Christians who infiltrate scientific forums.

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

If I went over to the physics or math forums and started presenting my theories, I could see where I'd be bashed or even banned. So, why is it that the religious out there come to the Religion Forum to bash atheists? I personally think that the Religion Forum needs a name change to Religious Theories Forum where the knowledgeable can discuss theoretical issues without getting bashed by the Christians. Perhaps there should be a forum for Christians and other religions where those of like-mind can participate. Or, maybe, a separate forum for atheists? Then the religious can go to the Religion Forum and bash each other as we know they will.

[Godless]

Well M*W, the reason why religionists come to sites were they know most to find unbelievers, is to try and convert, or find out why they have lost faith, or just curious. Curiosity killed the cat!.

But anyhow they come, some can argue with very level heads, and very opened minds, and are intellectually mature enough not to be offended by an atheists' opinion. But those are far and between a whole bunch seem to be very immature, not intellectually chanllenging, arrogant, preaching, childish.

The idea of having an all atheists forum, so they wouldn't invade with their theistic non-sense, is by no mean any way to shun them out, they will still come, they will still argue, and they will spam their non-sense. And that comes from experience. I belong to a forum which is named Atheist.com, and even though majority of members are atheist, they still show up.
http://atheists.com/modules.php?name=Forums

But oooooooh!! if you go into some christian site and discuss with them that their beliefs is fary tale, you'd be thrown out as soon as you made your first post.

And that's why they like hanging around a scientific forum, they know we accept their challenge to discuss their theology, however there are few that are intellectually challenging, without taking argument on a personal level.

Godless.

[spidergoat]

Same reason I have gone to the Left Behind website and argued with them.

[Marc A.C.]

*************
M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums?

Akhem. Maybe because it has a "Religion" section and there may be no better expert or "subject" than the religious - the experienced.

Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

Or, better put, when presented with a man-made scientific platform (beliefs) on man-made religious beliefs...

[Godless]

Akhem. Maybe because it has a "Religion" section and there may be no better expert or "subject" than the religious - the experienced.

LOL!!LOL! that's a joke right?

I know a few atheists that would dance around so called expert of theology!.

Godless

[craterchains]

Most of the time I prefer ones that have never gone into a church, or religious
organization to discuss things about the bible with. Religionists are a major pain in
the butt. Lots of fairy tale crapola and very little hard core evidence to back up
their fairy tales. Although NOT a person of religion, I do believe what the bible
basically says and have discovered enough physical and physics evidence to trust
that the rest of the bibles predictions will come true.

[cole grey]

Scientific discussion has to be open to peer review, and in the area of religion it is very difficult to say who the "experts" are.
If a person wants a "safe" place to discuss their ideas, fine, but that isn't scientific at all. Sorry.
Also, I agree with Godless that there are few informed reasonable people around, but need to point out that this statement being reserved for theists is a joke.

[Godless]

Also, I agree with Godless that there are few informed reasonable people around, but need to point out that this statement being reserved for theists is a joke.

Well thanks Cole. The deal is that I've been in several atheists forums apx five years now, yes Sci was my favorite, but anyhow most atheists I've met online, come from a religious background. I've met former, Christians, Catholics, Muslims, Mormons, Babtists, Jewish. Heck there's a book by a former preacher turned atheist.

http://www.ffrf.org/books/lfif/

So now I ask a question;

Which Jesus is the one of the bible?.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/

Which god is god?

http://www.geocities.com/thewitchescircle/biggg.htm

Is it just silly that people still believe in ancient rhetoric?

Godless.

[cosmictraveler]

*************
M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

If I went over to the physics or math forums and started presenting my theories, I could see where I'd be bashed or even banned. So, why is it that the religious out there come to the Religion Forum to bash atheists? I personally think that the Religion Forum needs a name change to Religious Theories Forum where the knowledgeable can discuss theoretical issues without getting bashed by the Christians. Perhaps there should be a forum for Christians and other religions where those of like-mind can participate. Or, maybe, a separate forum for atheists? Then the religious can go to the Religion Forum and bash each other as we know they will.

Perhaps there are a few of them that see there's a way to include science along with religion to incorporate them both into their belief structure. An example is that they believe that the universe was created by God and everything that happened after the big Bang, or creation by God as they say, was then unfolding as we humans now can detect with our sciences.It is a strech for them , but this is what some I have spoken with now believe.

[cool skill]

Why is it that blithering atheists infiltrate scientific forums?
HAHAHAHA

[ericwernli]

cosmictraveler, thats what is the most dangerous part. The ID'ers take advantage of the fact that most people don't understand the scienctific process. So when they claim the have science to back it up, people don't know its worthless science. Only through education I guess will this finally do away with religions. If school boards aren't taken over by religous people like in Kansas.

[Godless]

Why is it that blithering atheists infiltrate scientific forums?

Silly Rabbit! Religion is for kids!.

Most atheists hang around these boards, mainly because it was created by atheists.

Just like most Christian hang around christian boards.

Not too many atheists that I know of, hang around christian boards to tell them they believe in fery tales. Most atheists that visit some christian board are banned. G! we atheists seem more tolerant of people coming to preach, and judge us by our lack of belief.

But seems like most theists, take these arguments on a personal level, they tend to get pissed easy, and as far as I know they've never converted a single atheist back to christianity, catholicism, or theology of any kind. But that's not to say it has never happened. There are the few confused so called atheists, who became atheists out of anger, to rebel against parents, or just plainly to be different, but with no education to back up their unbeliefs, these seem to be the ones who originally go back to the crutch of theology.

Godless.

[Crimson_Scribe]

Um, hello, I’m SC and I’m a Christian (no church, no dogma. Just a Christian). Sorry, I didn’t realize that I was infiltrating the forum . . . but then again, I’m one of those people who believe that science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.

[Marc A.C.]

LOL!!LOL! that's a joke right?

No it isn't. Which part exactly did you find funny? You must've misread.

Is it just silly that people still believe in ancient rhetoric?

I don't think so; "ancient rhetoric" forms the foundation of our knowledge system - mathematics for example - the foundation of the physical sciences. You a scientist?

[Medicine*Woman]

Crimson_Scribe: Um, hello, I’m SC and I’m a Christian (no church, no dogma. Just a Christian). Sorry, I didn’t realize that I was infiltrating the forum . . . but then again, I’m one of those people who believe that science and religion aren’t mutually exclusive.
*************
M*W: Welcome, Crimson. How does one claim to be Christian but not subscribe to its dogma?

[James R]

M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest?

Well, there's nothing actually incompatible between being a Christian and being a scientist, or being interested in science.

Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

A true Christian has no reason to be worried by any "scientific platform". Christianity is totally compatible with science (except for the fundamentalist brands of Christianity, of course).

[cole grey]

Which Jesus is the one of the bible?.

Based on my research, I believe there was a historical Jesus (sorry M*W).
Whether this Jesus is accurately represented in the new testament is not proven, but I think the basic idea of Jesus' character is in there - based on a cohesive reading of all the books(not the type represented in that website you recommended, by the way). Also, there is probably some information available in the so-called "gnostic gospels", but again, it is hard to say.

Which god is god?

Someone may have the qualification to speak conclusively on the matter, but for now, I am fine with "the creator of the universe", God knowing that God will be misunderstood must have been part of the whole plan - not really my responsibility to pretend to clear up something I know little about.

Is it just silly that people still believe in ancient rhetoric?

It depends.
Ancient rhetoric like the idea of civilization? Sure, life itself is a little silly, but that's okay, humans are kind of dumb, so a little silliness is fine.

p.s.
I'm sure there are many people who were atheists, who become theists every day of the week (even sunday). You would show fundamentalist leanings if you were to say, "they weren't really atheists, not TRUE atheists," and would begin to sound like someone talking about TRUE christians.

p.p.s. these boards are open to the public, therefore they attract whoever FATE's skein weaves a welcome to. <-- metaphor

[Crimson_Scribe]

MW – Because dogma is interpretation recognized by some earthly authority – the Catholic Church had their dogma and Martian Luther disagreed with it. Because Christ didn’t found a ‘church’ (as in an organization – He uses ‘church’ to describe the body of people who believe in Him, no hierarchy among men) I don’t feel that I need to follow a church or it’s dogma. I’d be happy to further define my position if you like, but I’m not sure that is this thread’s purpose.

[cool skill]

Why is it that blithering atheists infiltrate scientific forums?

Silly Rabbit! Religion is for kids!.

Most atheists hang around these boards, mainly because it was created by atheists.

Just like most Christian hang around christian boards.

Not too many atheists that I know of, hang around christian boards to tell them they believe in fery tales. Most atheists

that visit some christian board are banned. G! we atheists seem more tolerant of people coming to preach, and judge us by our

lack of belief.

But seems like most theists, take these arguments on a personal level, they tend to get pissed easy, and as far as I know

they've never converted a single atheist back to christianity, catholicism, or theology of any kind. But that's not to say it

has never happened. There are the few confused so called atheists, who became atheists out of anger, to rebel against

parents, or just plainly to be different, but with no education to back up their unbeliefs, these seem to be the ones who

originally go back to the crutch of theology.

Silly Rabbit! Actually, atheism is for retards!

Most atheists can go hang around atheist boards. I really don't give a crap what religion the people were that created this

board. I guess you think that science forum is the same thing as atheist forum.

Atheists that I know of, hang around christian boards to tell them they believe in fairy tales.

Yes your fanatical atheist RELIGION along with that belief in the so called "lack of belief" fairy tail. Sorry to say, but

the concept of "unbelief" was created by morons.

The biggest lie in atheism is their own belief that they are not a religion trying to impose their BELIEF on others.


ATHEISTS ARE IGNORANT. PLEASE ABIDE:
1. As annoying as it is that you impose your moron beliefs that religion should not be promoted in public. The least you can do is admit that you are fanatically imposing your beliefs like all other religions are imposing their beliefs. You dislike religion, and you as much as any other religion want to show others the light of your atheism. Atheism is the most fanatical religious belief there is. Atheists are the most fanatical of all religions.
Stop acting like you are not trying to convert others to atheism.

2. Drop the lack of belief charade. An atheist is somebody that believes that there is no God just like there is no pink hairy monster rollerskating around in your closet. Simply accept that you beleive there is no God.

3. It's no big deal when atheism is referred to as a religion. Mostly it is a belief about religion, therefore, it is sometimes referred to as a religious belief. Stop crying when this happens. Atheism is a personal or institutionalized system grounded in such belief and worship. Again atheism is very little different from other religions. The big difference between atheism and other religions is that atheists refuse to admit that they are as much if not more so a bunch of religious fanatics. There is alot more to a typical atheist than simply his belief that there is no God.
There are very few respectable atheists that simply abide by their belief, but they understand that most other atheists out there are a bunch of psycho fanatics that run around outright opposing religion and more.

4. Stop crying everytime somebody starts preaching or mixing religion into whatever they are talking about.

5. There is no such thing as a weak or strong atheist. If you do not aboslutely believe with 100% certainty that God/spirituality/etc does not exist you are not a damn atheist. Get a clue.

6. Stop assuming you know how to argue. Few atheists do. One's religious belief has nothing to do with their ability to debate. Nor should one's ability to debate be in question. Atheists usually do not argue to prove a point or arrive at a conclusion. Atheists are focused on winning and losing or being a better debater. They think that anything that comes out of their mouth means that they won an argument. Nobody is trying to win at anything. The object is to come to a conclusion. Get over yourself.

[Raithere]

Yes your fanatical atheist RELIGION along with that belief in the so called "lack of belief" fairy tail.

I always find it amusing that one of the first things people do when decrying atheism is call it a religion.

Very funny. Thanks.

~Raithere

[j]

I always find it amusing that one of the first things people do when decrying atheism is call it a religion.

Very funny. Thanks.

~Raithere

They do? This is new to me. How do they define religion so as to include atheism? For that matter, how do they define atheism? [CS's post wasn't entirely clear on that.]

Apparently I have got to get out more.

[cool skill]

Technically atheism is not a religion.
If you are a person that believes there is no such thing as God, that's all there is.
But typically, there is alot more to atheists and how they behave. The atheist religion is those that fanatically endorse atheism like it's the belief that everybody should abide by. They religiously impose more than just the belief that there is no God. Many believe in such nonsense as religion belongs indoors where nobody can see it.

I prefer that the belief that 'religion belongs indoors' belongs indoors where nobody can see it. Make any sense?

Many atheist make entire movies that are impose atheism beliefs such as "Kingdom of Heaven". That entire movie is one fanatically psychotic campaign for atheist religious ideals.
Not just the belief that there is no God. The belief that you too should join the atheist congragation, and support the fight against religion. The moral of the movie? Religion is man made, and hurt people if used incorrectly. There is no such thing as heaven. The kingdom of heaven is inside you. It is nothing more than your human potential to be a great person. That is an atheist belief.

