews, Asian-Americans and African-Americans, they fell further to 7.6 percent, 7.4 percent, 7.0 percent and 4.6 percent, respectively...." - http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1
Beat me to it! I was going to refer to that same study. I guess I'll rep you instead. :thumbup1:

[NecroCommie]

Except from a certain point of view, a lot of atheists can be just as stubborn and closed-minded as any Christian.
But still not clinging to blind faith. If one is in a stalemate with an atheist, one might want to try different arguments. It could be that you are trying to pull strings deemed unimportant or irrelevant by the opposite party.

Besides, one might argue that it is the religious folks who are stubborn ones. After all, the very empiric method sides with the atheists.

Despite attempts to reason and present spirituality or religion as potentially something other than reactionary defense of the status quo, like with Malcolm X, some atheists simply refuse to respect this.
I have never ever faced such an atheist. Most I have ever heard is that religion is always used as reactionary defence also, while at the same time possibly being something else too.

They condescend, they patronize, and dismiss religious folks as superstitious...
Well... aren't they?

...morons who desperately need to be enlightened.
Well this I must admit, and also the condescending tone of some. Then again, the only reason I see this as a bad approach is because it doesn't really motivate them to think on the subject. It launches the kind of defensive reaction regardless the potential logic in given arguments.

Even the most tolerant of anti-religious folks around here seem to take the tack that religious people are basically children, and that eventually they'll grow up - completely precluding the possibility that religion actually offers them something which is real enough to them. I don't see how "reasonable" that truly is, to be so utterly condescending.
Couldn't you possibly imagine that fascism offers something to people that is real enough for them? Whether you do or don't is irrelevant, because no one in this world actually has a beef with being condescending towards something. Everyone thinks some ideology/idea is ridiculous to the extreme, or that some weird cult needs to stop having pipe-dreams. It just so happens that western culture has this weird taboo on questioning and ridiculing religious beliefs specifically. And I just don't understand why.

[Glenn Beck]

*pictures*

None of the events depicted in those pictures had religious causes independent of or superseding the secular political and cultural context in which they took place, so I don't really see how they in any way refute the possibility that there can be religious practice and belief that doesn't threaten society or other individuals.

[NecroCommie]

None of the events depicted in those pictures had religious causes independent of or superseding the secular political and cultural context in which they took place, so I don't really see how they in any way refute the possibility that there can be religious practice and belief that doesn't threaten society or other individuals.
Events depicted in those pictures were all allowed to happen because the vast majority accepted blind faith as completely acceptable. The inquisition was allowed to kill because the masses were told to just suck it without reasoning beyond the normal: "If you won't obey my imaginary friend he will send you to hell!"-crap.

You are right in the sense that religion is never the true motivator. It is however the most dangerous excuse ever imagined.

[Adi Shankara]

Nope. Religion is based in faith, and religious dogmatists never have to explain themselves beyond the basic "I believe this so it is true to me..."-crap. No matter how dogmatic, atheists have to explain and reason their beliefs, which makes them entirely non-religious.

That sounds like a copout if you ask me; in my philosophy class, I was taught that the only ones who don't have a burden of proof to prove what they are saying are those who don't hold assertive, strong opinions; for example, most atheists, agnostics, or the non-religious who say "I simply have no belief in god" don't have to prove anything, as they aren't making a disputable claim; they simply are saying they don't believe in something, which is fine.
But those who say "I am 100% positive and strongly assertive that there is absolutely no god" have something to prove, and therefore must back up their claims. the burden of proof lies on those making claims.

afterall, if I said "I strongly make an assertive disbelief the earth is round"...does that mean I'm correct by default since I don't have to prove it?

[Adi Shankara]

http://mahalogie.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/inquisition.gif

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1130/1415837446_674650d2b4.jpg

http://karenswhimsy.com/public-domain-images/crusades/images/crusades-5.jpg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/98/Talibanbeating.jpg

http://www.executedtoday.com/images/Najibullah_3.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_JpJR_J-5GyQ/SiP1tt2SACI/AAAAAAAAC3g/iDn1MtPzvgo/s400/george-tiller.jpg

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_CoN-0dL6_hY/SQ9aIt4XckI/AAAAAAAAKQo/NsrHrSqXgJ0/s400/commie2.jpg

This does nothing for anyone. many religious people would just argue in return about the Maoist, Stalinist and Cambodian purges against the religious (which in my opinion, pretty much sealed communism's fate in the "Western" world)

[NecroCommie]

That sounds like a copout if you ask me; in my philosophy class, I was taught that the only ones who don't have a burden of proof to prove what they are saying are those who don't hold assertive, strong opinions; for example, most atheists or the non-religious who say "I simply have no belief in god" don't have to prove anything, but those who say "I am 100% positive and strongly assertive that there is absolutely no god" have something to prove, and therefore must back up their claims. the burden of proof lies on those making claims.

Then you did not listen closely enough.

The burden of proof lies heaviest with the positive factual claim. A negative claim cannot be called upon unless it violates greatly some previous commonly accepted knowledge (which faith is not, knowledge and faith are different)

From wikipedia:


For any given argument (e.g., the existence/nonexistence of fairies), both sides of the proposition carry a burden of proof. However, the burden of proof will often be asymmetrical, meaning that it will fall harder on one side of an argument than the other. There are any number of factors which can influence the symmetry of the burden. Two of the most common are

How close the claim corresponds to conventional knowledge such as for the claims "pigs snort" (close) and "pigs fly" (distant).
Whether the claim is ontologically positive or negative such as the claim "unicorns exist" (positive) or the claim "unicorns don't exist" (negative).
Other considerations might include:

How independent is the claim of other suspect or controversial claims. The claim "fairies build houses in trees" is inextricably dependent upon the controversial claim "fairies exist".
This list of epistemic claims about fairies below serves to highlight some of the more important aspects of burden of proof.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof

If your claim would stand, and I carried the burden of proof simply because I made a claim "god does not exist", then this would also mean that the burden of proof would lie on those who deny the existence of fairies, unicorns, flying cows and such. As it is obvious that no such creature exists, the burden of proof lies the heaviest, if not entirely on those making the positive claim on the existence of such creatures.

