RE: Freedom -from- religion?

RE: Freedom -from- religion? (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:02:33 AM)
quote: Gay marriage is not illegal because the Church says so. there isn't even a "the Church". But because most people (who are mostly religous to a degree) voted that way. Lucky, if I'm reading you right (a big if at this late hour), we both see religious beliefs as major factors in opposition to gay marriage.

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:05:50 AM)
The biggest fuck up atheists make is that they think they are not a religion when any belief system is techinically a religion.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:15:59 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The biggest fuck up atheists make is that they think they are not a religion when any belief system is techinically a religion. Wrong. Atheism is not a religion, there is no uniform belief in a truth, there is no atheist dogma or ideology. It is a belief of there not being a supreme being, force or god (call it what you will), in the absense of any evidence to the contrary. Most atheists hold the view rather loosely and would change their view with the production of evidence to the contrary. Religious people believe in a truth even though evidence of fact show them that their beliefs are based of myths, half truths and lies. Yes, no one can prove that god doesn't exist but religious people can't prove god exists despite their profound belief god does. If I had a profound belief that pink elephants wearing tutus and ballet shoes ruled the world, I would be seen as mad but people who believe in god believe in something eaqually as mad.

dcnovice -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:24:49 AM)
quote: Religious people can believe in pink elephants and pray in the middle of the road to them for all I care. quote: If I had a profound belief that pink elephants wearing tutus and ballet shoes ruled the world, I would be seen as mad but people who believe in god believe in something eaqually as mad. What's with all the pink elephants? Did you have a traumatic experience seeing Fantasia or something? Oh wait, they may have been hippos.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:26:23 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Religious people can believe in pink elephants and pray in the middle of the road to them for all I care. quote: If I had a profound belief that pink elephants wearing tutus and ballet shoes ruled the world, I would be seen as mad but people who believe in god believe in something eaqually as mad. What's with all the pink elephants? Did you have a traumatic experience seeing Fantasia or something? Oh wait, they may have been hippos. That is an entirely different religion.

dcnovice -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:30:27 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: meatcleaver quote: ORIGINAL: dcnovice quote: Religious people can believe in pink elephants and pray in the middle of the road to them for all I care. quote: If I had a profound belief that pink elephants wearing tutus and ballet shoes ruled the world, I would be seen as mad but people who believe in god believe in something eaqually as mad. What's with all the pink elephants? Did you have a traumatic experience seeing Fantasia or something? Oh wait, they may have been hippos. That is an entirely different religion. LOL! And they've been butchering each other for centuries.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:31:04 AM)
I think RealOne has made a good point. Atheism is most definately a belief system Those who claim to believe usually will put forward the same set of arguments to support their belief. The primacy of reason, the scientific method, itself in the limit a belief system, a moral viewpoint., the evils done by other religions,things like that. Isnt Buddhism an atheistic religion.? lol

Real0ne -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:31:49 AM)
"any belief system is techinically a religion" I said that very specifically. tthe only difference between their religion and ours is that their "belief" system is faith based and ours is more akin to empirically based, but a belief system none the less.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:34:11 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I think RealOne has made a good point. Atheism is most definately a belief system Those who claim to believe usually will put forward the same set of arguments to support their belief. The primacy of reason, the scientific method, itself in the limit a belief system, a moral viewpoint., the evils done by other religions,things like that. Isnt Buddhism an atheistic religion.? lol Atheism is not a belief system, there is no philosophy, ideology or dogma associated with it. It puts forward no morals, no truth, no guidence on how people should live their lives. It is merely a belief that god or any other supreme being or force doesn't exist. EDIT Bhudha promoted a philosophy but some people appear to have turned his teachings into a religion. He did say god(s) were a human desire and as a desire were the source of human suffering.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:42:46 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne "any belief system is techinically a religion" I said that very specifically. Yes but atheism is not a belief system, it is a belief that god doesn't exist and there is no belief system attached to that single belief. Religion believes in an essential truth, that is not what atheists or most atheists I know believe in.There is no god, that is their only belief, as I posted in reply to seeks, thee is no belief system attached to that, no doctrine on how other people should live or what morals should guide them.

Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:53:03 AM)
quote: The framers were very clear to say "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom from Religion". OK... Without the "Freedom from Religion" option, how is "Freedom of Religion only", made workable in the face of many religion's insistence that only they are 'Twue', and all other beliefs must be proselityzed? Because one cannot be a good Puritan and allow Quakers to live, or a good Baptist and co-exist with Papists, and so forth... And if the Founders actually did intend the phrase to cover the concept of opting between religions (since it is clearly an impossible task to be faithful to them all), then what is the evidence in their words, that they only intended to omit 'None of the Above' as part of the right to select?

dcnovice -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 1:58:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Alumbrado quote: The framers were very clear to say "Freedom of Religion", not "Freedom from Religion". OK... Without the "Freedom from Religion" option, how is "Freedom of Religion only", made workable in the face of many religion's insistence that only they are 'Twue', and all other beliefs must be proselityzed? Because one cannot be a good Puritan and allow Quakers to live, or a good Baptist and co-exist with Papists, and so forth... And if the Founders actually did intend the phrase to cover the concept of opting between religions (since it is clearly an impossible task to be faithful to them all), then what is the evidence in their words, that they only intended to omit 'None of the Above' as part of the right to select? Fwiw, the words "freedom of religion" are not actually in the Constitution. Here is the text of the First Amendment. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Alumbrado -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 2:10:08 AM)
I wasn't referencing the Constitution, which is why I referred to the Founders of the country, not the Framers of the Consitution, in replying to the semantic question.

seeksfemslave -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 2:39:12 AM)
quote: seeksfemslave I think RealOne has made a good point. Atheism is most definately a belief system Those who claim to believe usually will put forward the same set of arguments to support their belief. The primacy of reason, the scientific method, a moral viewpoint., the evils done by other religions,things like that. quote: Meatcleaver Atheism is not a belief system, there is no philosophy, ideology or dogma associated with it. EDIT Bhudda promoted a philosophy but some people appear to have turned his teachings into a religion. He did say god(s) were a human desire and as a desire were the source of human suffering. I dont agree with that. (red hilite) Many people have put forward philosophical arguments as to why Atheism is a superior belief system than a religious one. They usually miss out the belief aspect lol and focus on the supremacy of human reason alone. Dont forget in Bhudda's time the concept of God was different than has developed in say Christianity, and Islam. Not sure about Judaism which pre dates Bhuddism ? Gods were more nature based and thought to control and intervene in everthing. The remains of that view are still present, in christianity anyway. Good things are thought to be God inspired. Bad things cause difficulty for true believers. Or should.

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 3:24:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave I think RealOne has made a good point. Atheism is most definately a belief system Those who claim to believe usually will put forward the same set of arguments to support their belief. The primacy of reason, the scientific method, a moral viewpoint., the evils done by other religions,things like that. Usually? Usually? What sort of fact is preceeded by the adverb usually? Reason and scientific method are not belief systems, unlike religion they do not claim to know 'why', they do not claim to knmow ultimate truth, they do not claim to give meaning. quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave quote: Meatcleaver Atheism is not a belief system, there is no philosophy, ideology or dogma associated with it. EDIT Bhudda promoted a philosophy but some people appear to have turned his teachings into a religion. He did say god(s) were a human desire and as a desire were the source of human suffering. I dont agree with that. (red hilite) Many people have put forward philosophical arguments as to why Atheism is a superior belief system than a religious one. They usually miss out the belief aspect lol and focus on the supremacy of human reason alone. Dont forget in Bhudda's time the concept of God was different than has developed in say Christianity, and Islam. Not sure about Judaism which pre dates Bhuddism ? Gods were more nature based and thought to control and intervene in everthing. The remains of that view are still present, in christianity anyway. Good things are thought to be God inspired. Bad things cause difficulty for true believers. Or should. Many people might put forward arguments as to WHY THEY BELIEVE in atheism. They cannot speak for anyone other than themselves because atheism is the single belief of not believing in a god and nothing else beyond that, there is no morals, doctrine or philosophy associated with atheism other than that one belief, there is no god. There is no philosophy, doctrine or creed that supports atheism. It is irrelevent what the nature of god is as even religious people can't agree what the nature of god is and the idea that a monotheistic religion has somehow a more advanced belief than polytheism is nonsense. The montheistic religions have been the most violent. Oh sorry, the Old Testement god was violent, cruel and racist, in the New Testement he tried for a family audience. The problem with all religions is that they believe god(s) intervene in his own creation on behalf of one groupo against another, for one person as oppsed another. Hence you get the ridiculousness of politicians who go to war and invoke god. Why would god bless America as opposed to the people Americans are fighting? Why should Germans trust in god in such a way that implies god is on their side. Why should god save our fucking queen? It's nonsense, it doesn't stand up to a modicum of reasoned thought and hell, if you vote for people who don't use reason, you get what you ask for, a load of shite which is exactly what we get. Bhudha said, all living creatures must pass, the world is in a state of flux. Suffering is caused by desire. The belief in god(s) is a desire and therefore according to Bhudda, causes suffering. The way to eliminate desire and hence suffering is to eliminate craving. Though he also said suffering exists in life so it can't be totally eliminated. That seems pretty simple but profound stuff to me and not at all doctrinal and as primitive as the montheistic Ahbramic religions.

DMFParadox -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 3:35:23 AM)
I believe in paradox. I'm dead serious. One of these days, my paradigm will rule the world; but until then, I'm more left-field than Anton LaVey (sp?) at a faith revival. Anybody who's interested, though, drop me a line. I'm taking converts.