Simply put, there is an atheist ideology that exists beyond simply the belief that there is no such thing as God.

The difference between a religious movie is that the religion for the most part would admit that there is a religious message in their movie.
Atheists are usually not aware of their own religious ideology, and would not say that their movie imposes atheist ideals. The atheist religion.

[cool skill]

I always find it amusing that one of the first things people do when decrying atheism is call it a religion.

Very funny. Thanks.

~Raithere

Yes. It is a religion. Get over it.

[Medicine*Woman]

"M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest?"
*************
James R: Well, there's nothing actually incompatible between being a Christian and being a scientist, or being interested in science.
*************
M*W: True.
*************
"M*W: Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?"
*************
James R: A true Christian has no reason to be worried by any "scientific platform". Christianity is totally compatible with science (except for the fundamentalist brands of Christianity, of course).
*************
M*W: I'm not sure about your garden variety of Christian being "totally compatible with science," but you are right. If they had the faith they "claim" to have, they shouldn't be concerned with the science that others post.

BTW, welcome to the sciforums refugee camp.

[Godless]

It is true that some atheist carry on their beliefs or lack there of like some form of cult, to the unsuspecting theist, some groups like the Rand Clan, The one's who's main philosphical psyche follows that of Ayn Rand, to the point of joining groups, and the such to study Objectivism. NOW I won't lie, I've studied Objectivism, but I've also studied, many other philosophical theories, including the theory of theology. Which is what theology is anyhow, just another theory of metaphisics.

But I'm an atheist by choice, and I don't push it or impose it on anyone, I come to these boards to debate, and keep learning about what life is, and discover the personalities of people all across the globe.

I do think though that to promote a theist theme in a scientific forum is kind of redundant, science seeks for evidence, more like emperical evidence of any assumption made by "any" party. Thus the belief that there's a god, or lack there off, is a non-issue, non can prove or disprove an entity with no identity. Thus that is what god is, an entity with no identity.

To be human is to possess identity, to a dog, we know of it's identity, a tree a rock, but a god? What kind of identity can one give to this entity?.

Theist tell us that god created the universe, but they don't have any evidence to back up that assertion, they tell us to "believe" have "faith" of what we say, thus their assertion's you and them wants for the rest of us to accept as knowledge.

Science on the other hand seeks it's own conclusion by trial and error, by formulating theories, disproving theories, and testing theories, re-testing theories on, and on, science has advanced civilization to were it is today!.

So I ask were the hell do you think we would be today, if the church still held power as it did in the dark ages? We still be in the dark ages, dumb idiotic, taking orders from fools whom have rationalized, that the earth is flat, that the geocentric theory is the way our universe works, and so, on, we be in the dark. Guess that's why they called those days DARK AGES!
http://beaconschool.org/~lmatos/heliocentrictheory.html

But I don't see how religion has lasted so long??

The only explanation of this is that it's still remnants of the "bicameral mind" the undeveloped mind of ancient days, the ones whom seemed the most confused when finally evolution gave out, and man had to invent consciousness as we know of it today. Consciouness of ancient men were bicameral, the voices heard were from one hemisphere of their brain to the other these were thought out as voices from the gods, but as civilization expanded and grew, tasks got more confusing, god's got more confused, chaos, wars, religious wars, all sorts of mass histeria thus happened with our ancient ancestors, so when evolution finally developed the brain enought to introspect as we do today, the natural phenomena that took place was the invention, "our own human invention" of consciousness as we know of it today. This happened around 3000 year ago. Religions were from those individuals who still needed the voices, who still sought the wisdom, of their bicameral past, it has survived this long, because of the traditional phenomena that religion impose on their followers, but religion is part of the phenomena of our primitive minds.

The above my own words of this author: Julian Jaynes, "The Origin of Consciousness in the Breakdown of the Bicameral Mind"

Quite an interesting read, and I don't want anyone to think I promote it lightly, wether your an atheist, or theists, taoists, or budhists, this book gives a theory of consciousness in evolution.

http://www.julianjaynes.org/

This following site gives a better detail of his writings, and of how the bicameral mind still exists today.
http://www.neo-tech.com/finalevo/evo-001.html

Thus conclusion; Beliefs in the assertions of those who can't advance our civilization but hinder it, lead us again to the dark ages, "as seen today with the promotions of "creationism vs evolution" Kansas comes to mind, this kind of crap will only hinder our human development, the current development in the US, which is the "church initiative" that dumb ass is pushing for, which is a direct violation of our constitution. It all comes from primitive mind-set. Face it, you are still a moron if you are a theist; which is the belief of ancient assertions with out any foundation or evidence.

Godless.

[arditezza]

I agree. Superstition and dogma are often counter-productive to debates and advances in science. Often people are blinded by their insistence that there is a high power that somehow saves them. Look at all the people who ignore science and treat their body like crap, and then blame God for them being in bad shape. And then when science heals them, it must have been God's will and plan for them. For me, it would make me wonder why God was just a sadistic jerk and not think, "Oh he gave me cancer to test my faith!".

Religious people can effectively embrace science, but only parts of it that don't clash with their dogmas. Kansas is a great example of people who want children to learn science to help the environment and society, but refuse to let go of the idea that science goes against the idea that there is something up there that creates us all.

By and large however, the masses will still need to find something that guides them for the most part. Religion is effective at doing that, regardless of how much good or harm it does. Mostly, I think that religious beliefs undermined the advancement of our society and are counter-productive to good solid ways of having people take responsibility for themselves and their lives.

Interestingly enough, there seems that there might be a DNA/gene link to "spirituality", and it's quite possible that Religion fills a need for people to escape into something other than reality.

[j]

...the belief that there's a god, or lack there off, is a non-issue, non[e] can prove or disprove an entity with no identity...

Right; so science and religion are not contradictory, they are just, well, entirely different approaches to understanding.

I find scientists who demand proof of the existence of God more annoying than the religious who deride science.

Theist tell us that god created the universe, but they don't have any evidence to back up that assertion, they tell us to "believe" have "faith" ...

Well, if it can't be proved, one has to take it on faith [if one chooses to believe].

So I ask were the hell do you think we would be today, if the church still held power as it did in the dark ages? We still be in the dark ages, dumb idiotic, taking orders from fools whom have rationalized, that the earth is flat, that the geocentric theory is the way our universe works, and so, on, we be in the dark. Guess that's why they called those days DARK AGES!

Your understanding of history is a little shaky. The term Dark Ages is seldom used any more, and was used to refer to the lack of information about the time, not the beliefs. Literacy was not common and written records are scarce.

And any government can and will abuse or mis-use science for political purposes.

If history has taught us anything, it has taught that widely held scientific tenets will be found inadequate or inaccurate by future generations, and that people and governments will resist changes to these tenets. Don't mock people without the advantages you enjoy, centuries of research and experimentation and documentation.

Face it, you are still a moron if you are a theist; which is the belief of ancient assertions with out any foundation or evidence.
Godless.

But you have already said that god is outside the realm of scientific proof; a believer sees evidence everywhere, and non-believer does not.

And what is wrong with 'ancient'? Have you studied Socrates or Plato, Marcus Aurelius, Lao Tse? What about Cicero?

[cole grey]

You both describe human frailty of mind and then restrict that to the religious. Of course you lump them into one group of people, who must have the same beliefs if you can generalize so well about them, and all the while try to use the differences between religions as a valid attack upon all religion.

I ask you, what kind of a slope-headed fool would try to generalize so drastically about such a diverse population, in such a blatantly unscientific manner? I expect a retraction of your generalization, or you both will be classified as slope-headed fools. Actually, I expect nothing.

[cole grey]

"you both" was directed towards arditez and godless.

[arditezza]

Reread my post, Cole. I said nothing of that effect what-so-ever. I said most, and often and other such things. I never insinuated that religious people are stupid or frail or anything of that sort. I even said that some effectively embrace science.

Try not to let one persons post bleed into the next poster and make generalizations about them both and demand an apology.

Speaking of slope-headed fools...

[cole grey]

arditezza says- Religious people can effectively embrace science, but only parts of it that don't clash with their dogmas.

I'll admit, your post really didn't merit such a response just because of this one generalization. I get annoyed with people who make generalizations in this way, and the post before yours was so rife with them, that this stood out. For the most part you are right that you weren't doing that.

[arditezza]

Dogmas are a personally held belief that has either no proof, or has been proven to be untrue and yet the person holds fast. I stated that religious people can embrace science, but not the parts that touch on their dogmas. I was pointing out that if a religious person has no dogmas, or none that clash with the ideas and sciences, then they do just fine having the two simultaneously co-exist. I wasn't insinuating that all religious people have dogmas that restrict them from seeing scientific fact, just that they can.

[cool skill]

Any atheist that believes atheism should be given priority over other religions in a science forum sounds to me like seriously deranged fanaticism.
As I stated in #6: Atheists think that anything that comes out of their mouth means that they won an argument.

Atheism is not the scientific method. Atheism is not equal to hard evidence.
Atheism is conclusion about the existence of God/supreme being. Atheists have come to a different conclusion than theists about the existence of a supreme being. No more no less.

Beyond that though is the fanaticism that atheism should be everywhere.

The belief that in the lack of theism(the conclusion that supreme being exists) in a science forum is the same thing as the belief that only atheism(the conclusion that there is absolutely no supreme being) belongs in a science forum.

Atheists claim that they have no intention of imposing their religion. Perhaps they really do not intend to impose their religion. There is a difference between

A: an atheist that intends to impose their religion, and does so.
B: an atheist that does not intend to impse their religion, but does so anyway.

Get over yourself. Other people have come to different conclusions than atheism. That does not mean that atheism (the conclusion that there is no God) should be given priority in a science forum over those that have come to different conclusions.


Nobody is trying to let "the church" in and spread their dogmas. In the same way, there should be no toleration for atheists spreading their own dogma. The atheist dogma is that which goes beyond simply stating that I have concluded that there is no such thing as a supreme being. The atheist dogma wishes to do away with anybody that has come to a differnt conclusion. The atheist dogma wishes to install their conclusion as the only scientific conclusion about the existence of God. the atheist dogma intends to claim it self as scientific above all else.

Sorry but atheism has just as much relation to hard science as any other religion/religious belief.

[Medicine*Woman]

cool skill: Any atheist that believes atheism should be given priority over other religions in a science forum sounds to me like seriously deranged fanaticism.
As I stated in #6: Atheists think that anything that comes out of their mouth means that they won an argument.
*************
M*W: No, not really. Atheists don't try to 'convert' members. Atheists know that takes time and is relevant to the individual's understanding.
*************
cool skill: Atheism is not the scientific method. Atheism is not equal to hard evidence. Atheism is conclusion about the existence of God/supreme being. Atheists have come to a different conclusion than theists about the existence of a supreme being. No more no less.
*************
M*W: You are right. Atheism is not the scientific method nor hard evidence. It's a understanding, a 'knowing.'
*************
cool skill: Beyond that though is the fanaticism that atheism should be everywhere.
*************
M*W: Although I cannot speak for all atheists, atheists are not fanatics by any means! We believe what we believe and we don't believe what we disbelieve. It's that simple. Everyone comes to their 'knowing' at a different time and place. It would be impossible for atheists to think that they could 'convert' theists to their platform. That platform takes tremendous understanding.
*************
cool skill: The belief that in the lack of theism(the conclusion that supreme being exists) in a science forum is the same thing as the belief that only atheism(the conclusion that there is absolutely no supreme being) belongs in a science forum.
*************
M*W: As a confirmed atheist, I welcome theists to prove to me there is a god. I've been waiting for this confirmation for 20 years now. Please show me that I am wrong!
*************
cool skill: Atheists claim that they have no intention of imposing their religion. Perhaps they really do not intend to impose their religion. There is a difference between

A: an atheist that intends to impose their religion, and does so.
B: an atheist that does not intend to impse their religion, but does so anyway.
*************
M*W: A. Atheists don't have a religion, so
B. there is nothing to impose.
*************
cool skill: Get over yourself. Other people have come to different conclusions than atheism. That does not mean that atheism (the conclusion that there is no God) should be given priority in a science forum over those that have come to different conclusions.
**************
M*W: No, you are right. No one is trying to push atheism. That's an individual understanding. Beyond atheism, I believe that not only was there no god and no Jesus, that story is all based on the constellations in the sky. I believe there is a legend-connection, but there is no creator god. The story is only a myth.
*************
cool skill: Nobody is trying to let "the church" in and spread their dogmas. In the same way, there should be no toleration for atheists spreading their own dogma. The atheist dogma is that which goes beyond simply stating that I have concluded that there is no such thing as a supreme being. The atheist dogma wishes to do away with anybody that has come to a differnt conclusion. The atheist dogma wishes to install their conclusion as the only scientific conclusion about the existence of God. the atheist dogma intends to claim it self as scientific above all else.
*************
M*W: I understand what you are saying. What I am saying is that even though there is no god, the whole story of god is myth.
*************
cool skill: Sorry but atheism has just as much relation to hard science as any other religion/religious belief.
*************
M*W: Right, again! Atheism isn't "hard science" and no one ever said it was. Atheism is contra-belief for those who can no longer comprehend the Jesus myth. Although I consider myself atheist, I understand where the god-myth comes from, so I just don't have any hope for an after-life, and I'm cool with that.