So, tell me, how is the existence of god different from the existence of fairies?

[Adi Shankara]

Communism per se is not mutually exclusive with religion. However self respecting dialectical materialists will either have to be atheists or inconsistent.


If you have a belief in non-overlapping Magisteria, I don't see why that has to be the case.


As it is obvious that no such creature exists, the burden of proof lies the heaviest, if not entirely on those making the positive claim on the existence of such creatures.

Allow me to play devils advocate for a minute--but anything that can't be proven with a 100% certainty still means that there is a chance, however slight, that it could be real. afterall...the chances of our earth and complex life forms existing within the anthropic principle were 10^100 (which means if 1 part of the physical constant was even off, there would be NO life on earth), and yet we beat those odds--extremely unlikely odds.

meanwhile, the chance for god existing, when it was done by a mathematician, is more likely than the chance that everything that exists in our universe was created by chance:

(this book explains most of it; he doesn't try to disprove or prove god, just the mathematical probability) http://www.amazon.com/s/175-6207400-7973052?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=probability%20of%20god&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Therefore, there is more of a chance of unicorns (or god) existing than the universe we currently all inhabit existing--and that's the crazy thing. when put into mathematical perspective, if you believe that the earth simply beat those incredibly near-impossible odds within the anthropic principle simply by chance, then you're putting more faith into the concept of luck than most people put into god :P

[Robocommie]

But still not clinging to blind faith. If one is in a stalemate with an atheist, one might want to try different arguments. It could be that you are trying to pull strings deemed unimportant or irrelevant by the opposite party.

All I'm really hoping for is some civility, some grudging respect to agree to disagree, so that I don't have to go on feeling like a lot of my comrades, brothers in arms, secretly think I'm some kind of a drooling fanatic.



Besides, one might argue that it is the religious folks who are stubborn ones. After all, the very empiric method sides with the atheists.

Perhaps, but you can't really prove a negative, so I don't think empiricism truly sides with atheists so much as it lies with it by default. Because the lack of evidence is not proof of absence, to me it stands to reason that the most empirically sound position is agnosticism.



I have never ever faced such an atheist. Most I have ever heard is that religion is always used as reactionary defence also, while at the same time possibly being something else too.

I have gotten a lot of nasty, snippy remarks from atheists who seem to take it personally that I don't think like they do. I've been accused of being a reactionary, or bourgeois, or what have you, solely because I am religious. It's like those people who choose to see Islam as something that must be fought itself, and therefore left-wing groups who are also Muslim should never be seen as allies.



Well... aren't they?


No, not really. Picking up a lucky penny is superstitious, avoiding walking under ladders is superstitious. Believing that love is such a powerful force that a Jewish philosopher would die on the cross for the sake of his message that all should love one's neighbor as oneself, that's not superstition, even if there is metaphysical beliefs fixed around that. Believing as in Buddhism, that the only way to truly find harmony is to avoid excess both of pain and of pleasure and to try and overcome vanity and greed, that's not superstition, even if it as well is accompanied by metaphysical belief. All the rest of it, the rosary beads, the prayer wheels, the crucifixes, the Torahs, are really in a way just symbols, touchstones that give us something tangible to help us focus on incredibly cerebral, emotional concepts like how to cultivate compassion and humility in oneself and be mindful of our own bad behavior.



Well this I must admit, and also the condescending tone of some. Then again, the only reason I see this as a bad approach is because it doesn't really motivate them to think on the subject. It launches the kind of defensive reaction regardless the potential logic in given arguments.

But this is the problem; that you assume they haven't thought on it at all. There's still this insistence that they're somehow children who have yet to wake up, as opposed to people who have made a conscious decision to believe, for whatever reason that may be. There's this assumption that they actually NEED to be brought out of their belief, simply because of a value judgement that the way you see things is objectively better.



Couldn't you possibly imagine that fascism offers something to people that is real enough for them? Whether you do or don't is irrelevant, because no one in this world actually has a beef with being condescending towards something. Everyone thinks some ideology/idea is ridiculous to the extreme, or that some weird cult needs to stop having pipe-dreams. It just so happens that western culture has this weird taboo on questioning and ridiculing religious beliefs specifically. And I just don't understand why.

This taboo isn't solely a western thing. Part of the bad reaction in the Muslim world to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons was because of the way the cartoonists went out of their way to intentionally show disrespect to something that they knew full well was important to them. And that's just it - how hard is it to show a little bit of courtesy and leave people alone? Religion is a private and personal matter, and that's precisely why people take it so seriously when other people ridicule it. Religion is often an issue of identity as well, so to a believer, attacking a religion can very frequently feel like an attack on they themselves.

The difference between religion and fascism is that religion can be kept personal and private, that it does not have to be enforced by the state and can be something that only concerns believers and their private institutions. Fascism, by definiton, must dominate or it ceases to have any meaning. You cannot be a fascist without inflicting your views on others, any more than you can be socialist without reaching out to other human beings. Contrary to what some bigoted people think, you CAN be religious without inflicting your views on others.

