Tim, in pursuance of an intelligent and civilized debate, I'd like to make a few comments on what you posted.
 
Firstly, to be clear, I have no problem whatsoever with anyone believing whatever they want. My only gripe is that their beliefs should never be allowed to interfere with my life in any way. And that most definitely includes not having any of my tax dollars/pounds being used to subsidise (or worse, to promote) their beliefs. And I most definitely don't want anyone's religious beliefs to have any impact or influence on the legislative process.
 
For the life of me, I just don't get why the majority of religious folk simply don't (or more likely 'won't') understand this. I would have thought that freedom from religion is as much a basic human right as is freedom to practise one's religion.
 
 

Starise
 
 IMO the very term "Christian" itself is widely abused and misunderstood. To some folks being born into a Christian family or being baptized makes you a Christian.

 
I completely understand what you're trying to say here, but I think you'd have to acknowledge that far and away the single most influential factor in what faith (or not) a person follows, or which religion they subscribe to, is what their parents teach them when they are very young. Other factors, of course, will include where one is born, and whether or not the society one is born into permits religious belief or permits only certain specified religious 'belief'.
 
For example, what are the chances that a child born to Amish parents in Ohio will end up becoming a practising Jew, or Hindu? Or what chance is there that a child born in Israel to Jewish parents will become a devout Muslim?
 
Although "Religious Instruction" (in the UK, this was traditionally Christian in nature) as such no longer features on our schools' curricula, I honestly don't want my children taught anything about any religion in such a way that could be viewed as prosetylization in any form.
 
And I certainly don't want them taught creation "theory" instead of, or even alongside Evolution in biology class. However, I've nothing against them being taught in a Philosophy/Ethics classes that some people believe in divine creation, and think that evolution is nothing more than a conspiracy or misunderstanding to deflect from the "truth" of Intelligent Design.  Again, the distinction in how these subjects are taught may appear slight, but to me it is important.
 
My own personal conviction is that I'd like to see a world where no child is taught which religion is "correct" by anyone (including their parents), and that they should be allowed to decide for themselves once they're old enough what they want to believe in, or not , as the case may be. By all means, teach them about the beliefs of different faiths, but to force feed them only one "true" religion is tantamount to brainwashing them at best, and could be considered child abuse at worse.
 
Again, I fail to see what the problem is with any of this. 
 
 
 

Starise
 
To some people a Christian is some kind of a fundamentalist weirdo, who lives life in the extreme and expects everyone else to do the same.
 

 
To which I'd say that most fundamentalists actually believe that the so-called 'moderates' are the "weirdos" for not following their religion to the letter as outlined and specified in their scripture and holy texts.
 
If truth be told, I actually have far more 'respect' for fundamnentalists who live their lives according to the immutable word of their god, and who very selectively refuse to pick and choose which parts of their Bible/Qur'an/Tanakh to obey and which to disregard. I know I'm being incredibly naive here, but surely a book written or dictated by such a deity as one might choose to worship is either all true, or a man-made forgery?
 
 

Starise
 
God loves everyone and that includes the fine folks we have here who call themselves Atheists. I think highly of those folks too. I have never walked a mile in anyone's shoes but my own. 
 
 

 
I don't want your god to love me.
 
I don't want anyone to love me who demands that I love them back or suffer for all eternity once I die.
 
To me, that isn't love, and I fail to understand how any rational person could possibly equate it thus.

I'm glad there are "beliefs" for people that need something to believe in.
 
I can understand them being happy and stating that their belief is helping them.
Anything much more than that and I'm ready to turn the channel.
 
 
 
 

Speaking only for myself, out of respect for the TOS and the sensibilities of this forum, I do not discuss matters of faith or belief here.  I respect the freedom of each individual to make up their own minds and determine for themselves how they will think and what they will believe.  While I am comfortable discussing my beliefs with anyone who wants to talk about the subject, I have no desire to argue with anyone.  Mutual respect is key to understanding.  We don't have to agree in order to treat each other with civility and kindness.
 