BTW, welcome cool skill!

[water]

Sciforums is back!

[cool skill]

Yup it sure is!
SWEET!!!!


Sorry meds.
Atheists are the most fanatical religion there is.

Atheism is as much an understanding/knowing as any other religion. Get over yourself.


*************
M*W: Although I cannot speak for all atheists, atheists are not fanatics by any means!
*************
Yes they are by every means. The only difference is they don't go door to door and actually accept the fact that they are trying to convert people. They hide behind a charade of denial.


*************
M*W: As a confirmed atheist, I welcome theists to prove to me there is a god. I've been waiting for this confirmation for 20 years now. Please show me that I am wrong!
*************
Ya ok. You have welcomed nothing.
The belief that in the lack of theism(the conclusion that supreme being exists) in a science forum is the same thing as the belief that only atheism(the conclusion that there is absolutely no supreme being) belongs in a science forum.

*************
M*W: A. Atheists don't have a religion, so
B. there is nothing to impose.
*************
A: Yes they do.
B: Yes there is.


You believe that the whole story about God is a myth like many atheists. Nobody said you did not believe that.

The point is that atheists are the biggest fanatics pushing their views on others. Fanatical atheists always try to impose that religion does not belong in this place and in that place. An atheist claiming that religion does not belong somewhere is no different than christian claiming that all religious beliefs other than christianity do not belong somewhere.

The biggest difference between atheism and other religions is that other religions are not afraid to say that they are promoting/imposing their beliefs. They have the word of their religion to spread, and they want others to see what they believe is the light. Atheists also spread their views, except they do it much more aggressively yet much more suttly at the same time.

A christian might go door to door, and blatantly tell you the great news that Jesus is your savior.
Christians usually do not go around and try to suppress all non-christian beliefs.

Atheists on the other hand are far from blatant, and rarely tell you anything.
The way they impose their belief in the lack of religion is by trying to suppress the religion wherever they can.

Many atheists seem to really be under the impression that a nondenominational place is one where no religion is discussed. The fact is a nondenominational place is a place where any religion can be discussed including atheism. A place where no religion can be discussed is a very atheist minded place.

[Also Known As]

A lack of belief in god(s) does not a religion make. An absence of something isn't another form of what is absent. As Carl Sagan said, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling baldness a hair color".

[cool skill]

It's not the same thing. Calling atheism a religion is the same thing as calling baldness a hairstyle.

Sorry but it's a religion. You can go home and cry now. The only thing absent is the brain of anybody that clings onto such atheist dogma.

[Also Known As]

Sorry, but insulting anonymous internet posters calling atheism a religion does not make a lack of belief into (from Websters)

b (1) : the service and worship of God or the supernatural (2) : commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance
2 : a personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices
3 archaic : scrupulous conformity : CONSCIENTIOUSNESS
4 : a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith

[cool skill]

Are we still clinging to this whole lack of belief dogma? I thought we would be over that by now. So sad.

I know very well that definition of religion.
I guess you haven't realized that atheism does fall into one or more of that.

[Godless]

Quote Water

Sciforums is back!

Quote Cool Skill

Yup it sure is!
SWEET!!!!

Hey nice to see youall here!.

CS:

Any atheist that believes atheism should be given priority over other religions in a science forum sounds to me like seriously deranged fanaticism.

I can relate to that!. But the word shouldn't be "priority" I didn't mean as the atheistic stance should be the priority of a science forum. I only mean that is kind of unscientific to relate to dogma as some science "Like Creationism" That's not science that's pseudo science.

Thus I seem to think that any Christian or Muslim coming and preaching to science forums by spaming, and you know we've had plenty on these on forums are as well fanatics. You don't preach Cool Skill and that's what I like about you.

And you are right about some athiests been "militant atheist" who seem to wear there atheism on their shoulders. I've been on another board where one (Infidel Guy Show), well this numb skull was suggesting one go to church and hi-light all contradictions in people's bible while they were on break. I din't like that idea, I thought it was silly, and also an individual has to come to his/her's own conclusions about their convictions, whether they be Atheist, Babtist, Jew, Muslim or Christian. I didn't appreciate his post, and I told him, that it would be ruining people's private property.

But not all atheist are the same. My mom still a Deist/Catholic. I live with her, we don't argue religion.
My sister is Catholic, so is the rest of her family.
My dad was an atheist. But at the time he lived I was a Christian.
So not all of us, have this badge on our shoulder that will try and convert anyone. We do argue our stance, but not as trying to convert, usually as defence!.

If that to you sounds as if we are pushing atheism to others think of this: We see it daily, Christians, Babtists, all Judeo-based religions, God is printed on money, The bible Belt, Church almost within two blocks in every city of one denomination or another, TV, Radio, Movies, all pushing the sale of one's view or another about religiousness. Were the hell do you see that compared to the above about atheism?

Get over yourself. Other people have come to different conclusions than atheism.

True! but then how many have given any thought about it?. Most people "accept" their given denominations by indoctrination of their family and environment, if you were born in Irag, you woudn't be a Christian, but a Muslim, or Islamists, idoctrinations of religions values mostly come to be accepted by most individuals because of their family inheritance of that particular indoctrination. Most don't studie, beyond their traditional religious stance, most just "obey and accept" their reality with out having the option of seeking anything else or even the thought to investigate anything else. So in essense these dicission come as part of ingnorance of anything else.

Most people don't studie philosophy, most people don't like to read psychology, most people don't studie different religions, or their past, or even their own country's history. Most only accept as truth any assertion with out foundation told to them by an authorative figure. And in every community around the globe those authorative figures are either religious or government.

Thus it apparently seems that most only accept their religious faith, because they know no better, nor ever had the interest to seek other's opinions. And their lack of understanding is what drives them to fear that which they don't understand such as atheists, such as agnostics, humanists, they have believed the authorative church since birth, so when these authorative figures, claim that atheist are evil, they believe it, they believe all the assertions of their authorative church. Not all believe, though! or else there wouldn't be such a phenomenon as an atheist, agnostics or humanists.

CG:

You both describe human frailty of mind and then restrict that to the religious.

I wouldn't say such harsh word as "restrict" but then let me enlightened you:

http://www.meta-religion.com/World_R..._religions.htm

Show me above a link to a period of human history were religion has not been the main dish of the day?

And I'll show you were religious rhetoric was first conceived!.
http://www.hubin.org/facts/history/h...hrenia_en.html

Conclusion: The mental frailties of ancient men, only led to religious beliefs, mysticism is a symptom of the breakdown of the bicameral mind.

J:

Right; so science and religion are not contradictory, they are just, well, entirely different approaches to understanding.

Well that's basically not entirely true!. Science can test their theories, while religionists have no way to test their foundation. There's is mostly assertions and rationalizations from ancient schizos (see above link) I'll admit not all were, but then I was refering to the break down of bicameral mentality.

Here is what a religionists believes what schizophrenia is:
http://www.religiousbook.net/FAQ/QA_21.html

So I only show the mean to derrive your own conclusions.

Do my assertions that religions had it's origins from schizophrenics of ancient past seem absurd after reading the above sites?..

These assertrions do not come without scrutiny of investigation. Thus The evidence is shown. Make your own conclusions.

Now I'll quote some Julia Tyack's work and you can draw your own conclussions.

(Julius Jaynes speculates that until the second millennium B.C. the human race had no consciousness, but were obeying the voices of gods in their right hemisphere of their brains. In his book “The Origin of Consciousness in the Break Down of the Bicameral Mind�, Jaynes leads the reader through the evidence that there was no religion in the world until the 5th or 4th century B.C. Before then the human race was bicameral or semi bicameral. The god part of the brain simply led or advised. The strongest emotion was wonder.

“The presence of these voices which had to be obeyed was the pre-requisite to the conscious stage of the mind in which the self is responsible and can debate within itself, can order and direct. The creation of such a self is the product of culture.)

http://www.greatnewstory.com/web/read/89.html

Godless.

[cole grey]

Atheism is a belief system about religion, which looks like it would fall under definition #2 above, but if you actually think about it, a belief system about science need not be a scientific belief system.
Semantics.
Perhaps it is best to call atheism a "meta-religion".

EDIT -
godless- again you place religious belief in the realm of the insane, which puts the majority of humanity in the category of the insane, and, while I wish there were more people out of touch with our current mode of reality, this is simply not the case. Insanity implies an aberration from the norm, and if insanity is the norm, the standard is likely being misapplied. Hence, you are likely misapplying.

[Also Known As]

Once again, a lack of belief is not a belief (or a "belief system").

I have no idea how the cosmos was created (if if instead, it has always existed) , or what (if any) purpose it has. How does that qualify as a "belief sytem"?

Christianity, and all other religions that I'm aware of have all of the credibility of worshipping a giant Hostess Twinkie ® as the creator of the cosmos.

If you say a creator made the universe, what created the creator? If the answer is "I don't know", why not save a step and say "I don't know how the universe was created. If the answer is "The creator has always existed", why not save a step, and say the universe has always existed.- Carl Sagan

[cool skill]

Once again please get over your lack of belief idiodicy. There is no point in clinging to something that gets you nowhere. We've already seen what an idiot carl sagan made of himself with his rediculous baldness and hair color comparison.


Godless,
I never said that defending your position is what makes atheists fanatics.

"Thus it apparently seems that most only accept their religious faith, because they know no better, nor ever had the interest to seek other's opinions."
Such as is for blinded atheistic faith and any other belief one comes to without thought. What your doing is imposing this whole idea that singles out atheism as different from any other religion and claiming that you are not acting fanatical, but simply defending your position.

Defending your the atheist position and only your position that there is no such thing as any God is not what makes a fanatical atheist.
What makes you fanatical is you imposing your psychotic ideals and dogmas about atheism being in anyway different from any other belief/conclusion about the existence of God.

All religions have blind scatter brain zealots, including atheism. Especially atheism.
All religions seek to impose their way as the end all truth and light including atheism. Especially atheism.
All religions have psycho fanatics that want to place their religion at the forefront of all else none more especially so than atheists.

You yourself made a fanatical claim that religion does not belong in a science forum. That is no less absolutely obsurd than a christian claiming that anything non-christian does not belong in a science forum.

You yourself go through this entire stint on how religious people follow without thought or blind faith. That's nice. But it's no less obsurd than a muslim running around claiming that anybody that isn't a muslim follow without thought or blind faith.

You are fanatically singling out atheism over other religions with in your own blind faith and zeal.

[cole grey]

also known as says - "Christianity, and all other religions that I'm aware of have all of the credibility of worshipping a giant Hostess Twinkie ® as the creator of the cosmos."

The statement made above is a belief about religion.
That does not necessarily make it a religious belief, but it cannot be denied that it is a belief (i.e. something you think), (unless it is a lie of course), nor can it be said that it is not about religion.

[cool skill]

The atheist is not fanatical for stating their belief and defending their belief.

It's when they claim their belief is righteous over all others is when they get out of hand.

Should a science forum give preference to an atheist theme over a theist theme? Of course not. It would be rediculous to give preference to either belief.

Should we consider atheism an exception to the common chracteristic that when you have a religious belief there are blind followers that accept it at face value? It would be rediculous to claim that atheism is exempt from that.

[Also Known As]

A lack of belief requires no defense. A lack of a belief requires no proof. A belief requires a defense. A belief requires proof.

Saying I don't know how the universe was created requires no proof. If you say that you do know how the universe was created, we're all waiting. Show us the evidence.Show us the theory, the facts that you have to back it up.

The moment science lapses into dogma, it ceases to be science. Yes, sometime even brilliant scientists can become blinded by what they desire to be true, and make efforts to suppress contradictory evidence. They are human after all, and humans crave certainty. But true science is self correcting, and (so far at least) facts have eventually won the day.

All any religion that I'm aware of has to offer are arguments from authority.

