NoGodBlog.com

No atheist group has ever split over some minor doctrinal difference or personality conflict!

Oh. . .wait a minute.







(note: the previous snarky joke was not a jab at any atheist/humanist/whatever group or person in particular. I've seen it happen a half-dozen times, and find the trend amusing and sometimes disheartening. Bloody splitters.)

The word, religion, is derived from the Latin religio, meaning bond or obligation. The question, then, is whether humanism demands some kind of bond similar to that required by religion.

The word "woman" is derived from the Old English "wifman," linking the concept of "wife" (wif) to that of "person" or "human being" (man). The question, then, is whether one can be a woman if one isn't the wife of a human being.

[Just a pet peeve -- arguing from etymology is fallacious.]

The Christian wannabe Unitarians have never declared hostilities against those whiny crybaby Ethical Unionists.

I'm not sure I understand this. Can you clarify its meaning?

Calling Atheism a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour.

The key difference is that (H)umanism denies the supernatural. Without supernaturalism of some form, virtually no movement, organization, cult, or group is considered by common understanding to be a religion.

Universal Unitarianism does not explicitly disavow that supernaturalism is a possibility; many of their members openly declare belief in a deity. UU is a religion.

Humanist Manifesto III (American Humanist Association) opens with this paragraph:

"Humanism is a progressive philosophy of life that, without supernaturalism, affirms our ability
and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal
fulfillment that aspire to the greater good
of humanity."

Note the SPECIFIC disavowal of supernaturalism, right off the bat.

The Council for Secular Humanism is likewise explicit in its disavowal of supernaturalism. Free Inquiry Magazine carries on its inside front cover "The Affirmations of Humanism", and this is the 2nd Affirmation:

"We deplore efforts to denigrate human intelligence, to seek to explain the world in supernatural terms, and to look outside nature for salvation."

Humanism is explicity atheistic in its rejection of supernaturalism in any and all forms. Given supernaturalism to be a necessary component of religious belief systems in general, atheism is NOT a religion, a fortiori neither is Humanism.

P.S. I don't claim to be an authority on religion, so if anyone here on this blog can point me to an accepted/acknowledged "religion" that is, by doctrine, entirely free of supernaturalism, I'd appreciate the info.

P.S. I don't claim to be an authority on religion, so if anyone here on this blog can point me to an accepted/acknowledged "religion" that is, by doctrine, entirely free of supernaturalism, I'd appreciate the info.

I thought the article was arguing that humanism, not atheism, was a religion. The two things are not the same and indeed there are religious humanists but there can not be such a thing as a religious atheist (no matter what atheist "jews" believe about themselves).
I think that many religionists see the world through god coloured glasses and can't grasp what it is like to remove those glasses so they can only understand atheism as a belief system from a religious point of view.

Celebrant Prince beat me to the punch (again). Humanism is a philosophy not a religion.
I thought it interesting that the author of the article claimed to be agnostic since Humanism rejects the supernatural. Seems as though he might be a little conflicted in what he adheres to. My little brain tells me that all humanists are atheists by definition, but heat not all atheists are humanists. No?

Celebrant Prince: Maybe Zen (particularly Zen, that is) Buddhism, but it doesn't specifically disavow supernaturalism.

It does encourage people to investigate their experiences, and not to take things as a given, so it can be antagonistic to blind faith.

Celebrant Prince: Maybe Zen (particularly Zen, that is) Buddhism, but it doesn't specifically disavow supernaturalism

Isn't the belief in reincarnation a form of supernatural belief?

I agree with the above posts. It seems to me that the defining factor in any religion is not an adherence to a set of rules —as the article puts it— but rather a belief system based on the supernatural.

Following an organization's rules, rituals, etc., does not make that organization a religion.

JP-

[Just a pet peeve -- arguing from etymology is fallacious.]

Good call. More specifically, it is called the genetic fallacy. Philologists were doing this for years.

JONBOY-

Calling Atheism a religion is like saying bald is a hair colour.

True, but one could call a shaved head a hair style. Point being, the deliberate choice to not have hair is a reflection of hair styles. So too, can atheism be called a religious belief, in as much as it is a belief about religion, or about the fundamental nature of the universe. I am not calling it a faith. That is an important distinction. Plus, some atheists are a little mystical, even the naturalists (think Einsteinian awe of nature)

DVanWechel-

Isn't the belief in reincarnation a form of supernatural belief?

Took the words out of my mouth.

Zac Hunter,

I think a hair stylist would take
issue with your statement,but point taken.

Peter,
Good point regarding the lack of animosity between different Humanist groups. Reason has a way of distracting one from violent tendencies. Sorry I missed it.

Doug Thomas

Buddhism is rife with supernaturalism: nirvana, enlightenment, reincarnation, all such states being "transcendent" of naturalistic human experience by Buddhist definition.

We atheists understand this at least: there is nothing that transcends natural human experience, thus the supernatural is necessarily logically impossible.