Level -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 3:42:54 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: onlyHisgirl i would also have to agree that many of the signers of the doc were Christian (minor in political science...this was one of my papers so i am refraining and enjoying ya'll talking about it...quite entertaining) Dear Baby Jesus...8lbs 10 ounces...sleeping so helpless yet omnipotent...sorry, digressed...again. night ya'll All right, Ricky Bobby.......... [:D]

seeksfemslave -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 3:58:50 AM)
quote: Meatcleaver Many people might put forward arguments as to WHY THEY BELIEVE in atheism. They cannot speak for anyone other than themselves because atheism is the single belief of not believing in a god and nothing else beyond that, there is no morals, doctrine or philosophy associated with atheism other than that one belief, there is no god. There is no philosophy, doctrine or creed that supports atheism. First you have admitted that Atheism is a belief. So in actual fact it reduces to an oxymoran were that possible with one word. ie implicitly equating belief and knowledge in the same word. Few Atheists see themselves as believers. They think of themselves as "rational knowers". They know there isnt a God. Positively because technology/rationality amazes them and negatively they are not aware of the guesswork and the unproven hypotheses that transform into facts in the scientific method. Second: Atheists always put forward arguments as to why their belief should be accepted.. You have just done it yourself re. dear old Elizabeth. lol In general those arguments add up to a philosophy that is advanced to support the primary belief, Atheism. When confronted with the problem of Evil in the world Christians do not claim to know "why" tho' they often propose ridiculous rationalisations. Re. you criticism of my use of usually, I only used that because many Atheists are quite dogmatic, something you say is not associated with Atheism lol So I say again, RealOne was right. IMO.

LadyEllen -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 4:07:59 AM)
I dont think anyone can understand what "freedom from religion" means, unless they've been in the situation where it is expected that they should take part in some form of religion, with some sanction being present should they prefer not to. I think this experience and the consequent understanding is something everyone gets, at some stage. And for most of us in the UK certainly, it will be the experience of being expected to take part in some form of Christian worship, as children at school most often, with the sanction being adult and often parental disapproval. What interests me more though is the question of societal pressure to take part in such worship - and how most of us conform to that pressure. For instance, most people in the UK dont see the inside of a church apart from for baptisms, weddings and funerals. Most people have some sort of belief, but I find it has no relation to church teachings or orthodoxy and often is of a more polytheistic/ pantheistic flavour, is close to a Buddhist outlook or is a mixture of beliefs of individual making. Yet, when it comes to these three events in life, it seems that everyone with some connection to the people involved, takes part regardless. Is this out of respect for the people involved in the ceremony? Or is it societal pressure in the form of family and friends' expectations that one should take part, with the unspoken threat of a rift should one prefer not to? Regardless of legal definitions of freedom from religion, this is what it comes down to I think - the pressure that comes from one another to be seen to be doing what society tells us is the right thing to do, with the understanding that we are wrong should we not conform. Simply, there is no freedom from religion, unless and until all of us get the idea that there is not only one religion - and there may not be any religion at all for some. Because until and unless everyone gets this, there will always be pressure put on everyone to conform to some sort of orthodoxy that is seen to be right, even though all taking part do not subscribe to it. The problem though as I see it, is that it is very difficult to maintain a group - be that family, friends or society as a whole, should we choose to follow different religions - sure, in every day life this is not a problem, but when it comes to births, weddings and funerals, different religions must be accomodated somehow for the group to be maintained and be able to come together. Or, we must totally abandon the notion of religion for such occasions so that all are accomodated by virtue of none being accomodated specifically. However, humans being what we are, I wonder very much whether faced with the likes of death especially, if we could ever treat it without some degree of awe and reverence which requires some religious perspective to it? E

meatcleaver -> RE: Freedom -from- religion? (10/8/2007 4:13:18 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: seeksfemslave First you have admitted that Atheism is a belief. So in actual fact it reduces to an oxymoran were that possible with one word. ie implicitly equating belief and knowledge in the same word. Few Atheists see themselves as believers. They think of themselves as "rational knowers". They know there isnt a God. Atheists know that no one, not even Jesus Christ, Mohammad or God himself has produced one shred of verifiable evidence proving god exists. Not to believe in something because no one has produced a shred of evidence is an eminently reasonable position to take. If I told you you could jump off the Empire state building and god would catch you, I bet you wouldn't do it without proof he would, which would be an eminently reasonable position to take. It's not a matter of knowing, its a matter of being asked to believe in something without eevidence. Atheism is something I find easy to believe in because it requires a lack of evidence in the existence of god and there is an absolute lack of evidence so far. You could easily change my mind, just provide the evidence. I can't change yours because you have taken the irrational position of believing in something for which there is no evidence other than your own imagination.

Page: << < prev 3 4 [5] 6 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875