To the extent that people object to the presence of things like patriarchy, authoritarianism, violence and so forth in religion; these things are rarely if ever inherent aspects of a given religion. The extent to which they are found is very frequently due to the influence of extra-religious influences like secular culture, economics or in response to war and conflict. Some people argue that these reactionary things are inherent and therefore religion must be crushed, but in fact these people play right into the hands of the extremists. Religion is not going away, thousands and thousands of years of human history and mostly what has changed is what we believe, not that we have spiritual beliefs. If people are so insistent on defining existing religions like Islam as being inherently oppressive - which is not true, if you study the history of religion - then they will only lend a hand to those extremists who insist that the oppressive Islam is the only Islam.

[Robocommie]

Events depicted in those pictures were all allowed to happen because the vast majority accepted blind faith as completely acceptable. The inquisition was allowed to kill because the masses were told to just suck it without reasoning beyond the normal: "If you won't obey my imaginary friend he will send you to hell!"-crap.

You are right in the sense that religion is never the true motivator. It is however the most dangerous excuse ever imagined.

Bullshit. The Inquisition was the state enforcing it's will on the population. The Spanish Inquisition, in particular, was the state consolidating its position in the previously Muslim regions of Iberia and asserting the Spanish monarchy's primacy.

What people don't appreciate about trials for heresy and witchcraft (the latter more common in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance than the earlier Middle Ages) is that while the Church was responsible for the trials, it was the regional secular authority who carried out the sentence, and you better believe it that the local lord or prince used his influence to make sure the local Churchmen found the "correct" verdict.

There are always people whom the state finds troublesome and wishes to do away with, and thus finds themselves either ostracized or killed. The character of which this ostracism takes depends on the cultural paradigm of any given era, but it is ultimately a form of state or social persecution, which is no different from anything else we fight.

I'd like to point out to you that you are assuming the reactions and attitudes of the masses, the vast majority, for a time period in which generally only the social elites could read or write and therefore leave an account of what they truly thought.

[Adi Shankara]

Now just for shits and giggles, I want to ask you a question my philosophy teacher offered a 1000 dollar reward for:

"can you prove that other minds independent of your own exist"? ;) Or more specifically, other conciousness? how do you know everything before you isn't a hallucination? Yet no one doubts they exist. (p.s: my teacher is not a theist, as he claims not to know about whether god exists or not, as the answer is so mathematically and philosophically complex, it's almost infathomable to begin to comprehend)

so in the end, we're back to square one--something of which, is almost impossible to prove either way.

[Adi Shankara]

His model, published in the journal Astrobiology, suggests an upper limit for the probability of each step occurring is 10 per cent or less, so the chances of intelligent life emerging is low – less than 0.01 per cent over four billion years.http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/the_mathematical_probability_of_life_on_other_eart h_like_planets

and that's just intelligent life. it doesn't take into consideration of how intelligent, nor complex our own world is. and math is never wrong.

Those odds are almost impossible to beat. yet I doubt you'd question the results. thus, isn't that putting extreme faith into chance and unlikely probability? isn't that in itself, a religion of a sense?

[NecroCommie]

All I'm really hoping for is some civility, some grudging respect to agree to disagree, so that I don't have to go on feeling like a lot of my comrades, brothers in arms, secretly think I'm some kind of a drooling fanatic.
Well you don't need to fear that from me even if I do disagree on the subject. That's about all I can say.


Perhaps, but you can't really prove a negative, so I don't think empiricism truly sides with atheists so much as it lies with it by default. Because the lack of evidence is not proof of absence, to me it stands to reason that the most empirically sound position is agnosticism.
Agreed, but then again, if we take such a puritan approach on the concept of knowledge, wouldn't we have to be agnostic about pretty much everything? All I am saying is that gods are to be equated with other mythological and imaginary beings.


I have gotten a lot of nasty, snippy remarks from atheists who seem to take it personally that I don't think like they do. I've been accused of being a reactionary, or bourgeois, or what have you, solely because I am religious. It's like those people who choose to see Islam as something that must be fought itself, and therefore left-wing groups who are also Muslim should never be seen as allies.
Well, I have to agree that such an approach is a bit non-constructive. I still think that religion should be erased, I just accpet the fact that it will propably not happen within my lifetime. So yes, I just have to live with the fact that many of my comrades believe in sky-daddies and space monsters and what not.

Then again, I am somewhat of a fantasy nerd myself so I guess it's a colourful crowd.


No, not really. Picking up a lucky penny is superstitious, avoiding walking under ladders is superstitious. Believing that love is such a powerful force that a Jewish philosopher would die on the cross for the sake of his message that all should love one's neighbor as oneself, that's not superstition, even if there is metaphysical beliefs fixed around that.
What you described is philosophy alone. Beliefs are only deemed christian if they accept the christian confession of faith (I went to lutheran sunday school as a kid). This includes belief in a god that lives "up in the heavens", and that his "only son", "rose from the dead on the third day", "was conceived by the holy spirit, was born out of a virgin" and so on and so on... Sounds superstitious to me.


Believing as in Buddhism, that the only way to truly find harmony is to avoid excess both of pain and of pleasure and to try and overcome vanity and greed, that's not superstition, even if it as well is accompanied by metaphysical belief. All the rest of it, the rosary beads, the prayer wheels, the crucifixes, the Torahs, are really in a way just symbols, touchstones that give us something tangible to help us focus on incredibly cerebral, emotional concepts like how to cultivate compassion and humility in oneself and be mindful of our own bad behavior.

Fine, but when someone is backing up a murder by saying: "it was the will of my god!" You will have to accept that either we must use some kind of standard that would exclude faith as a reasonable phenomenon, or we will have to accept such reasons for murder... or we could be inconsistent, it's just that I hate inconsistensies.