Cole, I do believe in the concept of objective reality. All of my other "beliefs" spring from that. I'll admit to the possibility that all I experience is an illusion, but I don't think so. I do hold my senses in some doubt though. I've been very sure of things that were not true, and have been sure I'd seen things that turned out later to not be there. But doubt is good.

It will be seen that minds do not create truth or falsehood. They create beliefs, but when once the beliefs are created, the mind cannot make them true or false, except in the special case where they concern future things which are within the power of the person believing, such as catching trains. What makes a belief true is a fact, and this fact does not (except in exceptional cases) in any way involve the mind of the person who has the belief.

http://philosophy.hku.hk/think/phil/russell/12.php

[Godless]

That was a good article AKA.

CS

The atheist is not fanatical for stating their belief and defending their belief.

It's when they claim their belief is righteous over all others is when they get out of hand.

True that, but I've not stated that the atheistic stance is "righteous" All I've done basically is demonstrated a case of were religious origins basically have begun. Take it or leave it, I've not claimed that atheism is the way of the future, but if the human spicies is to survive past the nuclear threshold, religious dogma must stay out of science and government. There's no such thing as "scientific proofs or evidence of any ancient religious myth" That is to remain on the personal "belief". No doctor can cure you with prayer, if he lacked the education to be a doctor, or the practice of a given field of medicine, he'd send you to an expert. Thus theology and medicine makes no sense. The tragedy of this, is when religious fanatics let their children die, because they don't believe in "blood transfussion" they see their kidney failure of a child as the "will of god". Secularists such as I see this as madness.

But of course I know that not all religious people go to such extreme, the above is just an example of the danger of religious fanaticism. The dangers from atheistic fanaticism, are more political. But then again that's just a matter of interpretation. Anything which threatens the status quo of religionists is considered atheistic, and this is not so. i.e. Communism is not an athiestic form of government, but many have the false notion that it is.
Atheism Myths:
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...nat_killed.htm

Should a science forum give preference to an atheist theme over a theist theme? Of course not. It would be rediculous to give preference to either belief.

And I tend to agree with that. All I've done is precent a case.

Now precent the theistic case, without any blibical refference, or any other text of ancient religion. It would be hard to reprecent a case, for the latter, most religiousness is based on "belief" and "faith" of what is written within those ancient texts. While the scientific method, is based on experimentation, and formulating theories. Atheism is derived from the lack of belief in those incredulous assertions of biblical texts, thus the atheists lacks belief in theology. An atheist can't prove that a entity with supreme power exists, we lack the "belief" that such an entity need exist, or that does exist. We have no way to show our case other than scientifically, anthropology is the science of ancient men, and this is what I've demonstrated. I've shown how men thought, religion began to exist, and the reasons as to how it's happened. It's a hypothesis. But with plenty of historical evidence. I've not asked you to become an athiest, I've merely shown you of how I've became one.

"Thus it apparently seems that most only accept their religious faith, because they know no better, nor ever had the interest to seek other's opinions."
Such as is for blinded atheistic faith and any other belief one comes to without thought.

Most people Ah! Most atheists that I've met through the web, come from religious background, this gives the impression that most people who claim to be atheists gave, and give lots of thouht about their stance. Basically what atheism is is lack-of theism, you describe atheism as some form of religious stance, which it is not.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQ...l_religion.htm

Should we consider atheism an exception to the common chracteristic that when you have a religious belief there are blind followers that accept it at face value? It would be rediculous to claim that atheism is exempt from that.

And again, most educated atheists come from one denomination or another of a theological stance, thus most atheists at one time in their lives believed, and had faith, by "thought" by logically thinking stressing, they have basically lost their faith, they take a stance which represents lack of theological belief. So basically atheism is an exception, when people gave up their belief, over thought and logic, reason and intergration of all their education towards deriving to this atheistic stance. However that's not to say that there are some atheists who only take the stance as a form of rebeling against their parents, or the norm, or out of grief, without thougt, and stressing the issue. But as I've demonstrated I'm not one of those.

also known as says - "Christianity, and all other religions that I'm aware of have all of the credibility of worshipping a giant Hostess Twinkie ® as the creator of the cosmos."

God is not a giant twinkie, God is an elephant:

http://everystudent.com/wires/elephant.html

Though the above is a religious message, it dawns on me the difference of religious interpretations amongs different sects. The Jesus coming as the man who could "see the elephant" is basically an assumption. Jesus din't bring any proof of god's existence, he basically is a made up character of ancient past. But as for the analogy presented in the little "blind men" article this is the way I view atheists. We are the one's who have looked, beyond just plain belief, with out assertions, we try and comprehend, without religious faith our existence. We actually see the world as it is, and not as some supernatural phenomenon.

Godless.

[cool skill]

True that, but I've not stated that the atheistic stance is "righteous" All

Yes you have.
Godless: "I do think though that to promote a theist theme in a scientific forum is kind of redundant"

That statement is a self-righteous promotion of atheism. You are not defending in your specific belief. You are speaking out against religion, and claiming atheism as the sole saviour of science.

You are indirectly placing atheism above other religions.
You are making atheism appear as the righteous belief.

Sorry but theism belongs or does not belong in a science forum as much as atheism. If you were to run around claiming that a science forum should not promote an atheist theme, you would be fanatically promoting theism.

Not that there is much wrong with that. What doesn't make sense is your lack of accpetance of your own self righteous attitude.


Godless: "this gives the impression that most people who claim to be atheists gave, and give lots of thouht about their stance."

That cannot be further from the truth. People convert to any religion without the least bit of thought. Especially to atheism.

You are again making the atheist righteous over the theist. It's the typical fanatical reasoning that people converted to your belief "give lots of thought about their stance" while people that convert to christianity, buddhism, muslim, and whatever do not.

If you are going to be fanatically self righteous about your belief, accept it. The fact that you do not accept it makes you appear to be even more self righteous.

How hard is it to say that I hold atheism in light above all theism. I believe that religion has no place in a science forum that would be better off promoting atheism. I'm a fanatical atheist that only considers those that have come to my same conclusions as worthwhile. Let's do away with religion.

[Godless]

Not that there is much wrong with that. What doesn't make sense is your lack of accpetance of your own self righteous attitude.

That atttitude probably stems from my religioust past!.

LOL..

AS if not all theist believe themselves to be self rightious in their stance, yet without any objective real truth, to their incredible assertions. This is science man, can now scientifically convince as all that a god or the supernatural is real.

Godless.

[cool skill]

Like I said self righteous.
I never said there were not many theists that believe are self righteous.
My claim was that many thesits and atheists alike believe them selves self righteous. Especially atheists. Especially your atheist self righteous claims.

[Marc A.C.]

Cooool skiiill. 8)

[ghost7584]

*************
M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

If I went over to the physics or math forums and started presenting my theories, I could see where I'd be bashed or even banned. So, why is it that the religious out there come to the Religion Forum to bash atheists? I personally think that the Religion Forum needs a name change to Religious Theories Forum where the knowledgeable can discuss theoretical issues without getting bashed by the Christians. Perhaps there should be a forum for Christians and other religions where those of like-mind can participate. Or, maybe, a separate forum for atheists? Then the religious can go to the Religion Forum and bash each other as we know they will.

Why did you post this. Are you afraid of religious people? Are you afraid you might be wrong?
Isaac Newton the founder of physics and scientific genius [who also co-invented calculus] was also a Christian believer and a bible scholar. He believed that God created the scientific laws that He was discovering.
"About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
--Sir Isaac Newton
You can read about his beliefs in this book:
Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton.
Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.

[ericwernli]

ghost,
Sir Isaac Newton was probably the smartest man to ever grace the earth. That being said he was from way back in the day. He had no clue the universe was expanding, nor did he have the priviledge of reading Charles Darwin's books. Everyone was religous back then, or you were in a lot of trouble. Look at the religous beliefs of Aristotle or think of the engineer that built the pyramids. Their beliefs are wacked out from today's perspective. If Isaac Newton had grown up today, he would come to the conclusion that there is no god. And he would be right.

[Medicine*Woman]

M*W: "Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?"
*************
ghost7584: Why did you post this. Are you afraid of religious people? Are you afraid you might be wrong?
Isaac Newton the founder of physics and scientific genius [who also co-invented calculus] was also a Christian believer and a bible scholar. He believed that God created the scientific laws that He was discovering. "About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition." --Sir Isaac Newton

You can read about his beliefs in this book:
Manuel, Frank. The Religion of Isaac Newton.
Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.
*************
M*W: I am definitely not "afraid" of Christians. I pity their immaturity and ignorance. I don't care if I am wrong about something. I seek to research and understand the things that I don't understand.

Sir Isaac Newton was not the Christian you think he was. In fact, he was the Grand Master of the Knights Templar. He understood their "hidden knowledge." He may have been a Christian at one time, but anyone who didn't believe they were Christian were executed at that time. So, what Newton claimed and what he really was are diverse.

[Godless]

People kind of forget that in those days, if one was secular, one was a fugitive, if one had a brain of his own, without seeking consult from some church leader, we would consider him/her a heathen. Ah! the dark ages, how little do the christian truly know of those days.

Godless.

[ericwernli]

Back to Cool skill,
It cracks me up how he hangs on the assertion that atheism is a religion. Continued arguments over such a trivial play on words. I will be bold and step forward and say ok, its a religion if you like and yes I want to press my atheist agenda on the public. I truly believe religion is harmful to society in the long term. Yes I do see a lot of good coming from religion in terms of charities, message of peace, etc. But these are things that are coming from the people's "hearts" and should be fostered for the humanist ideals it promotes, not because some God will give you salvation for it at some time. As a society we are probably not ready to accept the responsibilities of the species to progress as a species without God's words and instruction. The only one's who have advanced mentally enough to to it for humanity instead of God are us atheist. That may sound arrogant and rude but at least I am being honest and forthcoming which Cool Skill says we are lacking. Humanity will one day grow out of the need for religion.

[cool skill]

It cracks me up how he hangs on the assertion that atheism is a religion.

Let me guess, you hang on the assertion that it is not?

I truly believe religion is harmful to society in the long term.

Especially atheism.

The only one's who have advanced mentally enough to to it for humanity instead of God are us atheist.

Anothyer self righteous atheist. Can you get anymore typical?

[Godless]

Especially atheism.

Yea! right you mean like this?

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/consequence.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/beast.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/crooks.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fu...s/fund132.html

The day you can get an atheist to commit suitside on his beliefs is the day I shall believe you!.

Godless

[Also Known As]

Stating that a lack of belief in god(s) is not a religion is a statement of fact, plain and simple. It is as controversial as stating that the sky is blue and that grass is green. And as open for debate.

The definition for atheism that we use, put simply, says that atheism is the lack of a god-belief, the absence of theism, to whatever degree and for whatever reason. The one thing that all atheists have in common, according to this definition, is that they are not theists. One either believes one or more of the various claims for the existence of a god or gods (is a theist) or one does not believe any of those claims (is an atheist).

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/f...#WHATISATHEISM

"If someone maintains that the Moon is made of green cheese you do not argue with him; you feel sorry for him". - Bertrand Russell

[jan ardena]

Stating that a lack of belief in god(s) is not a religion is a statement of fact, plain and simple.

Stating a belief in God/gods is not a 'religion'.
Religion is a set of rules and regulations which are to be followed by the adherents. The original religion is God-centered designed to bring the human-being to his full human potential, and this can only be acheived by following the rules and regulations to the letter. Failure to do this means the religion ceases to be God-centered and becomes man centered, or a human/earthly institution.
The current religious institution, humanism/satanism attracts atheists. So atheism itself is not a religion, but humanism/satanism is, and the idea is to convert everyone, as they believe their philosophy/way of life to be truth/fact.

Jan Ardena.

[SkinWalker]

I think I could agree that humanism has religious characteristics, however I would certainly disagree that "satanism attracts atheists," since this would imply a belief in "Satan," a former angel of God. If Satan were to be acknowledged, then, by default, God must exist. Unless, of course, one were to argue that the alleged atheists believe that Satan has killed or otherwise replaced God, but then Satan becomes the deity by default.

Either way, an atheist who believes in Satan and Satanism is not an atheist after all. Indeed, I would argue that this person is of an Abrahamic religious worldview, since Satan exists as a deity in Judeo-Chrisitan and Islamic texts.

[jan ardena]

I think I could agree that humanism has religious characteristics, however I would certainly disagree that "satanism attracts atheists," since this would imply a belief in "Satan," a former angel of God. If Satan were to be acknowledged, then, by default, God must exist. Unless, of course, one were to argue that the alleged atheists believe that Satan has killed or otherwise replaced God, but then Satan becomes the deity by default.