I have stronger arguments available for denying the supernatural. Those interested may e-mail me at:

quincyforrest@sbcglobal.net

Peter:

Haven't you seen the recent South Park episode with Dawkins (part 2) where 500 years in the future the United Atheist Alliance, the United Atheist League, and the Allied Atheist Alliance are in an all-out battle to the death over the Great Question: which is what atheist groups should call themselves??

cjn

here's another definition of a "religion"

A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion.

by that definition many things that each of us do could be considered a religion. interestingly, i would not place my no-god beliefs in such a category. i certainly don't pursue my non-belief with any zeal or devotion.

does it really matter if a xtian or anyone else wants to call atheism a religion? hell, grant me personal tax immunity and you can call it whatever you want.

Celebrant prince said:

"I don't claim to be an authority on religion, so if anyone here on this blog can point me to an accepted/acknowledged "religion" that is, by doctrine, entirely free of supernaturalism, I'd appreciate the info."

From Webster's New World Dictionary,Second Edition, Definition of Religion:

1. belief in a worship of God or gods.
2. a specific system of belief, worship,etc. often involving a code of ethics.

From Webster's definition, I think nontheism (humanism) applies here. Most nontheists (many humanists) don't believe in the supernatural part of existence and certainly seem to worship the centrality of Man. Therefore, nontheism, atheism, humanism all seem to qualify as religions that don't believe in the supernatural.

"Therefore, nontheism, atheism, humanism all seem to qualify as religions that don't believe in the supernatural."

...and not collecting stamps is a hobby.

alexatheist,

Webster's definition, not mine.

Take it up with him.

I would guess that most religious people don't really believe in god, but rather believe in the superiority of their own religious/social group. This would make xtians and atheist very similar.

"Webster's definition, not mine."

Just becasue something is written down by an authroity figure doesn't make it accurate.

alexatheist said:

"Just because something is written down by an authroity figure doesn't make it accurate."

To which authority figure (alexatheist???) may I attribute the above statement, so I may declare it inaccurate??

The difference is that there has never been a sectarian war between different kinds of freethinkers

Well I say we start one!! Let's gather up all the namby-pamby "agnostics" and "humanists" who can't be committed enough to declare themselves "atheists" and kick their wimpy asses!! :-)

Really, though - WE don't consider ourselves to be part of a "religion." Don't we (and the humanists) get to decide whether or not we are a religion??? Who are these other people to dictate to us what we are???

Webster's dictionary defition of religion is:

1: The service and worship of God or the supernatural.

2: Commitment or devotion to religious faith or observance.

3: A personal set or institutionalized system of religious attitudes, beliefs, and practices.

4: A cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith.

What part of that describes Atheism again? Help me, please, I'm confused! :-)



"The Bible: teaches peace or invites war?"

timmy:

Therefore, nontheism, atheism, humanism all seem to qualify as religions that don't believe in the supernatural.

Wrong.
http://www.answers.com/religion
Religion is defined as:
1.
a. Belief in and reverence for a supernatural power or powers regarded as creator and governor of the universe.
b. A personal or institutionalized
system grounded in such belief and worship.

You don't get to redefine reality in accordance w/your whims.
Consider yourself schooled

Timmy said:


"From Webster's New World Dictionary,Second Edition, Definition of Religion:

1. belief in a worship of God or gods.
2. a specific system of belief, worship,etc. often involving a code of ethics."


Webster's words, not mine.

Considered yourselves educated.

timmy:

Webster's words, not mine.

Well then, work on your reading comprehension, bucko.

Considered yourselves educated.

"and a little child will lead them..."
Yeah, right.

I don't consider my atheism to be a religious belief. As for Unitarian Universalism, yes we are a religion defined from the latin root _religio_ meaning "re-binding". One survey says that 70% of UUs believe in God; another says we are 18% atheists-- I like to think we are at least 30% atheists. Most of the 70% are deists and pantheists -- few or none of us are traditional theists. And the particular UU Fellowship I belong to is very ungodly and secular humanist. I am also a member of American Atheists and the Freedom From Religion Foundation -- hardly a "wannabe christian"!

2. a specific system of belief, worship,etc. often involving a code of ethics.

I think the point is that atheism isn't a specific system, and it doesn't involve a code of ethics. Therefore, according to Webster, it isn't a religion.

I've gained a lot from mindfulness meditation, but I suspect my rejection of the supernatural would keep me from being a proper Buddhist. On the other hand, Thich Nhat Hanh's "Order of Interbeing" has devised fourteen precepts that could be considered religious according to timmy's second Webster definition, and I'm particularly struck by numbers 1 and 3:

"1. Do not be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology. All systems of thought are guiding means; they are not absolute truth.
....
3. Do not force others, including children, by any means whatsoever, to adopt your views, whether by authority, threat, money, propaganda, or even education. However, through compassionate dialogue, help others renounce fanaticism and narrowness."