I know that many people have had negative experiences with people who hold different beliefs, values, or philosophies.  For those who have been browbeaten and coerced into a token "belief" against their will, I'm sorry you were mistreated.  We should be able to talk about important questions of life, morality, and beliefs without a fight.  In my opinion, we should be able to hear one another without feeling threatened, villified, or humiliated.  I hope I do not treat anyone of a faith different from mine in that manner. 
 
It's a conversation, not a monologue.  Just as I have the right to speak my mind, so does everyone else.  If we listen to one another, give each other a chance to be heard, we can have a discussion.  Otherwise, we're just shouting at each other, as if the loudest voice will win.  It's a shame that there's been so much shouting (the reason for the TOS) that it gets in the way of a meaningful and respectful dialogue.

UbiquitousBubba
 We don't have to agree in order to treat each other with civility and kindness.
 

And that really is the catch, isn't it?
Most people know that the odds are there may be civility and kindness to a point and
then...
People have shown and will show as sure as the sun will rise that when they talk about
things they believe in very much and others state they don't agree then Kattie barr the doors.
 
It is against the TOS because people are the way they are.
There are voting booths for same good reason. Cast your vote and keep your mouth shut seems
like very smart advice to me.
 
Much different than when folks are talking about why they like that color blue....or is the pro-channel
all it's cut-out to be.
One can get to close....."hey, do ya have any naked pictures of your wife?"  !!NO!!...."do ya want some?".    Have some civility and kindness talking about that camara and lens....yeah, right.

Maybe it would be heaven on earth if all religion was banned like they tried in Cambodia that time.
 
p.s. Isn't there a church of atheism now. 
 
http://www.salon.com/2013/09/22/atheism_starts_its_megachurch_is_it_a_religion_now/

dogma am god?
 
or is that
 
madam I'm adam.
 

A man, a plan, a canal: Panama
Straw?  No, too stupid a fad.  I put soot on warts.

mike_mccue
"It is a sad reality that most atheists I've talked to need to believe in something that cannot be verified"
 
This circumstance is probably caused by the fact that Atheism is a belief rather than knowledge based on infallible logic, or empirical evidence.
 
Fixed.
 

That was to be expected...
 
There are atheists who decide that beliefs, though they have their place, should yield to knowledge and facts. You understand that there is a difference between that "belief" which is a result of an evaluation and believing in tarot or astrology, don't you? 
 
In fact I have no doubt that you do. After all, your own statement is the result of your own beliefs, not infaillible logic and empirical evidence. Trying to fix faulty logic with faulty logic...

backwoods
 
Please remember Popper's graveyard of dead scientific ideas. No idea is fully corroborated, and any contrary evidence invalidates it. And yet average Joes who have read a couple of popular science books are pretty darn confident in their beliefs.

 
That is looking at science with the religious-like expectation of finding an absolute eternal and finite truth which cannot be disproved. That's not what science is about. 
 
IMHO, the need for a magical explanation which can explain everything is something which can and must be outgrown. As long as we think in religious term and judge science in those terms, obviously, it won't seem like a valid answer. The problem isn't the answer or the lack of an answer, it's what what you want the answer to be.

Dining tables make lousy conversationalists.

backwoods
No idea is fully corroborated, and any contrary evidence invalidates it. And yet average Joes who have read a couple of popular science books are pretty darn confident in their beliefs.

Consider me not your "average Joe", if you'd be so good.
 
I studied Genetics and Evolutionary Biology at University, and I've kept myself pretty much up to date with developments in both ever since.
 
And you are correct in your assumption that "No idea is fully corroborated", unless of course you delve into mathematics and some strains of pure logic. Science doesn't work like that at all. All we can hope for is to have a set of ideas that best fit the current evidence, nothing more. Newton's Laws of motion held up for nearly 200 years until Einstein amended them. And at the moment, the evidence available favours Einstein's ideas rather than Newton's. No doubt someone will come along in the future and point out the errors in his calculations.
 