Either way, an atheist who believes in Satan and Satanism is not an atheist after all. Indeed, I would argue that this person is of an Abrahamic religious worldview, since Satan exists as a deity in Judeo-Chrisitan and Islamic texts.

Satanism is not just about worshiping Satan, in fact the majority of satanists do not believe in the supernatural. But they are all anti-christ and anti-god, much like atheists and humanists.

http://www.dpjs.co.uk/modern.html

Jan Ardena.

[SkinWalker]

Saying that it doesn't involve the supernatural doesn't make it any less true. Satanism is about worshiping satan. It is a theistic worldview. It has nothing to do with humanism nor atheism.

You can post any links you wish that state otherwise, but none will make it true. Indeed, I assert that links such as the one you sourced are designed to create an association that doesn't exist between satanism and humanism or atheism, which is a dishonest practice to be sure.

In short. Anyone who believes such an association is either misinformed or intentionally lying.

[Also Known As]

Atheists are not anti god. I'm no more anti god than I am anti unicorn. I'm unaware of any evidence for the existence of either, and I am doubtful of the credibility of anyone who insists that either exist.

[jan ardena]

SkinWalker,

Satanism is about worshiping satan. It is a theistic worldview. It has nothing to do with humanism nor atheism.

It is about taking a anti-christ, anti-God position. One does not need to worship a diety to achieve this.

You can post any links you wish that state otherwise, but none will make it true.

That is an irrational statement.
It is probably the same kind of denial you use regarding God.
Burial of head in sand.

Indeed, I assert that links such as the one you sourced are designed to create an association that doesn't exist between satanism and humanism or atheism, which is a dishonest practice to be sure.

Why?
They are all the same thing when it boils down to it. The point is none of you believe in God.

In short. Anyone who believes such an association is either misinformed or intentionally lying.

Belief doesn't enter into it.
It is obvious.


Also Known As,

Atheists are not anti god. I'm no more anti god than I am anti unicorn.

I'm quite sure some atheists are not anti-god, and you may well be one of them, but the ones that are (and there are plenty) are no different to humanists or satanists, although they would like to think they are.
Do you go on any sights which discuss the existence of unicorns? I bet you don't. Yet you try and put God and unicorns in the same category.

I'm unaware of any evidence for the existence of either, and I am doubtful of the credibility of anyone who insists that either exist.

Well don't waste yours, mine or anybody elses time in discussion regarding God.

[Also Known As]

Unfortunately I live in a world where I have to deal with people who treat the imaginary as though it actually exists. I'm unaware of anyone trying to insist on the existence of Unicorns being taught in a biology class. But I'm well aware of Christian types trying to have their fairy tales taught in biology classes.

I'm unaware of any websites that advocate the existence of Unicorns. I wouldn't be too surprised if they exist, I know that there are sites that insist the world is actually flat. God and Unicorns are in the same category. Both have zero empirical evidence for their existence.

But I'm posting on a forum dedicated to science. Anyone who dislikes having their irrationality pointed out comes here at their own risk.

[SkinWalker]

Atheists not only reject gods (Yahweh, Elohim, Ba'al, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Fei Lian, Shiva, Anshar, Osiris, Baldur, etc.) but the supernatural in general.

Satanism requires heavy use of the supernatural. And, while your link states that "Satan" isn't the satanic god/deity, it is clearly not true even from reading that link.

"There is indeed, great power In magic, but one must be prepared to take advantage of this power (LaVey 1969)."

Clearly, LaVey is assuming the existence of some power that exists beyond what is natural or can be explained by science.

"This is why the Devil has always had it so easy, ruling the world. The spiritual, the higher planes, the concert of God, is basically an intellectual development, an idealistic invention—and must be thought about in order to function. On the other hand the necessities, desires, indulgences, and compulsions are purely emotional and need no analysis to put them into operation! Therefore the aspiring witch or warlock should learn well the importance of emotional appeal (LaVey 1969) "

The "Devil" (Satan) is personalized and assumed a deity (he "rules the world"). Additional mention of the supernatural in the assumption that people can truly aspire to be witches or warlocks.

As an anthropologist, however, what I find most intriguing about the Satanic Religion is that morality still finds its way in the society. Certainly, a devout Christian who has always been taught that Satan is pure evil and that "Satanists" worship their leige by commiting acts of evil would expect that the Satanic Bible's equivalent of the Ten Commandments to be in direct opposition of biblical principle (i.e. instead of "Thou Shalt not Kill," there would be "Kill when able to get away with it" or some such extreme rule).

Yet, when we examine LaVey's bible, it opens with a list of sins which include: stupidity, pretentiousness, slopsism, self-decit, herd conformity, lack of perspective, forgetfulness of past orthodoxies, counterproductive pride, and lack of aesthetics (LaVey 1987).

Likewise, LaVey's The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth give some rules for the society to follow. They deal with showing respect and courtesy to others and for dealing with those that are treating the Satanist badly. Among them are rules prohibiting unwelcome sexual advances, prohibitions of harming children, and of harming non-human animals. Though the rules encourage harming those that have harmed the Satanist -only after asking the assailant to stop first, however (LaVey 1967)!

One would expect that those that worship Satan, the figure and representative of all that is evil in the Christian worldview, to encourage violence and evil acts. And yet they don't.

From an atheistic perspective, this is obviously because morality and social order is a human or even a natural imperative, not a religious or supernatural one. Even among non-human primate societies, social order is often strictly adhered to and politics are evident.

Jan Ardena
It [Satanism] is about taking a anti-christ, anti-God position. One does not need to worship a diety to achieve this.

One need not worship a deity, but one does need to acknowledge the deity as actually existing. Otherwise, there would be no reason to be oppossed to said deity. You and I are both atheistic with regard to the existence of Thor, Ba'al, and Quetzalcoatl (assuming that you've heard of any of these gods). I go a step further and refuse to acknowledge the existence of the white-man's gods (Yahweh, Elohim, Jesus, Allah, Satan, etc.). The Satanist acknowledges the existence of at least two of these -one being Satan. It is from the latter deity that the Satanist believes his/her magic originates.

"My daughter constantly badgers me on the topic of magic. Knowing that she and I are both witches, she continuously asks me to “teach her magic.” So I came up with a fun “ritual” which she can perform before bedtime that is simple and effective for her—and has relieved some of the badgering. When she reaches a maturity level that will enable her to see further possibilities of her inner power, I may offer her more, Satan willing . . . (Gage 1995).

Jan Ardena (quoting me)
"You can post any links you wish that state otherwise, but none will make it true. "

That is an irrational statement

Irrational? So, if I post links to a site that says the earth is flat, then it suddenly has credibility? There is a clear agenda among Christian leaders to "demonize" those things in society that they deem immoral or against their doctrine and dogma. This is for the purpose of creating an "other" which can act as a common enemy for a given Christian cult's members. This "other" can be gays, drug users, satanists, atheists, liberals (a church in North or South Carolina recently gained publicity when its pastor announced that anyone who voted Democrat was unwelcome in the congregation), etc. Many Christian cults combine one or more of these groups often using fallacious statements like non sequitors in the attempt.

Much like: "They are all the same thing when it boils down to it. The point is none of you believe in God." Clearly a non-sequitor since atheists do not believe in any supernatural force whereas the satanist clearly does as I demonstrated above. The verbage in their doctrines are contridictory, some anthropomorphize Satan as a single, anthropomorphic deity. Other passages in the same texts claim that Satan isn't a single deity but the "force of nature" or the "sense of self" in all people. But, if this were strictly adhered to, it would be Deism, not atheism.

Jan Ardena
I'm quite sure some atheists are not anti-god, and you may well be one of them, but the ones that are (and there are plenty)

I think you confuse "anti-god" with "anti-religious establishment."

In order to oppose a deity, you must acknowledge the deity to begin with. God, most probably doesn't exist, particularly not in the manner that the White-man has invented by borrowing and stealing attributes and characteristics from the gods of other, older cultures of the world. Atheists don't oppose the Christian god (it doesn't exist), they oppose the believers of this god (they do exist). Not all atheists actively oppose theists. I would bet that most don't, but if you travel science and religion internet boards, you will certainly meet many of those that do.

I'm always amazed when Christians encounter those that question their beliefs and appear affronted when they are opposed.

If those that belong to Christian cults want to proslytize in boards like this or discuss their beliefs and distaste for atheism, they must be prepared for rebuttal and criticism. Not that you aren't.

To compare atheism with satanism is a non-sequitor. It doesn't follow in the least that atheism is equivalent to satanism. Nor does it follow that humanism is equivalent to satanism. Members of each group may agree with one or more points or beliefs, but that doesn't imply equality. I agree with much of the teachings of the alleged Christ. I'm not christian.

References:

Gage, Lydia (1995). Encouraging Magical Concepts. Found on the Church of Satan website.

LaVey, Anton (1967). The Eleven Satanic Rules of the Earth.

LaVey, Anton (1969). Letters from the Devil. The National Insider Vol. 14, No. 17

LaVey, Anton (1987). The Nine Satanic Sins. From: The Satanic Bible

[jan ardena]

Also Known As,

Unfortunately I live in a world where I have to deal with people who treat the imaginary as though it actually exists.

Who can imagine God?

God and Unicorns are in the same category. Both have zero empirical evidence for their existence.

You're an atheist, what else can you think. Atheists do not believe in God. They see everything from a material perspective, and if they can't see God, then He simple does not exist. That is your lot.

But I'm posting on a forum dedicated to science. Anyone who dislikes having their irrationality pointed out comes here at their own risk.

If you think i'm irrational because I believe in God, then you have ended the debate before it has begun.
If you are open-minded then please try and point out my irrationality, if you can.

Jan Ardena.

[Also Known As]

The religions I'm aware of seem to be mostlly composed of imagining god; though they seem to give a "supreme being" many very human thoughts and motives.

But I enjoy Jack Handey's vision of a deity more than most:

I'll be the first to admit that my idea of God is pretty different. I believe in a God with a long white beard, a gold crown, and a long robe with lots of shiny jewels on it. He sits on a big throne in the clouds, and He's about five hundred feet tall. He talks in a real deep voice like "I...AM...GOD!" He can blow up stuff just by looking at it. This is my own, personal idea of God.

http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4...pthoughts.html

I often fall back on the idea of a giant Hostess Twinkie ® as the creator of the universe. Hostess ® bakers were guided by the hand of god (ok, a Twinkie ® has no hands; we'll say "will of god") to recreate Him in a consumable form.

I say a giant Hostess Twinkie ® created the Cosmos. Prove me wrong.

[jan ardena]

The religions I'm aware of seem to be mostlly composed of imagining god; though they seem to give a "supreme being" many very human thoughts and motives.

But I enjoy Jack Handey's vision of a deity more than most:

I'll be the first to admit that my idea of God is pretty different. I believe in a God with a long white beard, a gold crown, and a long robe with lots of shiny jewels on it. He sits on a big throne in the clouds, and He's about five hundred feet tall. He talks in a real deep voice like "I...AM...GOD!" He can blow up stuff just by looking at it. This is my own, personal idea of God.

http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/4...pthoughts.html

I often fall back on the idea of a giant Hostess Twinkie ® as the creator of the universe. Hostess ® bakers were guided by the hand of god (ok, a Twinkie ® has no hands; we'll say "will of god") to recreate Him in a consumable form.

I say a giant Hostess Twinkie ® created the Cosmos. Prove me wrong.

You're an atheist.
You're allowed to believe what you like.
Why spoil your fun?

Jan Ardena.

[jan ardena]

SkinWalker,

Atheists not only reject gods (Yahweh, Elohim, Ba'al, Zeus, Quetzalcoatl, Fei Lian, Shiva, Anshar, Osiris, Baldur, etc.) but the supernatural in general.

Atheists reject what they don't understand.

And, while your link states that "Satan" isn't the satanic god/deity, it is clearly not true even from reading that link.

Either you reject or deny. Such a pathetic position.

Clearly, LaVey is assuming the existence of some power that exists beyond what is natural or can be explained by science.

So what?
Scientific method is but one form of collecting knowledge. Only a foolish person assumes it is the be all end all of knowledge.

The "Devil" (Satan) is personalized and assumed a deity (he "rules the world"). Additional mention of the supernatural in the assumption that people can truly aspire to be witches or warlocks.

Read it again and this time use your own 'human' intelligence to try and understand what he means. Rather than defaulting to dogma.

As an anthropologist, however, what I find most intriguing about the Satanic Religion is that morality still finds its way in the society.

Moral rhetoric always finds its way into all systems which try to recruit people. Learn to read between the lines.

One would expect that those that worship Satan, the figure and representative of all that is evil in the Christian worldview, to encourage violence and evil acts. And yet they don't.

That is already being encouraged through television, computer games and cinemas.