[From Thich Nhat Hanh, "Peace is Every Step.]

JP,
Actually Buddhism in its original form is agnostic but being surrounded by hinduism, confucian teachings, and taoism it became entwined with local supernatural beliefs such as Chinese and Indian deities and a reincarnation belief. Buddhism is not a religion so much as it is an agnostic philosophy and one can be an atheistic Buddhist in the same way that one can be a xian humanist.

I don't know what humanism means to humanists but atheism, to me, is part of a wider lack of belief, period. Belief of any kind is unnecessary.

In all actuality, while Buddhism does indeed borrow heavily from Hinduism (reincarnation, akarma, vikarma, etc), it's not quite the same as a religion in many respects. The Greater Vehicle uses Buddha as goal to strive for, the Lesser Vehicle is where 1 burns incense, prays, counts rosaries, etc.
Confucian teachings & Taoism are for the most part, humanist in nature, by humanist, I mean that they don't put divinity above humanity.

JP-

To digress from the topic a bit... I agree about the mindfulness meditation. I do not adhere to any buddhist teachings per se, but I have found, in all seriousness, that I can fruitfully apply Thich Nhat Hanh's thinking to doing dishes. I know that sounds silly, but I have found an incredible peace in mindfullness in the mundane.

The reason that I specified Zen Buddhism is that it's pratice-based and pretty much bereft of worrying about reincarnation, literal karma, etc. I've heard Zen Buddhists explain karma as the psychological and consequential effect your past actions have on your present self. I.E. if you go stealing stuff, (a) you'll feel guilty and (b) a bunch of people will be out to get you because you stole their stuff.

I mean, I'm sure there are Zen Buddhists that believe in reincarnation, but then, I'm sure there are atheists who believe (even if it's just residual) in superstitious nonsense as mundane as crossing one's fingers for good luck.

I've met a lot of atheist Zen Buddhists, and I'm one of them.

Okay, I just did some reading, and tecnically there is still a little bit of superstition that's officially included in Zen teachings, but it's generally disregarded.

As for *atheism* or any other "ism" (Darwinism or scientism? *cough*) being a religion, I have this to say:

Does it require faith in unsubstantiated facts? No? Then it's not a religion.

The difference is that there has never been a sectarian war between different kinds of freethinkers. The overbearing and holier than thou Humanists have never picked up arms and fought against the true Atheists

Hmmm...wrong

Third Russian Revolution

So now, what does this say about the motivations for war?

What an arrogant position to take!! But then again it's arrogant to believe one has all of the answers to Life...

"it's arrogant to believe one has all of the answers to Life..."

Example: Biblical teachings

Phreed-Hem,
I'm ignorant of the 'Third Russian Revolution'.

Please enlighten me as to the two separate Free-Thinking entities that went to war with one another during the Third Russian Revolution.

Thank you.

But then again it's arrogant to believe one has all of the answers to Life...

Pot. Kettle. Black.

Timmy:

The definition of religion you cite from Webster's in the 2nd sense makes any broad belief system a religion then, by definition, simply because it involves belief in a code of ethics. Therefore, simply belonging to a civic organization such as Elks, Masons, Lions Club, Rotary, etc., would qualify as religion. But we know that we don't consider the Junior Chamber of Commerce (the JC's), for example, to be a religion just because their organization invokes a code of ethics. Webster's 2nd sense of religion is so vague as to be nearly of no use in this discussion.

As I previously posted, by concensus rational people understand religion to contain, at the very least, somewhere and in some form, redress to the supernatural.

Atheism, secular humanism, and naturalism all REJECT supernaturalism. This renders them philosophical in nature. And while all religions are philosophical at some point, it simply cannot be maintained that all philosophies are religions.

Humanism is a non-religious philosophy, however "religiously" practiced. Sort of like playing sports: fervor yes, faith in winning yes, codes of ethics yes, religiously, zealously practiced yes. But volleyball? NOT a religion.

Oh, phreedm...

You've been asked an honest question: name the "two separate Free-Thinking entities that went to war with one another during the Third Russian Revolution."

Your silence is speaking volumes. You've been talking out your ass again.

The Third Russian Revolution was between anarchists and the government. I'm a little confused on the whole "secular war" thing, but I'm pretty sure this doesn't count. While you could call an anarchist a free-thinker, there's a huge difference. Especially since every religion has an anarchist sect. yes, even xtians. I know it's easy to get us confused. I mean, we both start with a and end with ist. And the two words kinda rhyme...it's a stretch but you could totally pull it off in a poem. As for what it says about the motivations for war...it's pretty clear isn't it. Anarchists don't like government.

oh and Russian anarchists don't like getting ignored in elections. that too.