But this is the problem; that you assume they haven't thought on it at all.
No no no no no no!!!! I did not mean this. All I said is that at that particular situation an agressive approach discourages thinking and encourages defensive reactions. As a psychological thing... youknow?


This taboo isn't solely a western thing.
agreed.

Part of the bad reaction in the Muslim world to the Jyllands-Posten cartoons was because of the way the cartoonists went out of their way to intentionally show disrespect to something that they knew full well was important to them. And that's just it - how hard is it to show a little bit of courtesy and leave people alone? Religion is a private and personal matter,
It is only a private matter until someone decides to include religious agendas to political, societal and moral issues common to the entire society. Then it becomes a public matter.

and that's precisely why people take it so seriously when other people ridicule it. Religion is often an issue of identity as well, so to a believer, attacking a religion can very frequently feel like an attack on they themselves.
I understand this. I also understand that this is counter-produtive, and such thoughts should be fought in best possible ways.

[NecroCommie]

Bullshit. The Inquisition was the state enforcing it's will on the population. The Spanish Inquisition, in particular, was the state consolidating its position in the previously Muslim regions of Iberia and asserting the Spanish monarchy's primacy.
I claim no differently. I only claimed that religion was used as a justification for these actions, so that people would not understand to oppose them. If they had attempted to justify inquisition with reasons of politics the opposition would have surely been higher, perhaps unbearable.


What people don't appreciate about trials for heresy and witchcraft (the latter more common in the late Middle Ages/early Renaissance than the earlier Middle Ages) is that while the Church was responsible for the trials, it was the regional secular authority who carried out the sentence, and you better believe it that the local lord or prince used his influence to make sure the local Churchmen found the "correct" verdict.
If it was the secular authority that kept people in line, why involve church at all?


There are always people whom the state finds troublesome and wishes to do away with, and thus finds themselves either ostracized or killed. The character of which this ostracism takes depends on the cultural paradigm of any given era, but it is ultimately a form of state or social persecution, which is no different from anything else we fight.
Agreed, and I am merely saying that religion is used as a tool to psychologically further material and social actions that you described.


I'd like to point out to you that you are assuming the reactions and attitudes of the masses, the vast majority, for a time period in which generally only the social elites could read or write and therefore leave an account of what they truly thought.
If the church had no credibility, then why use the church as a state instrument?

[A Revolutionary Tool]

Well, not all Christians believe the Bible is the literal word of God. Catholics, for example, generally do not.
I could see where people don't think the Bible is literal when it says outlandish things like God turning people into salt, but how can you not take that literally, it's not like a miracle or anything, it's a direct order from God/The Bible. But if people don't want to accept God's laws but call themselves Christians then that's just cherry picking like I said before.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

If you have a belief in non-overlapping Magisteria, I don't see why that has to be the case.



Allow me to play devils advocate for a minute--but anything that can't be proven with a 100% certainty still means that there is a chance, however slight, that it could be real. afterall...the chances of our earth and complex life forms existing within the anthropic principle were 10^100 (which means if 1 part of the physical constant was even off, there would be NO life on earth), and yet we beat those odds--extremely unlikely odds.

meanwhile, the chance for god existing, when it was done by a mathematician, is more likely than the chance that everything that exists in our universe was created by chance:

(this book explains most of it; he doesn't try to disprove or prove god, just the mathematical probability) http://www.amazon.com/s/175-6207400-7973052?ie=UTF8&tag=mozilla-20&index=blended&link_code=qs&field-keywords=probability%20of%20god&sourceid=Mozilla-search

Therefore, there is more of a chance of unicorns (or god) existing than the universe we currently all inhabit existing--and that's the crazy thing. when put into mathematical perspective, if you believe that the earth simply beat those incredibly near-impossible odds within the anthropic principle simply by chance, then you're putting more faith into the concept of luck than most people put into god :P



Well how many billions of planets don't have complex life forms on it? If you look at that figure 10^100 and only picture our solar system it does seem very unlikely, but then you look at the whole universe, at other universes and you discover an infinite number of planets and only a few of them that we have found that may be able to sustain complex life forms. When you actually put the Earth into the context of space then it changes the whole situation.


Now just for shits and giggles, I want to ask you a question my philosophy teacher offered a 1000 dollar reward for:

"can you prove that other minds independent of your own exist"? http://www.revleft.com/vb/../revleft/smilies/wink.gif Or more specifically, other conciousness? how do you know everything before you isn't a hallucination? Yet no one doubts they exist. (p.s: my teacher is not a theist, as he claims not to know about whether god exists or not, as the answer is so mathematically and philosophically complex, it's almost infathomable to begin to comprehend)

so in the end, we're back to square one--something of which, is almost impossible to prove either way. This is one of the reasons I actually hate the topic of philosophy, whenever I talk about philosophy with someone it turns into them taking radically skeptical positions to justify their beliefs. I don't understand why comrades always want me to take a philosophy class, it seems to annoying, look at sig.

[Wolf Larson]

the undergod....kinda like underdog.

in this case i'm not rooting for the underdog. we should have a bust of nietzsche on our coins here in america with the caption 'god is dead'.

kill a queer for christ!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sLSveRGmpIE

[Adi Shankara]

Well how many billions of planets don't have complex life forms on it? If you look at that figure 10^100 and only picture our solar system it does seem very unlikely, but then you look at the whole universe, at other universes and you discover an infinite number of planets and only a few of them that we have found that may be able to sustain complex life forms. When you actually put the Earth into the context of space then it changes the whole situation.

no but it's not in context of space though; it's only within the last 13 billion years, or about as long as our universe has existed; this is called the anthropic principle, which means everything that is measurable to us, needs to be measured within the last 13 billion years.

so considering that the universe had only 10^100 odds to create an earth with sustainable, intelligent life. and it beat the odds, which is a considerable miracle in itself. so the fact that this happened at all...it's either that 1.) our universe is extremely EXTREMELY lucky, and continuously beats the odds in games of chance that would see a card house be created by a hurricane gust more likely.