From an atheistic perspective, this is obviously because morality and social order is a human or even a natural imperative, not a religious or supernatural one.

An atheist perspective is seriously limited.

Even among non-human primate societies, social order is often strictly adhered to and politics are evident.

Through fear.

Must go, time is short. I will finish this later.

Jan Ardena.

[ghost7584]

*************
M*W: Why is it that Christians and other religious folks infiltrate scientific forums? Is it from a genuine interest? Could it be to learn about atheism? Or could it be just to arrogantly argue with the non-religious? Yet, when presented with a scientific platform on man-made religious beliefs, they get so offended?

If I went over to the physics or math forums and started presenting my theories, I could see where I'd be bashed or even banned. So, why is it that the religious out there come to the Religion Forum to bash atheists? I personally think that the Religion Forum needs a name change to Religious Theories Forum where the knowledgeable can discuss theoretical issues without getting bashed by the Christians. Perhaps there should be a forum for Christians and other religions where those of like-mind can participate. Or, maybe, a separate forum for atheists? Then the religious can go to the Religion Forum and bash each other as we know they will.

Isaac Newton, the founder of physics and coinventor of calculus was a Christian believer and a bible scholar. He (correctly) believed that God created the scientific laws he was discovering.
Since Newton is probably a far better scientist than you will ever be:
Don't try to hide behind science to support your atheism.
[George Washington Carver, a scientist and Christian, would ask God to show him secrets of the universe. He invented hundreds of uses for peanuts and sweet potatoes. Crayons is one of his inventions.]

"About the time of the End, a body of men will be raised up who will turn their attention to the prophecies, and insist on their literal interpretation in the midst of much clamor and opposition."
--Sir Isaac Newton
Manuel, Frank E. The Religion of Isaac Newton . Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1974. ISBN 0-19-826640-5.
Find that book to read about Newton.

[Also Known As]

Yay, an Appeal to Authority fallacy!

That some good scientists manage to believe in some sort of deity really means nothing. Scientists opinions have no more weight than a garbage man's when it comes to the realm of fairies, Santa Claus, and other things for which there is no empirical evidence.

[cool skill]

Especially atheism.

Yea! right you mean like this?

http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/consequence.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/beast.html

http://www.holysmoke.org/haught/crooks.html

http://www.rickross.com/reference/fu...s/fund132.html

Yes. Just like that. Fanatical indeed.

Stating that a lack of belief in god(s) is not a religion is a statement of fact, plain and simple. It is as controversial as stating that the sky is blue and that grass is green. And as open for debate.

Wrong. Try again.

Either way, an atheist who believes in Satan and Satanism is not an atheist after all.

Sorry, but it's still atheism.

Atheists are not anti god.

Yes they are. Where have you been? Perhaps not on planet earth?

But I'm posting on a forum dedicated to science. Anyone who dislikes having their irrationality pointed out comes here at their own risk.

You are a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist.

[Also Known As]

Back to the Argument Sketch, eh Coolskill? The most important part:

M: No you didn't.
A: Yes I did.
M: You didn't.
A: Did.
M: Oh look, this isn't an argument.
A: Yes it is.
M: No it isn't. It's just contradiction.
A: No it isn't.
M: It is!
A: It is not.
M: Look, you just contradicted me.
A: I did not.
M: Oh you did!!
A: No, no, no.
M: You did just then.
A: Nonsense!
M: Oh, this is futile!
A: No it isn't.
M: I came here for a good argument.
A: No you didn't; no, you came here for an argument.
M: An argument isn't just contradiction.
A: It can be.
M: No it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements intended to establish a proposition.
A: No it isn't.
M: Yes it is! It's not just contradiction.
A: Look, if I argue with you, I must take up a contrary position.
M: Yes, but that's not just saying 'No it isn't.'
A: Yes it is!
M: No it isn't!

A: Yes it is!
M: Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of any statement the other person makes.
(short pause)
A: No it isn't.

If you wish to dispute an assertion, you'll have to come up with something better than "Yes it is". Or you can continue to amuse me.

[HomoUniversalis]

Please refrain from flaming each other and stick to the topic of discussion.

This:

You are a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist.

will not be tolerated. Please return to discussion immediately.

Here, let me help:

atheist, n. (and a.)

A. n.

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

[a1568 COVERDALE Hope of Faithf. Pref. Wks. II. 139 Eat we and drink we lustily; to-morrow we shall die: which all the epicures protest openly, and the Italian atheoi.] 1571 GOLDING Calvin on Ps. Ep. Ded. 3 The Atheistes which say..there is no God. 1604 ROWLANDS Looke to it 23 Thou damned Athist..That doest deny his power which did create thee. 1709 SHAFTESBURY Charac. I. I. §2 (1737) II. 11 To believe nothing of a designing Principle or Mind, nor any Cause, Measure, or Rule of Things, but Chance..is to be a perfect Atheist. 1876 GLADSTONE in Contemp. Rev. June 22 By the Atheist I understand the man who not only holds off, like the sceptic, from the affirmative, but who drives himself, or is driven, to the negative assertion in regard to the whole Unseen, or to the existence of God.



2. One who practically denies the existence of a God by disregard of moral obligation to Him; a godless man.

1577 HANMER Anc. Eccl. Hist. 63 The opinion which they conceaue of you, to be Atheists, or godlesse men. 1660 STANLEY Hist. Philos. 323/2 An Atheist is taken two ways, for him who is an enemy to the Gods, and for him who believeth there are no Gods. 1667 MILTON P.L. I. 495 When the Priest Turns Atheist, as did Ely's Sons. 1827 HARE Guesses Ser. I. (1873) 27 Practically every man is an atheist, who lives without God in the world.



B. attrib. as adj. Atheistic, impious.

1667 MILTON P.L. VI. 370 The Atheist crew. 1821 LOCKHART Valerino II. xi. 316 Borne from its wounded breast an atheist cry Hath pierced the upper and the nether sky.

Mr U

[Perfect]

Please refrain from flaming each other and stick to the topic of discussion.

This:

You are a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist.

will not be tolerated. Please return to discussion immediately.

I wan't to devour your soul!

Nah.. I don't eat fast food.


But seriously, what if he truly is a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist?

Then it's golden.

[jan ardena]

HomoUniversalis,

1. One who denies or disbelieves the existence of a God.

An atheist will not accept that as the only definition, because it is a foolish position. But that is the proper definition.

Jan Ardena.

[HomoUniversalis]

Please refrain from flaming each other and stick to the topic of discussion.

This:

You are a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist.

will not be tolerated. Please return to discussion immediately.

I wan't to devour your soul!

Nah.. I don't eat fast food.


But seriously, what if he truly is a self-righteous anti-religion fanatic atheist?

Then it's golden.

That, or I'll juggle three golden appels with καλλιχτι on them and sing tales around the campfire of times long gone.

An atheist will not accept that as the only definition, because it is a foolish position. But that is the proper definition.

Like most theists, most atheists are mediocre. The definition of the word atheist is the above-mentioned. The core-believes extracted from this knowledge has little to do with the original word. The word, in comparison, theist has nothing to do with the holy trinity.

Oh, and please, elaborate, why is it a foolish position? I for one disbelieve the existence of God, just like I disbelieve the existence of other objects whose existence can not be (scientifically) proven.

Mr U

[jan ardena]

HomoUniversalis,

Oh, and please, elaborate, why is it a foolish position?

Because there is no reason to dis-believe.
The term foolish is not meant as a insult.

I for one disbelieve the existence of God, just like I disbelieve the existence of other objects whose existence can not be (scientifically) proven.

Unless your talking about some other being with the name of God, who is not mentioned in any bona-fide religion, I fail to see how you can call God an object, who can be tested via the scientific method.
No dis-respect to you or anybody, but I find this a foolish position. It is like trying to find yourself by going round asking people if they have seen you.

Jan Ardena.

[cool skill]

Or you can continue to amuse me.

Sorry, but I did not read your long pointless quote. You would be amused be such pointlessness. It does not make you valid. Your points are just as invalid as ever.
Worthless.

Here, let me help:

Nobody needs your pointless help.
You are bias. Next time you ask people to refrain from flaming, try posting the other party's flames instead of just mine.
If you are going to tell people to stop flaming, direct it at everybody instead of posting my point.
Because you only posted my point as the example, you are saying that I am not alloweed to flame, but others are.
We all know atheists are bias.
If they are allowed to flame, I am allowed to flame also.
Try applying the rules to everybody instead of just me. The only thing that is not tolerated is a typical bias atheist that restricts one person just because he does not agree with the views.

I for one disbelieve the existence of God

Typical disbelief assertion. It does not work. It has no bearing on anything. The term "disbelief" is useless, and therefore, obselete. It only makes your argument appear loaded, and influenced by false atheist doctrine. The statement, "I do not believe in the existence of God," would be more accurate and appropriate.

[Mesocyclone]

I for one disbelieve the existence of God, just like I disbelieve the existence of other objects whose existence can not be (scientifically) proven.

"Science is based on the principles of truth." -- "Religions are based on the principles of theological virtue."

Based on those two statements, even though I'm partially religious, I too have to agree with you, HomoUniversalis. Because, all-in-all, it still takes science to prove that such things exist, even if it is off our comprehension list.

But yet...

I truly believe in unexplained higher forces: (or god-like) if you will. Let's say I'm wrong and there's god/s - goddesses, that are deem such an importance. It still really woudn't matter much, because by definition, a "god" is said to be perfect. Unfortunately, the UNIVERSE is created imperfectly. So, whatever is out there would be by my standards less than a god stature.

Even said that, let's say it's supposed to be like this, I still stand by my ascertains. Because it's evidently so.

[geezer]

Cool skill, I've noticed on several scientfic forums, you getting yourself bashed by the moderators, for constant flaming, cant you see that it can only be you, who's causing the problem.
if it was one site you could say, it was unfair but two or more is just, self inflicted.

[cool skill]

Geezer, that argument is so full of fallacy, it's not even worth anything. Go flaming elsewhere. You do nothing but support bias. You must be bias yourself.

[Also Known As]

Yeah Geezer, you, you BIAS you!

[invert_nexus]

Of course, you realize what he's doing? He's trying to draw people to attack his grammar. Be wary of Anus Technique #14. Next comes the "Yo Mama" insults.

[cool skill]

Yeah Geezer, you, you BIAS you!

Troll.

Of course, you realize what he's doing? He's trying to draw people to attack his grammar. Be wary of Anus Technique #14. Next comes the "Yo Mama" insults.

Troll.

[cool skill]

HAHAHAHA.
It's funny when I do something the bias moderators start attacking me, but when the trolls start flaming, they do nothing.

[Also Known As]

For the love of pete, the word is biased.

So why is it you don't believe in Odin? Though the great Twinkie ® can kick Odin's ass. And any other deity you can think of. One squirt of sweet creamy goodness to the eyes, then straight for the nads while they are blinded. It's teh most kickazz deity evar!

[cool skill]

I guess you fail to realize that it makes no difference what the word is. The fact still remains. In other words, atheists are allowed to flame. The topic itself is MW's typical fanatical rant against religion.

In fact, it seems as if the more self-righteous, fanatical, and obsessed an atheist is, the more she tends claim that atheists are not self-righteous, fanatical, and psychotic.

[SkinWalker]

SkinWalker,
Atheists reject what they don't understand.

Your position seems to clearly be biased by the blinders of failing to look past the core beliefs of your own religious dogma. My position, however, is one that is anthropological in that I'm interested less in what a religion or cult wants for itself or others and more in what can actually be said to be true about a religion or cult.

While I can see how someone who is devoted to their religion would consider this logic to be flawed and even biased itself, I contend that it is the least biased of our two positions. The religious blinders create a need to see one's own religious worldview as correct –righteous even. The anthropological perspective considers that all religious worldviews have equal chance of being right or wrong. Even as an anthropologist, however, I acknowledge that there are those religions and worldviews that seem more alien than others. I'm opposed, for instance, to sacrificing a hen and using it's blood in ritual (Santeria) or with handling serpents (Presbyterians in West Va.). Yet I recognize and respect that these people see this as appropriate rituals for their faiths. I'm less affronted by confessing sins with a priest or enduring a sweat ceremony (Plains Indians), perhaps because I can see the psychological and spiritual benefits.

The main point is, I don’t regard my worldview –that gods are the creation of man, not vice versa- as the only possible one. I believe it to be correct, but I respect those that believe differently up to the point that they begin to impose their beliefs as fact on others, while suppressing or oppressing beliefs of other worldviews and religions.