Preemptive strike:

One of the major factions in the Third Russian Revolution were the Bolsheviks, whose essential political philosophy consisted of "Democratic Centralism", as espoused by Lenin. Is Democratic Centralism a "free-thinking" sort of philosophy? Let's see:

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

"Democratic centralism is the name given to the principles of internal organization used by Leninist political parties, and the term is sometimes used as a synonym for any Leninist policy inside a political party. The democratic aspect of this organizational method describes the freedom of members of the political party to discuss and debate matters of policy and direction, but once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision. This latter aspect represents the centralism. As Lenin described it, democratic centralism consisted of "freedom of discussion, unity of action".[1]

"Leninist organizations' constitutions have typically defined the following key principles of democratic centralism:

"Election of all party organs from bottom to top and systematic renewal of their composition, if needed.
Responsibility of party structures to both lower and upper structures.
Strict and conscious discipline in the party—the minority must obey the majority until such time as the policy is changed.
Decisions of upper structures are mandatory for the lower structures.
Cooperation of all party organs in a collective manner at all times, and correspondingly, personal responsibility of party members for the assignments given to them and for the assignments they themselves create."

Let me select one quote, and I think we can decide the issue forthwith:

"...once the decision of the party is made by majority vote, all members are expected to uphold that decision."

Hardly a "free-thinking" doctrine. Much more an authoritarian style of leadership, it's "majority vote" bases notwithstanding.

Score: Free-thinkers 1, phreedm 0.

We should remember that most dictionary definitions usually reflect common usage meanings of a term. Seldom does the definition itself accurately represent the specific term being defined.

For example: Flanonblvr's citation of "A cause, principle, or activity pursued with zeal or conscientious devotion." may not yield a "What is religion?" definition on Jeopardy.
I might respond with What is fanaticism?

Celebrant:

Come on! You mean to tell me you don't know the answer to that? It was the Communists and the Fascists, of course! No, maybe it was the House of Lancaster and the House of York...Or maybe the Flinstones and the Rubbles...Or the Federales and the Wetbacks... :-)

You guys should know by now that Phreedm's mouth (or his fingers in this case) is completely disengaged from his brain, much like his Master's, George W... :-)



"Sure, you can pray for me and I’ll dance naked in the forest for you."

Zac:

I have found, in all seriousness, that I can fruitfully apply Thich Nhat Hanh's thinking to doing dishes. I know that sounds silly, but I have found an incredible peace in mindfullness in the mundane.

Do you do the dishes for the sake of doing the dishes? Because I certainly do...

I don't know if I'd call myself a Buddhist inside and out, or if I really follow it that closely. But I think there is a lot to be learned from it, and it's helped me in a lot of ways-- for example, being content to do the dishes. :)

you know what's funny. I typed "secular war" into wikipedia and the first link that I got was "Cornerstone of Peace" I laughed at least. True, it was for the war memorial in Japan but still. I have been searching the vastness of the internet for any shread of evidence that phreedm might be on to something and maybe there's a little truth in his words. I have yet to find anything. Unless of course you count the War on Christmas as an actualy armed conflict. Maybe it is in some states.

****OFF TOPIC********(but YEAH)

10 years for 'Dr. Dino'


Michael Stewart
mstewart@pnj.com

Pensacola evangelist Kent Hovind was sentenced Friday afternoon to 10 years in prison on charges of tax fraud.

After a lengthy sentencing hearing that last 5 1/2 hours, U.S. District Judge Casey Rodgers ordered Hovind also:

-- Pay $640,000 in restitution to the Internal Revenue Service.

-- Pay the prosecution?s court costs of $7,078.

-- Serve three years parole once he is released from prison.

Hovind's wife, Jo Hovind, also was scheduled to be sentenced. Rodgers postponed her sentencing until March 1 to allow her defense attorney an opportunity to argue possible discrepancies in sentencing guidelines.

Prior to his sentencing, a tearful Kent Hovind, also known as "Dr. Dino" asked for the court's leniency.

?If it's just money the IRS wants, there are thousands of people out there who will help pay the money they want so I can go back out there and preach, Hovind said.

Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land in Pensacola, was found guilty in November of 58 federal counts, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes. He faced a maximum of 288 years in prison.


http://www.pnj.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070119/NEWS01/701190332/1006

and, you'll laugh/cry/scream if you read the commments to the article.

Bones,

You're right about the comments regarding the demise of Kent Hovind.

Brings to mind the saying "There are none so blind as those that will not see" hmmmmm... where does that come form?

darwinluvsu is going to dance naked in the woods.yee haw!
article in local paper on freedom of religion day here in virginia talked about how they used to throw baptists in the local jail.ah the good old days.

if religious groups lost tax breaks would america become like europe religion wise or is belief so strong here that it wouldn't make any diff.?

Religion is on the decline in America (thank god....lol...) and without tax breaks I'm sure there will be a lot less preachers. Hell, starting a crap religion is my back-up retirement plan, but not if I don't get a tax break. I would bet money that "donations" would see a dramatic increase since the church would need to find a new way to get it's money. This would lead (hopefully) to a decrease in participants, in addition to all the other reasons why not to go to church.

Reason:

I will dance nekkid in the woods but ONLY if you pray for me!!!