[Klaatu]

Some more religious images

Aztecs
http://www.bluecorncomics.com/pics/aztecs.gif

Witches
http://www.salem-news.com/stimg/december182008/malleus_maleficarum.jpg

Crusades
http://www.makinggoodsoftware.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/Crusades.jpg

I think that (some) religions are as guilty of crime as Nazis and other such groups in history.
In this century, we are now dealing with a cover-up of almost unlimited proportions of
child molestations within the Catholic Church. It is evident that this activity had been going
on for centuries, and is not just a recent thing...

[Adi Shankara]

Some more religious images

Posting pictures like that doesn't change anyone with religion's mind. just wanted to point that out.

[Klaatu]

Posting pictures like that doesn't change anyone with religion's mind. just wanted to point that out.

We see all of these pictures of how Nazis, etc slaughtered millions, so perhaps there ought to be a balance. That is, religious people think they are so perfect, yet they are not. They have committed crimes as bad as any non-religious people have.

True story: I once knew a religious guy, a real bible-thumper. I lent him a few hundred to buy a car, because he could not afford one. Did he ever pay me back? No. He even lied that the engine had blown; he had sold the car instead and kept the money. Was I stupid? YES. I learned an important lesson: religious people are no better, in any way, than anyone else. They just blindly worship stupid mythical fairies and leprechauns, yet look down their noses at those who don't. What a sham.

[KC]

I once knew a religious guy, a real bible-thumper.

I know a ton of religious people that aren't crazy. Does that validate either position? No, because anecdotal evidence isn't valid.

Do the images posted actually mean anything? No, of course not. As anyone versed in Marxism would know, historical developments are based on political/economic reasons primarily, and that religion as ideology is merely a filter through which those actions are mediated.

Do you really think that the Catholic church just one day completely out of the blue decided that the Crusades were "god's will"? :rolleyes:

Please actually try to make some valid points if you're going to post.

[Klaatu]

Of course "not all religious people are crazy."

I'm saying that being religious does not make one a better person, necessarily. (it might, it might not)

For the record, I know a ton of atheists that I would trust implicitly with money. ;)

[KC]

I didn't really read your post before I responded. Apologies. My response was more directed at the trolls who are posting these stupid images as some kind of argument.

[Klaatu]

No problem.

[Adi Shankara]

universally speaking, religion doesn't really give someone morals nor detract from them; if it did, there would be no wars; on the other hand, atheism is the exact same way, or else the cultural revolution wouldn't have been so brutal.

I reiterate, once again, that I think modern Marxists should just back away from religion all together and leave it as a neutral. Yes, Engels rallies against it with Dialectical materialism, but using the concept of Non-overlapping magisteria, those two ideas can coexist just fine.

not everything is black and white. I've always wondered if god can simultaneously exist and not exist at the same time...but alas, that's not a question that can be answered by a human mind.

[AK]

In Hinduism there's a parable about a man who spends every day telling himself, "There is no God, there is no God, there is no God." Then one day he dies, and boom, there he is, enlightened, because he spent each day with the name of God on his lips.
Oh goodie, I'm saved either way :lol:

Look at my signature if you want proof the Bible is absolutely communist in nature. it's not even vague; it's pretty straight forward.
Very communist. Your sig's got free markets and a monetary system and all.

[Adi Shankara]

Very communist. Your sig's got free markets and a monetary system and all.

:P what I meant was, the bible was basically saying that the disciples of Christ distributed property "to each according to his need" and collectivized everything they earned or received for the group. that's communism at it's most primitive.

[AK]

:P what I meant was, the bible was basically saying that the disciples of Christ distributed property "to each according to his need" and collectivized everything they earned or received for the group. that's communism at it's most primitive.
Take away money and the markets and you could say that.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

no but it's not in context of space though; it's only within the last 13 billion years, or about as long as our universe has existed; this is called the anthropic principle, which means everything that is measurable to us, needs to be measured within the last 13 billion years.

so considering that the universe had only 10^100 odds to create an earth with sustainable, intelligent life. and it beat the odds, which is a considerable miracle in itself. so the fact that this happened at all...it's either that 1.) our universe is extremely EXTREMELY lucky, and continuously beats the odds in games of chance that would see a card house be created by a hurricane gust more likely.
But we are lucky that we have this Earth to live on as evident by the fact that we have only found a few other planets that could theoretically contain complex life forms. But if you look at it in that context that we're almost alone in the whole universe that actually makes a lot of sense. The fact that we exist as a planet that can support and sustain complex life forms tells us how extremely lucky we are once we look around and see all those other planets can't because they don't have our conditions. How this makes a belief in God more relevant is beyond me.

[Adi Shankara]

How this makes a belief in God more relevant is beyond me.

I guess it's just that, this universe is so unlikely, the odds so impossible, it's either that you believe in extraordinary, extremely marvelous chance, or you believe in an equal, extraordinary, extremely marvelous god.

seeing how many coincidences our universe has (and we don't know if space is measured by infinity yet), it's strange that we exist at all. hell, the entire concept of life is ridiculously baffling.

the biggest question the Hindu philosopher Shankara Bhagavatpadacarya argued was proof for the existence of god(s), albeit, esoterically, was "why exist at all?"