Having said all that, I think your comments above are clearly biased by the limitations of your worldview. You say that atheists reject "that which they don't understand," but I'm curious, don't you reject gods like Ba'al, Zeus, and Osiris? If so, then doesn't this place you in the same category of "rejecting that which you do not understand?" Each of these gods was once considered legitimate and each was believed to be gods for periods that lasted longer than the current god of Christianity.

I'm also unclear on how "rejecting" and "denying" can be necessarily "pathetic." Would that not also imply that you are "pathetic" (assuming that you do reject the gods mentioned above)?

You say, "[s]cientific method is but one form of collecting knowledge." What other forms of collecting knowledge are there? Until such time as this can be answered, science is the only method by which to collect knowledge. All other methods, which do not involve observation, deduction, and inference, followed by testing of the data collected, cannot exist. Knowledge must be observed, whether this is through instruction or by personal induction or deduction. If another method of gaining knowledge exists, by all means, share it with the world.

I've demonstrated quite readily that Satanism is not synonymous with atheism. Wanting it to be so, or wishing it were so will not make so. Restating that it is also doesn't make it any truer of a statement. Satanism involves the belief in a deity, even if you accept that Satanism is deism. Atheism is, quite literally, the lack of belief in any deities.

What's clear, however, is that those thoroughly indoctrinated in a dogma or doctrine (which atheism, in general, does not have) such as modern Christianity or Islam wish to equate all infidels in one lump demographic. An "infidel" being one that doesn't believe in your god, whichever that may be. Doing so serves to galvanize the cult's membership by creating an "Other" which is the common enemy.

What's also clear, is that theists that follow the Abrahamic religions appear to have sincere difficulty with understanding why a person could choose to be atheistic. But is this really any different than any of the other cultural memes that exist? I have a difficult time understanding why men of the Yali tribe in Papa New Guinea wear gourds on their penises, yet I must remind myself that this is a custom reinforced from early childhood and every Yali male believes it to be the proper way to display the penis. I was lucky enough not to be raised in a household where religion was more than just casual and occasional mention of "God" or "Jesus." Had I been raised in a family that attended church regularly and prayed at all meals, it's very likely that it would have taken far more knowledge of human culture and religion before I acknowledged my atheism.

Please don't go thinking that I in anyway agree with the Anton LeVay cult. I don't. But I also have no fears that this is some evil cult preying on innocent lives of children or that they exist to be anything more than a refuge for outcast teens that can't catch baseballs. As far as "reading between the lines" goes, this, perhaps, is one of the problems with modern Christianity as well as other religions. They "read" too much into things. But, again, this is the apparent agenda of the priestly caste: to galvanize the membership and create an enemy in the form of an "Other."

The last thing I'd like to address is your response to my statement about non-human primates and the adherence to social order and politics that is evident. Your response was, "through fear," and not only was it an unfounded response, ignorant of any real study in primate evolution, but it is also one that is short-sighted. Is it fear that drives a childless female chimpanzee to adopt an orphan? Is it fear that motivates bonobos to groom each other or to provide food to slower, less able members of their society?

I could go on, but my only goal is to point out the problem of making assumptions about the world rather than making observations. Theism is far more biased than atheism, but understandably so. Theism, particularly monotheism, implies that one worldview automatically trumps all others. Atheism, might imply the same, but that worldview doesn't include dogma and doctrine, nor does it include an agenda to bend the world to its own view.

[jan ardena]

SkinWalker,

Your position seems to clearly be biased by the blinders of failing to look past the core beliefs of your own religious dogma.

And what are my core beliefs and religious dogma?
Have we ever discussed them?

My position, however, is one that is anthropological..

And mine isn’t?

… in that I'm interested less in what a religion or cult wants for itself or others and more in what can actually be said to be true about a religion or cult.

There’s no point in separating one issue from the other. It is the equivalent of separating supply from demand.

While I can see how someone who is devoted to their religion would consider this logic to be flawed and even biased itself, I contend that it is the least biased of our two positions.

Because people are devoted to a particular religion doesn’t follow that they think the same way. Some religionists believe in the theory of evolution some don’t.
But your logic is hopelessly flawed because as an atheist you have to assume that God does not exist.

The anthropological perspective considers that all religious worldviews have equal chance of being right or wrong.

That means nothing.

I'm opposed, for instance, to sacrificing a hen and using it's blood in ritual (Santeria) or with handling serpents (Presbyterians in West Va.).

I’m not exactly nuts about them myself. But then, I’m not nuts about maintaining slaughter-houses, or feeling the need to copulate and/or marry horses and the like.

…because I can see the psychological and spiritual benefits.

What do you regard as “spiritual benefit?�

The main point is, I don’t regard my worldview –that gods are the creation of man, not vice versa- as the only possible one. I believe it to be correct,

At what point would you deem it incorrect?
What scientific evidence would lead you this conclusion.

but I respect those that believe differently up to the point that they begin to impose their beliefs as fact on others, while suppressing or oppressing beliefs of other worldviews and religions.

I think that goes for anybody.

Having said all that, I think your comments above are clearly biased by the limitations of your worldview.

Excuse me, but I don’t recall discussing my world views with you. Or is it that you automatically know what I think?

You say that atheists reject "that which they don't understand," but I'm curious, don't you reject gods like Ba'al, Zeus, and Osiris?

I neither reject, nor accept them.

If so, then doesn't this place you in the same category of "rejecting that which you do not understand?"

There is no point in rejecting things you don’t understand. It makes more sense to understand them, then on the basis of that understanding, reject or accept.

Each of these gods was once considered legitimate and each was believed to be gods for periods that lasted longer than the current god of Christianity.

Whether they are ‘legitimate’ or not, is only a point of view.

I'm also unclear on how "rejecting" and "denying" can be necessarily "pathetic." Would that not also imply that you are "pathetic" (assuming that you do reject the gods mentioned above)?

With regards to the ‘Satanist site’, you flatly denied what was written, even though it was written by ‘Santanist’, who should by all accounts know what it is they believe.
You reject God purely on the basis that He does not fit into your worldview. There is no reason to deny or reject either of these.

You say, "[s]cientific method is but one form of collecting knowledge." What other forms of collecting knowledge are there?

Well let me put it to you this way.
What effect does the scientific method have on our day to day lives?
Is everything you say, feel, or do in some way connected to the scientific method?
Do you know anything that has not been approved by the scientific method?

Until such time as this can be answered, science is the only method by which to collect knowledge.

The knowledge collected by this method is not the highest knowledge, it is, at best, good and useful information to gain clearer understanding of real knowledge such as, who/what am I, what happens when I die perishes, and does God exist and if so, what is my relationship with Him. Scientific method cannot answer these question fully.

All other methods, which do not involve observation, deduction, and inference, followed by testing of the data collected, cannot exist.

Can you see now why I regard you as biased?

Knowledge must be observed, whether this is through instruction or by personal induction or deduction.

That is not exclusive to the scientific method. If I want some knowledge regarding physics, chemistry or biology I will respect the method, but I am not going disregard, reject or deny a subject because this method (by its very nature) cannot provide any knowledge of it.
The choice, is not only way beyond the boundaries of modern science, but is painfully simple. Either you believe in God or you don’t.

If another method of gaining knowledge exists, by all means, share it with the world.

It is not a case of another method, it is a case of what knowledge you wish to seek.

I've demonstrated quite readily that Satanism is not synonymous with atheism. Wanting it to be so, or wishing it were so will not make so.

You’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort. It is evidently clear that your understanding of God or the spiritual aspect of living beings is shallow.

Restating that it is also doesn't make it any truer of a statement. Satanism involves the belief in a deity, even if you accept that Satanism is deism. Atheism is, quite literally, the lack of belief in any deities.

Did you not read the site.? They clearly stated that Satanism regards the biblical Satan as a myth and they are attracted to the fact that the mythological person was against the mythological Jesus. In short they hate Christianity. There is a side of Satanism called ‘religious satanism’ where they worship Satan, but this is a minority.

What's also clear, is that theists that follow the Abrahamic religions appear to have sincere difficulty with understanding why a person could choose to be atheistic.

Some, maybe, but not all.

I was lucky enough not to be raised in a household where religion was more than just casual and occasional mention of "God" or "Jesus."

Why do you regard yourself as lucky when it is so clear that you have serious limitations of understandings, regarding God?
Do you think that every person who is religious, is the same?

Had I been raised in a family that attended church regularly and prayed at all meals, it's very likely that it would have taken far more knowledge of human culture and religion before I acknowledged my atheism.

What is there to acknowledge? You don’t and never did believe in God and from what I can gather, your household never believed in God.
How does one acknowledge atheism?

As far as "reading between the lines" goes, this, perhaps, is one of the problems with modern Christianity as well as other religions. They "read" too much into things. Other."

Maybe they do, maybe they don’t, but that has nothing to do with God, it is more about individual characters.

Is it fear that drives a childless female chimpanzee to adopt an orphan? Is it fear that motivates bonobos to groom each other or to provide food to slower, less able members of their society?

Do these societies have leaders?
How do they become leaders?
Are they not fearful of preditors?
What would happen if a minion encroached on the leaders property, ie females and territory?

I could go on, but my only goal is to point out the problem of making assumptions about the world rather than making observations.

What you describe is infrastructure which occurs when all is well, but the society itself is based on fear/might.

Theism is far more biased than atheism, but understandably so. Theism, particularly monotheism, implies that one worldview automatically trumps all others.

Theism is a belief in God, atheism is non-belief in God. They are opposite ends of a particular spectrum. It is people that are biased.

Atheism, might imply the same, but that worldview doesn't include dogma and doctrine, nor does it include an agenda to bend the world to its own view.

It does.
You reject, deny or ridicule anything you don’t understand.

Jan Ardena.

[superluminal]

Jan:

It does.
You reject, deny or ridicule anything you don’t understand.

Jan,

This is pretty strange and all-encompassing. Why do you have such a sweeping hatred of atheists?

[jan ardena]

Jan:

It does.
You reject, deny or ridicule anything you don’t understand.

Jan,

This is pretty strange and all-encompassing. Why do you have such a sweeping hatred of atheists?

Hatred?
I think you misunderstand. There is no reason to hate atheists.

Jan Ardena.

[SkinWalker]

You reject, deny or ridicule anything you don’t understand.

Absolutely untrue. In fact, this is the first, and hopefully only, thing you've stated to me thus far that I take offense to. That statement implies an absolute and, while I have ridiculed Christianity (and will again in the future), that doesn't mean 1) that I don't understand it -I perhaps understand better than most Christians; and 2) that I ridicule routinely or even would if I didn't understand it. I make it a point not to ridicule that which I don't understand. I attempt to understand it first, then decide if ridicule is warranted. But I think there are those that unfairly interpret "criticism" as "ridicule." I think you might be guilty of this.

Your position seems to clearly be biased by the blinders of failing to look past the core beliefs of your own religious dogma.

And what are my core beliefs and religious dogma?
Have we ever discussed them?

Have we not been discussing them off an on for months? Are they that deceptive as to not be easily inferred? Let's not toss out strawman arguments in a discussion like this, shall we?

My position, however, is one that is anthropological..

And mine isn’t?

The anthropological perspective considers that all religious worldviews have equal chance of being right or wrong.

That means nothing.

I'd say, "no," your perspective isn't anthropological, since that perspective means "nothing." Your perspective does not appear to include other worldviews, only the judeo-christian one. If you don't accept the judeo-christian worldview, then your posts in two forums to date have been misleading.

… in that I'm interested less in what a religion or cult wants for itself or others and more in what can actually be said to be true about a religion or cult.

There’s no point in separating one issue from the other. It is the equivalent of separating supply from demand.

Which is another reason why your perspective cannot be anthropological. It is an emic view, not an ettic one.

But your logic is hopelessly flawed because as an atheist you have to assume that God does not exist.

I assume that all gods don't exist. A clearly unbiased position with regard to holding that all gods are equally significant. Biased, of course, in that I'm opposed to believing in a supernatural, invisible being.

…because I can see the psychological and spiritual benefits.

What do you regard as “spiritual benefit?”

That's another thread perhaps... But don't automatically assume that because someone is "atheist" automatically implies that they have no spirituality. Though, I can see how you'd have a hard time with that one if your worldview cannot accept that which is outside of it's core religious dogma.

The main point is, I don’t regard my worldview –that gods are the creation of man, not vice versa- as the only possible one. I believe it to be correct,

At what point would you deem it incorrect?
What scientific evidence would lead you this conclusion.

Clearly that man is created by some invisible, uninvolved, and supernatural being or set of beings. The scientific evidence that I'm able to infer the opposite from is in the archaeological and epigraphical record when a clear "evolution" of religious thought is represented. (I believe once referred you to Bellah? Durkheim would be a good read for you as well, though they aren't the end-all-be-all of the anthropology of religion). That is, perhaps, also another thread. If nothing else, some good thread ideas are coming from this discussion.