Man, you're too funny! You're always cracking me up! :-)

Dr. Dino...my, my, my...where's gawd when you need him?




"Don’t make me get the flying monkeys!"

Freakdumb

You are awfully quite. Wonder why?

quiet

Comment from: Celebrant Prince :

"From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

Hmmmm...using Wikipedia as a resource? Hahahaha

The Third revolution was only one war between factions who opposed religion. Here's a hint for another. Southeast Asia...

And I'm accused of being ignorant...

IMO...the reality to this entire thread is it's starting point.

The bomb thrower is a very angry and uphappy individual. The vast majority of his posts are from a negative stance either complaining or attempting to put someone else down...

Oh wait...it's impossible to define an atheist without using a negative...let's just say he never posts anything positive or constructive.

The bomb thrower is a very angry and uphappy individual. The vast majority of his posts are from a negative stance either complaining or attempting to put someone else down...

And calling him "the bomb thrower" is supposed to help us see YOU as happy-go-lucky?

My take on your "point" -- anti-religious people have a war, there is no god; religious people have a war, there is no god. War for the sake of controlling a government is pathetic; war for the sake of an imagined god is despicable.

Here, Phreedm, Phreedm, Phreedm...Here, boy! This should make you very happy and particularly proud of your breed and brethren:


http://www.cnn.com/2007/WORLD/europe/01/17/warwithin.amanpour/index.html?eref=rss_topstories





"The rapture is not an exit strategy!"

Oooooh, Phreeeeeeedm...here's another one that will make you foam at the mouth and wag your tail fer sure!

http://theaustralian.news.com.au/




"May the fetus you save be a black gay Wickan or Atheist Democrat."

phreedm

The bomb thrower is a very angry and uphappy individual. The vast majority of his posts are from a negative stance either complaining or attempting to put someone else down...

And yet, here you stay, instead of frequenting a more simple-minded xian blog, where because of jeebus, life is lollipops all the time.
Methinks you enjoy the adversarial air you help generate here.

Oh wait...it's impossible to define an atheist without using a negative..

That would be due to your limitations, not ours.



Christ is IN the way
Okay. You've done your little evangelizing bit. Feel better? Don't let the door hit you on your *way* out...

So, phreedm, just because I used Wikipedia my facts are necessarily incorrect? Strawman argument, my friend.

Do you claim the Bolsheviks were not all about Democratic Centralism, or that even if they were, Democratic Centralism is an example of a free-thought movement?

You still haven't answered the question: which two "freethought" groups waged war against each other in the Third Russian Revolution?

NAME THEM!!

out one key point about religion that certainly differentiates religion from humanism. The difference is that there has never been a sectarian war between different kinds of freethinkers.

I'm not so sure that really is a key point. In addition, you assume that you cannot be religious and a freethinker.

I'll throw some ideas out there to get your feedback. I haven't thought this through 100%, but perhaps this is a good way to explore some of these ideas. I would theorize that there has never been a war between atheists because there's not enough of them yet. Being a minority helps bond you together, but remove being a minority and I think that the differences between freethinkers (and being freethinkers, I suspect there would be many by their very nature) would cause conflict and perhaps ultimately battle. Even on this blog I have witnessed significant differences between the libertarian and more liberal freethinkers here. If atheists were the bulk of the population, the common enemy would be gone and you would be left facing each other.

I think Peter's statement assumes that dogma is the cause of conflict. My interpretation of the bible is more authentic than those dirty catholics, so I'm going to kill them sort of thing. Of course, this is the issue that SouthPark took on. I will continue to argue that atheists are not immune to what causes conflict. Conflict does not seem to come from singular ideas or dogmatic belief alone, but from identity, inability or unwillingness to deal with each other without violence. If atheists were to attach non atheists and use violence to further their agenda, does that somehow not matter in showing how different they are than theists? I would say no. Peter mentions true atheists, but is that any different than other no true scottsman arguments?

The other idea I want to challenge is that only atheists are freethinkers. As an example, my wife is vegetarian and considers herself a minority against people who just put whatever they want in their body without thinking about it. She challenges the notion that meat is born is the supermarket already processed and that animals were subject to a pretty horrible process so that we could enjoy a taste. It's more environmentally sound to eat only vegetarian and more humane. Is that not being a freethinker? Thinking very deeply about what you believe is not limited to one group. While I respect many of you here, I don't buy that atheists are somehow above using violence against each other and that atheists are the only freethinkers.

Your thoughts?

good points spanders.i see agnostics as freethinkers as an atheist i am firm in my belief the supernatural doesn't exist.so i do not want to be called freethinker.and i have to plead guilty to being dogmatic i feel my view of humanism is the best way.i say i support freedom of religion but if put to the test i don't know, it would be a struggle to resist the chance to impose my views.

celebrant prince you don't seem to care for democratic centralism.so do you prefer anarchy.without discipline
and order nothing can get accomplished.