And he has a point. maybe it's not a god, but it doesn't seem like atheism, to believe that we're just floating here in space for no reason whatsoever created for no reason whatsoever and that our planet beat almost figuratively impossible odds of 10^600(2 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.), of which anything after 10^100 becomes almost impossible. so to leave something like this to pure speculative chance? That's putting as much faith into unlikely probability as into the christian god.

So that's basically what it's down to: you believe in a crazy, almost impossible probability, or you believe in a crazy, almost improbable deity.

[Broletariat]

I guess it's just that, this universe is so unlikely, the odds so impossible, it's either that you believe in extraordinary, extremely marvelous chance, or you believe in an equal, extraordinary, extremely marvelous god.

seeing how many coincidences our universe has (and we don't know if space is measured by infinity yet), it's strange that we exist at all. hell, the entire concept of life is ridiculously baffling.

the biggest question the Hindu philosopher Shankara Bhagavatpadacarya argued was proof for the existence of god(s), albeit, esoterically, was "why exist at all?"

And he has a point. maybe it's not a god, but it doesn't seem like atheism, to believe that we're just floating here in space for no reason whatsoever created for no reason whatsoever and that our planet beat almost figuratively impossible odds of 10^600(2 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.), of which anything after 10100 becomes almost impossible. so to leave something like this to pure speculative chance? That's putting as much faith into unlikely probability as into the christian god.

Why exist at all? Why do I exist? Because my heart keeps pumping blood and my other life functions are working just fine. This is idealist twisting of words.

And it's putting as much faith into unlikely probability as into the christian God which is just about described to a T? I think if you were less specific about the "nature" of "God" you'd have a more convincing argument.

[Adi Shankara]

And it's putting as much faith into unlikely probability as into the christian God which is just about described to a T? I think if you were less specific about the "nature" of "God" you'd have a more convincing argument.

what do you mean? I don't believe in the christian god. I just said that both are extremely unlikely, to the point that we'll never exactly know unless we have really really precise mathematical measuring systems...but the fact that mathematics are so precise, shows that our universe is complex beyond belief to begin with.

I don't know. but math creates some interesting propositions. What's also interesting is that Mathematicians believe in a higher power more than 2 1/2 than other scientists.


Why exist at all? Why do I exist? Because my heart keeps pumping blood and my other life functions are working just fine. This is idealist twisting of words.

You missed the nature of the question. what was being asked was "Why would sentient beings arise out of nowhere to begin with? space is literally the middle of nowhere, and yet out of nowhere comes creation and sentient beings, from what source, no one knows, but yet we're all here."

[Broletariat]

what do you mean? I don't believe in the christian god. I just said that both are extremely unlikely, to the point that we'll never exactly know unless we have really really precise mathematical measuring systems...but the fact that mathematics are so precise, shows that our universe is complex beyond belief to begin with.

I don't know. but math creates some interesting propositions. What's also interesting is that Mathematicians believe in a higher power more than 2 1/2 than other scientists.
I meant to say that, the more specific you get into describing what "god" is the less likely your specific notion of "god" exists.

[Adi Shankara]

I meant to say that, the more specific you get into describing what "god" is the less likely your specific notion of "god" exists.

oh I see. my mistake then.

[Robocommie]

I meant to say that, the more specific you get into describing what "god" is the less likely your specific notion of "god" exists.

Heh, the Platonic form of God, or to use Taoist metaphysics, Pu, the Uncarved Block of Wood.

[A Revolutionary Tool]

I guess it's just that, this universe is so unlikely, the odds so impossible, it's either that you believe in extraordinary, extremely marvelous chance, or you believe in an equal, extraordinary, extremely marvelous god.

seeing how many coincidences our universe has (and we don't know if space is measured by infinity yet), it's strange that we exist at all. hell, the entire concept of life is ridiculously baffling.

the biggest question the Hindu philosopher Shankara Bhagavatpadacarya argued was proof for the existence of god(s), albeit, esoterically, was "why exist at all?"

And he has a point. maybe it's not a god, but it doesn't seem like atheism, to believe that we're just floating here in space for no reason whatsoever created for no reason whatsoever and that our planet beat almost figuratively impossible odds of 10^600(2 Frank B. Salisbury, "Doubts about the Modern Synthetic Theory of Evolution," American Biology Teacher, September 1971, p. 336.), of which anything after 10^100 becomes almost impossible. so to leave something like this to pure speculative chance? That's putting as much faith into unlikely probability as into the christian god.

So that's basically what it's down to: you believe in a crazy, almost impossible probability, or you believe in a crazy, almost improbable deity.

You're not getting what I'm saying at all why should I even bother repeating myself? So what should I put my faith in a materialist outlook, or into a idealistic outlook is what we're talking about. I'd say it's chance(As I've already explained), not that it's a god. You probably just don't understand the atheist mentality, that if you say "If the Earth was this much closer to the sun we wouldn't exist, if we were this much farther away from the sun we wouldn't exist, etc" does not make us believe that it's divine intervention, it just makes us think "And that's why we're lucky, unlike all the other planets we have found which are not so lucky." You say we beat the odds, what does that mean? From the atheist point of view it just means we beat the odds!

[Broletariat]

Heh, the Platonic form of God, or to use Taoist metaphysics, Pu, the Uncarved Block of Wood.
I'm not well versed in religions at all, but I suppose that one would make the most sense to believe in in terms of probability of existing.

[Adi Shankara]

And that's why we're lucky, unlike all the other planets we have found which are not so lucky." You say we beat the odds, what does that mean? From the atheist point of view it just means we beat the odds!

and see, that's why I find atheist positions just as ridiculous as religious positions on creation, which makes them both valid (or not); instead of putting faith in an unlikely existing god, you're putting faith into an unlikely probability that is about as likely as god existing.