You say that atheists reject "that which they don't understand," but I'm curious, don't you reject gods like Ba'al, Zeus, and Osiris?

I neither reject, nor accept them.

That's a bit of a non-answer, isn't it? I can understand if you've never heard of these gods, but if I were to inform you that Zeus is the king of the gods and brother to Posiedon and Hera (the latter also being his wife) and that he demands your obedience and sacrifices from you, do you now accept him? Of course not. Yet the mythology of this and other gods, Quetzalcoatl, Enlil, Ra, Yahweh, Chi You, et al, exist and have detailed rituals associated with their worship. What makes your god the correct one?

If so, then doesn't this place you in the same category of "rejecting that which you do not understand?"

There is no point in rejecting things you don’t understand. It makes more sense to understand them, then on the basis of that understanding, reject or accept.

On this, we are in agreement. Which is the source of my atheism.

Each of these gods was once considered legitimate and each was believed to be gods for periods that lasted longer than the current god of Christianity.

Whether they are ‘legitimate’ or not, is only a point of view.

Which is exactly my point. Substitute the name of your own god for any above, and the same still holds true, does it not?

With regards to the ‘Satanist site’, you flatly denied what was written, even though it was written by ‘Santanist’, who should by all accounts know what it is they believe.

I pointed out the inconsistencies of some of their claims of their beliefs. Why these inconsistencies exist is a matter of discussion, however, perhaps it is to manipulate their image among their critics (a claim that I have noted in my participant observations among Christian fundamentalists who criticize Satanism and LeVay -they believe he says these things to give the appearance of not being a cult). One of the primary things that I pointed out is the distinct belief in magic in it's literal interpretation: the influence of other objects or individuals by supernatural means. This is not consistent with atheistic beliefs, which are based on what is observable. Magic is not.

You reject God purely on the basis that He does not fit into your worldview. There is no reason to deny or reject either of these [theism or satanism].

There is no reason to accept either of these. That is the reason for denying. There is no reason to accept that a population of pink giraffes live in the woods by my home, I think it is safe to deny their existance to anyone that says they saw them until such time as evidence of their existance is produced, say a set of tracks. Even then, I'm going to question the assumption of their color as well as their species... could not the tracks have been produced by other species that are more likely to exist in Central Texas... perhaps a type of cattle?

You say, "[s]cientific method is but one form of collecting knowledge." What other forms of collecting knowledge are there?

Well let me put it to you this way.
What effect does the scientific method have on our day to day lives?
Is everything you say, feel, or do in some way connected to the scientific method?
Do you know anything that has not been approved by the scientific method?

I know of nothing that exists that is not approved by the scientific method. But this is because I have a true understanding of the scientific method. I understand that it applies not only to the physics or chemistry lab, but also in our day-to-day lives. Simply driving home during rush-hour traffic involves use of the scientific method, even (nay, particularly) if you think you "know" what other drivers are going to do. We observe, and make inferrences based on observation. This abilitly improves with experience.

Until such time as this can be answered, science is the only method by which to collect knowledge.

The knowledge collected by this method is not the highest knowledge,

It is the only knowledge. Anything else is a guess, a myth, a speculation, a fantasy, etc. Gueses, myths, speculations and fantasies can sometimes be right by sheer chance, but they're nearly always wrong. Which is why most of the gods listed above along with others are no longer in favor. The judeo-christian gods will also fall out of favor with humanity in time. This is the trend that can be observed in the archaeological/epigraphical record and thus inferred/deduced to be true.

Can you see now why I regard you as biased?

I've never claimed to not be biased. Of course I'm biased. But I recognize the obstacle of bias and account for it. Do you?

Knowledge must be observed, whether this is through instruction or by personal induction or deduction.

That is not exclusive to the scientific method.

The scientific method is the only way to obtain knowledge (either directly or indirectly from sources that use direct SM). There are no other methods and you haven't demonstrated any.

It is not a case of another method, it is a case of what knowledge you wish to seek.

Then enlighten us with an example of knowledge that can only be obtained from a source other than direct observation and subsequent inferrence or deduction.

I've demonstrated quite readily that Satanism is not synonymous with atheism. Wanting it to be so, or wishing it were so will not make so.

You’ve demonstrated nothing of the sort. It is evidently clear that your understanding of God or the spiritual aspect of living beings is shallow.

Let's go back a step or two then... since it is your claim that satanism and atheism are synonymous (or is this not your claim?), perhaps you can demonstrate how. The burden of proof is on you as the original claimant. You haven't met that burden as yet, since I've clearly refutted it. In addition, what information about living beings do you have that is in excess of my own knowledge that elevates yours to above "shallow?" I'm simply attempting to quantify your statements to a measurement of some sort, otherwise they're simply emotional appeals to "I'm right, you're wrong."

I was lucky enough not to be raised in a household where religion was more than just casual and occasional mention of "God" or "Jesus."

Why do you regard yourself as lucky when it is so clear that you have serious limitations of understandings, regarding God?

I contend that my understandings of the judeo-christian gods are more complete than the average "christian." I was once a believing christian myself, both baptized and "saved." I now have an ettic view of christianity that includes my former emic view. I understand the sources of christian mythology as well as the mythos of other, related and not-so-related religions. My knowledge is logically more complete than the christian that fails to look past his or her own dogma and doctrine.

Do you think that every person who is religious, is the same?

Of course not. Why would I think that? I don't even assume that every atheist is the same. Do you?

Had I been raised in a family that attended church regularly and prayed at all meals, it's very likely that it would have taken far more knowledge of human culture and religion before I acknowledged my atheism.

What is there to acknowledge? You don’t and never did believe in God and from what I can gather, your household never believed in God.
How does one acknowledge atheism?

Don't gather assumptions, sister. Gather data that can be considered empirical. Look back at the quote of mine and note that no where did I say we didn't believe in God. Indeed, the existence of God was assumed due to cultureal and familial memes. Even today, I don't speak of my atheism among my family because, even though they don't devote themselves to Christianity, they still believe in a God. They would not accept that I couldn't believe in a god without learning what I've learned. I wouldn't accept atheism without learning what I've learned.

Theism is far more biased than atheism, but understandably so. Theism, particularly monotheism, implies that one worldview automatically trumps all others.

Theism is a belief in God, atheism is non-belief in God. They are opposite ends of a particular spectrum. It is people that are biased.

Indeed. I concede that point.

Atheism, might imply the same, but that worldview doesn't include dogma and doctrine, nor does it include an agenda to bend the world to its own view.

It does.

Prove it. What is the dogma and doctrine of atheism? Chapter and verse, please. 8)

By the way, please don't take any of my criticisms of religion or Christianity as personal either here or anywhere else on the Internet (though it increasingly looks as if "here" is becoming the new home for many of us). I have a high respect for your position and ability to argue it. I just disagree with it and will discuss for as long as you're willing. If I touch on a topic that you'd rather not discuss, just say so - i.e. the assumption about your worldviews, which I've inferred over time to be generally christian.

Cheers.
Carl

[superluminal]

Jan,

Sorry if I misunderstand. Maybe you were using the specific 'you' addressed to skinwalker as opposed to the general 'you' for all atheists.

[jan ardena]

SkinWalker,

Absolutely untrue. In fact, this is the first, and hopefully only, thing you've stated to me thus far that I take offense to.

No offence intended. The statement implies God and spirituality, not everything and anything.

…that doesn't mean 1) that I don't understand it -I perhaps understand better than most Christians;

What is it that you understand about Christianity?

2) that I ridicule routinely or even would if I didn't understand it. I make it a point not to ridicule that which I don't understand. I attempt to understand it first, then decide if ridicule is warranted.

Ridicule, rejection and denial are part of your make up, you can’t help it. Not to do these things may send signals to your peers that you’re so-called atheism is on the wane. That is why if an atheist says something that could remotely be seen to favour theism, they profusely reassure other atheists that they are atheists.

But I think there are those that unfairly interpret "criticism" as "ridicule." I think you might be guilty of this.

I am aware of the difference.

Have we not been discussing them off an on for months? Are they that deceptive as to not be easily inferred

No we haven’t been discussing my core beliefs. The only thing you know about me is that I am a theist. I would hardly call that ‘core belief system’. You appear to assume that I am a dogmatic Christian. We have never discussed if a) I am religious or b) what my religion is, but please do not take this as a cue to enquire, as I don’t think my personal core belief will add anything to discussions in forums such as this.

The anthropological perspective considers that all religious worldviews have equal chance of being right or wrong.

You may as well say the world view of every single individual in the world has an equal chance of being right or wrong, for all its worth

I'd say, "no," your perspective isn't anthropological, since that perspective means "nothing." Your perspective does not appear to include other worldviews,

I prefer the vedic worldview which holds that there are different categories of spiritual (awareness), social and occupational orders for every human. It is much more encompassing, and very easy to observe on many levels.

If you don't accept the judeo-christian worldview, then your posts in two forums to date have been misleading.

I do not necessarily accept the Judeo-Christian institution. If you’re going to talk to me about God, spirituality or religion, then come straight from a scripture, not a church or organisation. You will probably have a clearer idea of where I’m coming from.

Which is another reason why your perspective cannot be anthropological. It is an emic view, not an ettic one.

I am not an anthropologist so how I view anthropology is different from how you would, in the same way that I see music differently to you, because I am a musician. But it doesn’t mean your view of music is any worse than mine. It is what it is.

Though, I can see how you'd have a hard time with that one if your worldview cannot accept that which is outside of it's core religious dogma.

This is regarding what you mean by ‘spirituality.’

You really should try and get out of the habit of pigeon-holing me, it does nothing for a discussion.

As far as I can understand ‘spirituality’ is not a physical phenomenon. So what do you mean by ‘spirituality.’

Clearly that man is created by some invisible, uninvolved, and supernatural being or set of beings.

Are you saying this is the evidence which would convince you?

If nothing else, some good thread ideas are coming from this discussion.

We’re having a discussion in a discussion forum. Does it get any better than this?

I neither reject, nor accept them.

That's a bit of a non-answer, isn't it?

Nope. That is my exact position. They are of no real interest to me.

What makes your god the correct one?

I’m not interested in gods, I’m interested in God. God has certain characteristics which are consistent with all bona-fide religious scripture. Because He has innumerable names and forms, and innumerable aspects to His Personality, doesn’t mean that He is not the same person.

Whether they are ‘legitimate’ or not, is only a point of view.

Which is exactly my point. Substitute the name of your own god for any above, and the same still holds true, does it not?

You have misunderstood my point. Who says they are legitimate or not? Each individual who happens to take an interest in them, or some institution whose word is final?

There is no reason to accept that a population of pink giraffes live in the woods by my home,

What exactly would you be accepting even if there were pink giraffes? My point. There is no reason to accept them. There is a reason or reasons to accept God, but none to deny Him, unless you wish to deny Him. That’s the difference.

I think it is safe to deny their existance to anyone that says they saw them until such time as evidence of their existance is produced, say a set of tracks.

Who would you deny them to? I am pretty sure that nobody would argue their existence.

It is the only knowledge. Anything else is a guess, a myth, a speculation, a fantasy, etc.

Based on your driving in traffic analogy, I totally agree, what I disagree with is that knowledge is purely objective.

It is not a case of another method, it is a case of what knowledge you wish to seek.

Then enlighten us with an example of knowledge that can only be obtained from a source other than direct observation and subsequent inferrence or deduction.

Read my point carefully, your question is not related.

Let's go back a step or two then... since it is your claim that satanism and atheism are synonymous (or is this not your claim?), perhaps you can demonstrate how. The burden of proof is on you as the original claimant.

Neither Satanist or atheist believe in God.

You haven't met that burden as yet, since I've clearly refutted it. In addition, what information about living beings do you have that is in excess of my own knowledge that elevates yours to above "shallow?"

That you accuse me of implying that I am above shallow even though I have mentioned no such thing shows a surface mentality. You talk as though you know me and what I’m about, over and beyond what I have indeed said. You lump God and gods in the same category even though no religious texts do.
I could go on and on.

My knowledge is logically more complete than the christian that fails to look past his or her own dogma and doctrine.

What about the Christian that doesn’t fail to?

I don't even assume that every atheist is the same. Do you?

Yes.
Not one of them believes in God. Am I right?

Have to go now. Bye.

Jan Ardena.

[water]

Off topic.

A note to Jan: Please check your PM's.

[jan ardena]

Jan,

Sorry if I misunderstand. Maybe you were using the specific 'you' addressed to skinwalker as opposed to the general 'you' for all atheists.

It is addressed to all atheists, but I don't hate them.

Jan Ardena