"While I respect many of you here, I don't buy that atheists are somehow above using violence against each other and that atheists are the only freethinkers."

True freethinkers are hard to find and cannot be satisfactorily described by singular labels.

And of course atheists are not "above" using violence; violence is merely a tool in the arsenal of many organisms. Plants can be violent when they need to. We humans simply use the tool far too often and frequently at the exclusion of other tools. Religious people simply have one more inappropriate reason than atheists to misuse violence - and there are more religious people than atheists, so we witness the misuse of violence far more often than most atheists would like. That's not to say that a completely atheist world would be free of violence, however.

Freethinkers are indeed very rare and most of those I have met who consider themselves freethinkers have just yoked themselves to a far left world view and do very little thinking on their own.

I think part of the problem with the label of freethinker is that we all think we're freethinkers. It's very rare that anyone says something to the effect that they just do what everyone else is doing. For instance, my in-laws are pretty conservative. My father-in-law actually said that Fox news is the only fair and balanced news. He thinks that I've yoked myself to a far left world view and do very little thinking on my own. Now I think he's been brainwashed by Fox. We both think of ourselves as freethinkers. Who's right?

Another highlight of a recent visit was me being barraged by my in-laws and my wife's aunt and uncle about politics. I knew the conversation was over when my wife's aunt said that muslims hate us because clinton got a blow job. sigh....

Reason:

"....so do you prefer anarchy.without discipline
and order nothing can get accomplished."

Yeah, yeah, yeah! ~panting~ I would! Can we please have some anarchy! I love chaos and mayhem and ! :-)



"Don’t mess with the dragons for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup…"

darwinluvsu i was in the woods all night praying.that policewoman didn't like it when i asked why do you still have your clothes own.

darwin

"The rapture is not an exit strategy!"

That is fantastic.

Spanders "We both think of ourselves as freethinkers. Who's right?"

Well from what I have seen of you I think you are probably mostly a freethinker but you might still be holding onto a politically correct multicultural far left worldview which is not really that different from those who allow those on the far religious right do all the thinking for them. We are all guilty of following what othes say just because it is easier and saves time but I try to regularly challenge myself to really think through why I believe what I do. Sometimes I even succeed.

spanders what is your position on following church rules.how do you feel about those who break rules against drinking,smoking,sex outside marriage should they be kicked out or what?

alex good points, what do you think of the view that liberty and equality cannot coexist?

reason, if people really got kicked out of church for drinking, smoking, and sex outside of marriage, there would be very few people left in church. I'm guilty of all three at one point or another.

However, I think that there are pragmatic reasons for moderating behavior. Drinking too much can lead to liver damage and saying things that you probably shouldn't have said. Man, I know that one. I have trouble walking sometimes because I have both feet in my mouth. Word to the wise (and those who know her), Freakgirl can drink more wine than you can. I learned that one the hard way. Drinking too much can also lead to poor judgement and driving when one shouldn't. Smoking is pretty obvious

Sex outside of marriage seems to be a really bad idea if you're married. Sex before marriage I see as less of a big deal, but can have serious implications when it comes to STDs and unwanted pregnancy. For me, sex is really much about intamacy, so having a lot of partners wouldn't have worked out. I had sex with very fex partners; only serious girlfriends. Some people tell me about one night stands and how one thing lead to another. For me, one thing never lead to another. That's mystery land for spanders. One thing leading to another was a girl saying I was such a good friend for listening.

Are there absolutes in morality for me? Yes, but these are a little different than what you may typically get from christians. 25 million children without health insurance in the wealthiest industrial nation is absolutely wrong. Invading countries illegally is absolutely wrong. Drinking too much? I think that's wrong because I've seen the results, but I still do it from time to time. Sex outside of marriage? In my case it's absolutely wrong. If you're married and you agree that you won't have sex with other people, then it's wrong to have sex outside of marriage. People screw up and I find that our church has a lot of broken people working on doing better.

"alex good points, what do you think of the view that liberty and equality cannot coexist?"

I do not believe that "All Men are Created Equal" and the very notion is the height of absurdity due to the fact that people are all born with different abilites or into different circumstances. I think you are confusing equality of rights with equality of abilites. In other words, life isn't fair but government should treat everyone the same under the law.

On an unrelated note, I just came across this video on You Tube. Granted the producers most certainly edited out the less stupid respondents but it is still worthy of a look (and a chuckle):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCkYfYa8ePI

Reason:

Therein your problem! If she was wearing a police uniform, you should have realized it wasn't me. You know I love anarchy, disorder, chaos and mayhem and hate the law!

Remember, the success rate for prayer is 50% maybe if you pray harder next time (and buy a lottery ticket), your requests to the hahavens will be granted.


Spanders:

Please feel free to use the quote, after all, I stole it from someone else who may have stolen it from someone else and so on and so forth... BTW, I recently found out that someone I've casually known for sometime is a UU and we're having some very interesting exchanges on different topics... :-)




"Forget the knights in shinning armor. I want elves in tight leather outfits!"