You should read "the Probability of God" by Mathematician/Physicist Stephen Unwin; it's required reading for my philosophy class, and it makes good points both against and for the existence of a higher power.

tl;dr: what I'm trying to say, is "if there is a 1^100 chance of a god creating the universe, and a 1^100 that this is all just a mere coincidence...what's the difference anymore? what separates the belief in a miraculous god from the belief in an impossible probability being miraculously beaten? what makes the atheist more correct or the christian more correct if both of their propositions on the universe's creation are extremely impossibly unlikely?"

[Broletariat]

and see, that's why I find atheist positions just as ridiculous as religious positions on creation, which makes them both valid (or not); instead of putting faith in an unlikely from existing god, you're putting faith into an unlikely probability that is about as likely as god existing.

You should read "the Probability of God" by Mathematician/Physicist Stephen Unwin; it's required reading for my philosophy class, and it makes good points both against and for the existence of a higher power.

tl;dr: what I'm trying to say, is "if there is a 1^100 chance of a god creating the universe, and a 1^100 that this is all just a mere coincidence...what's the difference anymore? what separates the belief in a miraculous god from the belief in an impossible probability being miraculously beaten? what makes the atheist more correct or the christian more correct if both of their propositions on the universe's creation are extremely impossibly unlikely?"


I think we should really just not care and instead try and work on revolution.

[Adi Shankara]

What's also interesting, is that same Physicist I quoted, Stephen Unwin, comes to a figure of 67% chance that god exists, using Baye's theorem:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/c/9/1/c9131f4a5ada273cc54ade8d022932db.png

So I know I'm going to get flamed like hell for this, but don't shoot the messenger! I'm just quoting a scientist who arrived at those figures.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2004/mar/08/highereducation.uk1

I can see how his figures can easily be disputed, due to the somewhat subjective nature of some of his criteria, but irregardless, it makes interesting food for thought.

[Robocommie]

Well you don't need to fear that from me even if I do disagree on the subject. That's about all I can say.

I appreciate that comrade. :)



Agreed, but then again, if we take such a puritan approach on the concept of knowledge, wouldn't we have to be agnostic about pretty much everything? All I am saying is that gods are to be equated with other mythological and imaginary beings.Well... this starts to get pretty deep into epistemology, but there's going to be a break eventually in that different people have different epistemological foundations for their perspective, and I don't think that's really wrong, or that we all must, by necessity, approach life the same way. I myself tend to be influenced by Cartesian metaphysics and a sort of epistemological post-modernism, that is to say I believe there IS an objective reality but that we ourselves can never truly know it, relying entirely on subjective experience of phenomena. To borrow from Kant's Black Swan dilemna for example, we can't sit around paralyzed by uncertainty over whether or not a black swan exists, and we must act on what we do know, positive knowledge, but that doesn't mean we have to categorically deny the black swan.



Well, I have to agree that such an approach is a bit non-constructive. I still think that religion should be erased, I just accpet the fact that it will propably not happen within my lifetime. So yes, I just have to live with the fact that many of my comrades believe in sky-daddies and space monsters and what not.What bothers me is that this language of "sky-daddies" and "space monsters" and what not is not just condescending, it's also a bit of a false equivalency. Frankly, if a belief in pink unicorns led people to feel compelled to better themselves morally, I'd find a belief in pink unicorns to be entirely appropriate. Shades of William James' pragmatic theory of truth.



Fine, but when someone is backing up a murder by saying: "it was the will of my god!" You will have to accept that either we must use some kind of standard that would exclude faith as a reasonable phenomenon, or we will have to accept such reasons for murder... or we could be inconsistent, it's just that I hate inconsistensies.I think that's a little silly, frankly. I have never met a single religious person, no matter how deep their faith, who would accept "God told me to do it." as a reason for murder. I don't know the guiding principle behind it, but even though here in the US we are a fairly religious society, "God told me to do it" is not a workable legal defense.



No no no no no no!!!! I did not mean this. All I said is that at that particular situation an agressive approach discourages thinking and encourages defensive reactions. As a psychological thing... youknow?Right, I understand. I guess I just don't see why it has to bother you so much that other people believe things that you don't. If you feel discriminated against for being an atheist, that's one thing, but assuming governmental tolerance of both belief and lack of belief, I don't see how we even have to make it an issue of public debate.



It is only a private matter until someone decides to include religious agendas to political, societal and moral issues common to the entire society. Then it becomes a public matter.

Well, as I sort of getting at earlier, there is the religion of the oppressed, and the religion of the oppressor. One liberates while the other enslaves. Drawing an equivalence between the two is ultimately counter-productive.

[Robocommie]

I'm not well versed in religions at all, but I suppose that one would make the most sense to believe in in terms of probability of existing.

My own personal view of God is that It is so incredibly vast, transcendent and distant that no single possible description could truly serve to encompass It. And yet people, out of a desire to know It, have refracted it through prisms of experience, which we call religion.

In Hinduism, there is like a billion gods, except they're actually all one, because they're just facets, like faces on a gem, of the one, single ineffable reality, Brahman. The very first line of the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name." In short, the ultimate cosmic is-ness, can't be described. It can only be felt and understood firsthand. Speaking of it would be like describing the color blue to someone who was born blind. And in this sense, we're all born blind.

One of my favorite philosophers is Baruch Spinoza, who sortof viewed the world as only being ripples across the surface of a greater reality that he called God - sort of like an 18th century version of quantum string theory, I suppose.

[Adi Shankara]

My own personal view of God is that It is so incredibly vast, transcendent and distant that no single possible description could truly serve to encompass It. And yet people, out of a desire to know It, have refracted it through prisms of experience, which we call religion.