This is how we progress. This is why I can type this message and you can read it a fraction of a second later, rather than having to wait for more traditional methods of conveying my words to you.
 
To spin your argument around, compare the modus operandi of the scientific method with the views of most believers, who somehow know with absolute certainty that their god exists, that he is the only god that exists, and that by paying him due deference and worshipping him correctly, they will continue to live on past the death of their physical body.
 
And all without even one miniscule speck of evidence from the past 2500 years to even hint that this is true.
 
I never understand why rational and intelligent human beings, who would normally seek out and act upon research and evidence before committing to some particular action, suspend all such rationality when the matter of religion is the subject in question.
 
You wouldn't buy a new car without looking under the hood, or checking the logbook would you? Or you wouldn't put medicine into your body that hadn't been put through countless lengthy and sophisticated clinical trials, would you?
 
Ironically, most Christians I know ascribe the same rational scrutiny to other religions as others (and atheists) apply to theirs. The only difference between an atheist and a believer is that the believer believes in just one more religion.
 
My own feelings on religion of all kinds is that they are now well past their use-by date. The spaces left in our knowledge for the 'god-of-the-gaps' to fill have become almost vanishingly small. The antiquated and often ludicrous laws that are stipulated in the holy scriptures are mostly anachronisms in the 21st century, and we are better off without many of them.
 
If we can safely dispense with the need for religious law and religious explanations for perfectly natural events, that only really leaves one thing to cling on to - the promise of eternal life. They say man is the only animal that knows he is going to die. And I reckon that man has always been frightened by that very prospect. If you can convince yourself that you're going somewhere else when you pop your clogs, I guess it makes the thought of death a little less daunting. My view is that many religions were begun on this very premise, and have subsequently been used to impose order on the ignorant unwashed ever since.
 
Back to the business of belief, I often hear the argument that, as an atheist, I do actually believe in something - in other words that I believe there is no god.
 
But to me that's not only ridiculous, it doesn't really make any sense. The word atheism itself means 'lack of belief (in god/gods/deities)', if anything. As mentioned previously, I might be incredibly naïve, but I don't fully understand how this can be confusing to people.
 
In a way, it's similar to demanding that an atheist proves there is no god, as if in some ways to justify his (non) beliefs. To me that's ridiculous; you can ask anyone to disprove anything you can think of or imagine, and of course, it can't be done. To the religious who think like that, I ask them to prove that fairies don't exist. Or that dragons don't exist. You can see where I'm coming from I hope.
 
Logic states that just because you cannot prove something doesn't exist, it doesn't automatically follow that it does exist.
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Well, Straummy, ol pal...I don't know how things are over in Blighty, but over here, if polls are to be believed, 40% of 'Mercans think the Earth is less than 10,000 years old. So, really, we've got one heckuva hill to climb. But...I've got my hikin boots on.

SteveStrummerUK

mike_mccue
 
"There are atheists who decide that beliefs, though they have their place, should yield to knowledge and facts."
 
 
IIRC, There are numerous examples of devoutly religious persons whom have maintained their beliefs while contributing to bodies of knowledge and an understanding of facts.
 
Darwin, Newton, Planck etc.
 
I'm not sure what that means but it seems like a good time to mention it.
 

Well, to be honest with you Mike, it means absolutely nothing.
 
One is a complete non-sequitur of the other.
 
 

 
 
I love it when we can agree on something!
 
It makes me smile.
 
best regards,
mike

Nice blog Mooch. Glad you're involved and speaking out. Just, I couldn't watch it with the audio (lies) going on.
Why do you have all that noise when you're talking? I get it. Turn it off and talk.
I didn't read this thread so maybe I'm missing something.
 
And now, wait a minute, Is this allowed here. Aren't you breaking the law or something......?.............