My dear friends, you should be quick to listen and slow to speak. James 1:19

There is no such thing as idle chitchat. Every one of your words has power. When you string them together with forethought and grace, they can defuse an argument, teach a new friend a new skill, or soothe the heart of a disappointed child. but, on occasion, words can slip through your lips that you wish you could take back.

God wants to slow you down. Like a car, your tongue is easier to control at slower speeds. Thats why learning to listen is an important in speaking with love. Listening to people's hearts, as well as their words,will help you stop long enough to gather your thoughts. then choose your words carefully, so you can use them in a powerful, positive way.

"It is easier to look wise than to talk wisely".

I like the ideas, but you're being a little vague. Are you saying that this is all idle chit chat? If not, what do you mean?

Don't copy the behavior and customs of this world, but let God transform you into a new person by changing the way you think. Romans 12:2

Optimists and pessimists can look at the same circumstances and see two totally different scenarios. The only real difference is in their minds. the way people think helps determine the way they act. the way people acts reflects what they believe to be true.

God wants to change your mind, literally. He wants to change worry to prayer, fear to trust, and doubt to faith. To do that, you need to choose which thoughts you're going to focus on. Reflect on what God says is true about you and the world. Reject what you see on tv or read in a magazine that conflicts with that truth. Filling your mind with good, positive things will result in a good positive out look on life.

Change your thoughts and you change your world.

CITW:

There is no such thing as idle chitchat. Every one of your words has power. When you string them together with forethought and grace, they can defuse an argument, teach a new friend a new skill, or soothe the heart of a disappointed child. but, on occasion, words can slip through your lips that you wish you could take back.

Well, I'm taking back doodly-squat.
You can cut your messianic crap.
You forming yet another cult?

Change your thoughts and you change your world.

NO MORE RELIGION.
There.
Your religion is a dark shadow upon the world. It cleaves nations apart, it turns brother against brother over the empty promise of an afterlife never to come. It fills black hearts with the illusion of light. It breaks the back of rationality, and turns men into lunatics.
It speaks with relish of a deity who would commit those it loves to eternal torment: it puts chains on the wrists and shackles upon the hearts of humanity. It whispers loving nothings, but becomes foam-speckled upon rejection.
Yours is a religion of blood sacrifice and irrational excess. I will have none of it.
I do not fear the whisper of old ghosts, nor do I validate the madnesses of an iron-age savage tribe.
I will not kiss the boot, nor bless the whip: I am free, unbound, living not in fear of your imaginary voice, but in fear of the bloody hands of lunatics like yourself, who willfully commit atrocities based on the schizophrenic delusions of a centuries-old mass bedlam.
You are anathema: your cult is anathema, to all rational, reasonable people.
Consider your word heard: but know this - godspeed is the red queen effect only, for an imaginary being has no speed at all, but stagnancy.

Comment from: karen

Oh wait...it's impossible to define an atheist without using a negative..

That would be due to your limitations, not ours.

And your answer is...?

Please, anyone, give a definition of atheism "without" using a negative...

People screw up and I find that our church has a lot of broken people working on doing better.

Spanders...perfect description of church. For some reason though, those who don't go to church somehow have the notion that church goers think they're perfect...

I would say this belief is one of the foundational blocks of this blog...

"God wants to change your mind, literally. He wants to change worry to prayer, fear to trust, and doubt to faith."

Okay, I've always wanted to ask this--how the *@#@! do you know? Did you talk to him? Face to face? What did he look like? What did his voice sound like? Was he young? Old? Fat? Skinny?. Are you absolutely sure it's a man? How do you know? We're you at his house? Where does he live?

Shall I continue?

Atheism is knowing that life based in realitiy is in every way better than life based in fantasy and fear.

However, that is just the beginning. The real plus for atheism is the positive effect it has on all life on earth.

phreedm asked:

Please, anyone, give a definition of atheism "without" using a negative...

my atheism is based upon a belief and trust in my fellow man. i rely on my doctor to keep me well, my mechanic to keep me on the road, my family and friends to keep me happy,loved and grounded.

there is nothing negative about that and it is much more postive than the god thing where one must believe in the great one or face the fires of hell.

KA,

loved your semi-rant about religion

Christ is the way said:

Reflect on what God says is true about you and the world. Reject what you see on tv or read in a magazine that conflicts with that truth.

yes, close your mind to reality and live in a state of delusion. that is what insane folks do. see any connection there? oh no i guess you reject that too!

Atheism by its very nature is defined as a negative. "A-" from the Greek for "without" and "-theism" from the Greek "theos" meaning deity. However to borrow from Sam Harris "Atheism is the refusal to deny the obvious" or, in my own words, atheism is the only logical reaction to reality.

Atheism is acknowledgement, acceptance and celebration of reality.

I like the other definitions given too.