In Hinduism, there is like a billion gods, except they're actually all one, because they're just facets, like faces on a gem, of the one, single ineffable reality, Brahman.

The very first line of the Tao Te Ching, "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name."

In short, the ultimate cosmic is-ness, can't be described. It can only be felt and understood firsthand. Speaking of it would be like describing the color blue to someone who was born blind. And in this sense, we're all born blind.

I really am shocked how close my own personal beliefs come to yours. Also, thanks for making the distinction in Hinduism between the "billions of gods", because many people seem to think that these are either all literal, or all are separate, rather than one higher power that has no face or personality or any human traits at all. (Brahman).

[al8]

So that's basically what it's down to: you believe in a crazy, almost impossible probability, or you believe in a crazy, almost improbable deity.
[/B]

Gives a new meaning to the saying "There are 3 kinds of lies; lies, damn lies and statistics". Improbable things happen all the time. I can't see for the life of me any valid reason why anyone should fasten any significance to this kind of number juggling.

Your just getting drunk on word games. Sorry if I sound irrate comrade but this just happens to annoy me. Why would you or anyone else need to make fancy gods of your surroundings - are they so dull? Wouldn't it be better to focus on your world, existence or whatever as they are rather than make gods of it? The goal of any communist should be to look reality in the eye and change what needs to be changed.

[NGNM85]

Hey, look at that, stereotypes and generalizations. This is kinda what I'm talking about, folks like you kinda take the stance towards Muslims that the most horrid conservatives do. You just don't discriminate and do it to everyone. I hardly see how that makes you more pleasant or civilized, just less particular.

Nonsense. These aren't just isolated incidents. Hell, Christianity went on a roughly 500-year-long murder spree, and that's the tip of the iceberg. Religion is the motivator behind a substantial majority of violence and bloodshed going back to time immemorial. Even if you were right, and you aren't, that these are all horrible misinterpretations, and in no way reflective of the religions themselves, there's more than enough motivation to do away with it. If there were any other substance, product, or institution, that was prone to inspiring or enabling the kind of wanton, horrific, nightmarish atrocities that have been committed in the name of religions, on a regular basis, one couldn't possibly defend it.

Now... The one thing that I will concede, just so that I'm being clear, is that I understand perfectly that there are billions of religious people out there, and most of them are largely decent people. The most violent and bigoted individuals are not necessarily representative of the rank and file. However, they are absolutely representative of their respective faiths. What does the Bible say about women's rights or homosexuality? Or the Koran? Read the books, it's all in there. These books contain very obvious, and explicit exhortations to violence. According to the scripture homosexuality is an 'abomination' that should be punishible by death. That's not subtle, there's no room for misinterpretation. Read Levicticus, whatever, just pick a page and start reading, in no time you'll find impetus for some atrocity or another. The Osama bin Laden's and the abortion clinic bombers read the books cover to cover, I assure you. They can quote chapter and verse. They were able to square everything that they did with what they found in those books, in fact, that's where they got the idea. There's definitely a problem within Islam, but I'm not singling them out by any means. For Christians to decry Islam as violent and brutal is the definition of hypocrisy. Devout christians massacred, and tortured heretics, really, in thost abominable ways you can imagine, just about the worst acts of sadism you can conjure, for centuries. As I've said, the individuals doing this read the book cover to cover. They read the sermon on the mount and they were able to square their actions perfectly with that book. The new testament does not repudiate all the awful shit in the first half, even jesus has his bad days where he says things like if you find a heretic you should "bring him hither and slay him before me." It's pretty easy to see where people might go with that. So I'm not pre-judging, I'm judging. These books are filled with bigotry, sexism, intolerance, and deliberate, open exhortations to commit violence.

Now, I don't deny religions do some very good things. However, religion doesn't offer anything real that couldn't be acquired, or would be better off being acquired elsewhere. The catholic church does a lot for charity, however, it also instructs people who have no other source of information, in the most AIDS-ravaged parts of Africa, that they shouldn't use condoms. I fully support charity, humility, graciousness, morality, etc., but none of these traits are inherently religious. None of these traits automatically follow from blind certitude in a magical creator. Whereas the belief that all homosexuals should be killed, that women are essentially chattel, and all heretics will burn in hell forever absolutely come from those respective texts.

Religion, moreso than anything else, is proclaimed to be beyond the scope of conversation. Unlike sports, science, art, politics, and everything else we have to give religion a wide berth. We can't discuss it, we can't question it, and we certainly can't criticize it. We need new rules of conversation. We need to break down these barriers and have the guts to call a spade a spade. I'm not being hyperbolic when I say religion is the opposite of civilization, that's an absolute fact. If we want to build a better world, if we want to get it together as a species, we must fianally shrug off these pre-medieval dogmatisms. To quote Sam Harris; "There is no possible future in which aspiring martyrs will make good neighbors."

[Adi Shankara]

Your just getting drunk on word games. Sorry if I sound irrate comrade but this just happens to annoy me. Why would you or anyone else need to make fancy gods of your surroundings - are they so dull? Wouldn't it be better to focus on your world, existence or whatever as they are rather than make gods of it? The goal of any communist should be to look reality in the eye and change what needs to be changed.

Hence why I believe in separation of church and state :P I don't really think that religion and politics make a good mix, because then someone ends up judging everyone and everything by what may be their singular world view that may not apply to everyone else.

and my religious beliefs are complex; I only believe in a god (or should I say, higher plane of existence than our own) so much as we beat such impossible chances, but regardless, it's not one of those "buddy buddy" gods that threaten to smite thee for not believing, etc.