_______
Trolls are an unfortunate reality. We have a new one who seems to have a French connection. I apologize to all for feeding it. Now I will have to see where I left my eye-poking stick.

"Don't let the Son go down on me!"
John 19:74
;-)

karen:

"Don't let the Son go down on me!"

Funny, I thought that was the Elton John.

phreddy:

I would say this belief is one of the foundational blocks of this blog...

Ummm...no.
Most churchgoers thinking themselves to be on a higher moral ground, is more likely.

flanon:

loved your semi-rant about religion

SEMI-rant?!?!? Damn, must be gettin' old. Can't even manage a full one anymore. ;)

KA

Funny, I thought that was the Elton John.

'Twas, 'twas. Caribou album 1974.
I was shooting for a funny...guess I missed.

Ah well, it's late.

It was funny, doll.

Looks like we're the only ones up, darhlin'.
Not a whole lotta action around here lately.

Not the only ones up. Just the only ones talking ;)

Heh. HI Deadly!
My meds are kickin' in; I'm about to shuffle off to Buffalo in a few minutes. Glad to see the younguns still up and about in the night. You are charged with being the watchful gargoyle over the door to our blog.

But don't forget to get your homework finished too. :P

The fundamental difference between religion and atheism is that an atheist will freely admit to the possibility that they may be wrong - that there could be a God. A religious person is incapable is admitting to the possibility of a world without a (their) God.

An atheist who cannot concede is just as dogmatic.

Hey geokker....does that mean you might being going to hell as well


Atheism is not a religion....for me it is a logical conclusion based on my own expierences....so far I have not seen any ghost

piece

karen quipped:

"Don't let the Son go down on me!"
John 19:74

hehe... don't you know that fell-a-tio will get you nowhere? just ask bill clindong.

reason:

My comments on Democratic Centralism were in response to phreedm's claim that the Third Russian Revolution is an example of atheists waging war on each other in the name of atheism. The Bolsheviks stood for Democratic Centralism, not atheism, and it is to Bolshevikist Democratic Centralism that I refer, not the concept of democracy in general, nor the concept of law and order. Those two concepts I wholeheartedly embrace. Incidentally those two concepts are at the heart of the U.S. constitution and the U.S. system of government. However, our constitutional system of government is scarcely Democratic Centralism. Our system of government contains the concepts of inalienable human rights, thus the rights of the minority are as equally protected as the rights of the majority. In Democratic Centralism once the majority decide, the minority either tow the line or face the dreadful consequences otherwise. In principle (at least) that is not the way we do things here in America.

To my way of thinking, Lenin's Democratic Centralism was a thinly veiled form of totalitarianism.

In a sense, none of us can be freethinkers if we're going to be thinkers, proceeding from the limited languages and concepts of our cultures. I imagine that some people can make a go at it, but ultimately it's like escaping gravity -- the best you're going to get is some distance from constraint, rather than absence of constraint.

I've been uncomfortable with the label "freethinker" mainly in the sense that alexatheist notes for the phrase "all men are created equal." We're obviously not all equal, but ideally we each get a shot at pursuing what we want. So a fundamentalist Christian may be more constrained than I am by dogmatic thinking, but in theory he/she has as much potential to move away from dogma as I do. And though it's tempting to stereotype fundamentalist minds, I suspect that, like snowflakes, no two are alike, making any lock-step application of dogma imperfect at best.

For religion, you need to see this movie trailer with two saviors.

http://www.broadcaster.com/video/player.php?clip=6679

Atheism is not a religion....for me it is a logical conclusion based on my own expierences....so far I have not seen any ghost

Ditto, Charlie. It's annoying to hear people confuse belief and experience, as though the sun will rise tomorrow because we believe it will.

...into our hearts...
How's your heart? From commercials for cholesterol-lowering drugs to articles dealing with heart-healthy nutrition to books urging rigorous exercise, heart care advice floods in upon us, semingly from all sides.

But what about the health of our spiriyual hearts? In Provervs 4:20-23, Solomon wisely urges,

"Pay attention to what i say; listen closely to my words. Do not let them out of your sight, keep them within your heart; for they are life to those who find them and health to a man's whole body. Above all else, guard your heart,for it is the wellspring of life".

Whatsoever we pour into our heart, the same come pouring out. So what are you pouring into your heart? Jesus teaches, " For out of the overflow of the heart the mouth apeaks" (Mathew 12:3-4). Perhaps what you see spilling out from your heart and overflowing in your lips dissapoints or even appals you. Perhaps you see evidence that loveliness clogs your spiritual arteries. Perhaps your worship or prayer life betrays a heart cool toward your Lord and hardened toward His promises.

If this diagnostic signs alarm you, Take heart, Jesus has poured out His heart in love for you on His own cross. Throgh faith in His sacrifice, you are forgiven, You are loved. You are alive. Open your heart to his word of grace and you will be filled with joy. Then exercise that love freely as you care for those around you in Jesus' name.

In Christ,
Bien