Should Abortion be Allowed?

[Thales750]

Absence of belief in a god does not constitute a religious belief. I will happily admit to holding anti-theist attitudes. That does not however mean that holding these views forms the basis of a religion, even if others hold similar views.

Otherwise the belief in the effects of gravity or the sun rising in the morning would also have to be called religous beliefs.

Religions stands apart from ordinary belief in the continued devotion to doctrine despite the observational realities.

To me, this is all humor, to you it is a mission. Full of all of the Zeal associated with religion. You do not have to call it religion if you choose.

But you and those like you have chosen to adapt the most heinous aspects of religion, fundamentalism.

The “I am right and you are wrong” force the religion to die mentality; is a very scary thing to behold. In spite of all of the good done by churches, you desire it's ultimate destruction.

You are guilty of the very thing you despise. Adam you’re in this as well.

You guys shouldn't kid yourselves, you are religious zealots.

Believing in God has nothing to do with religion. Religion is proving that your method of worship is right and every other way is wrong or evil.

Sound familiar?

 

[dan-cat]

Absence of belief in a god does not constitute a religious belief. I will happily admit to holding anti-theist attitudes. That does not however mean that holding these views forms the basis of a religion, even if others hold similar views.

I agree that you are expressing more 'opposition' than 'a lack of'. It is this enthusiasm for the topic that extends you and many others, who are described or describe themselves as atheists, beyond the notion of a simple lack of theism. When a group of individuals come together to oppose something then that is a shared belief. Perhaps 'atheists' is a misnomer for these individuals.

The confusion arises when definitions of 'religion' include a culmination of shared beliefs. As you say a common belief does not necessarily constitute a religion but it was not a theist that put this criterion forward in this thread.

 

[Adam Caramon]

The “I am right an you are wrong” force the religion to die mentality is a very scary thing to behold. In spite of all of the good done by churches, you desire it's ultimate destructions.

I don't agree with the force part, and I think an important distinction is the method of destruction. I would seek the destruction of religion through education. I think that the more education is sponsored and becomes readily available, the less people will adhere to religion. I'm not advocating burning down churches and putting priests to the sword.

If someone has not been indoctrinated to a religion, has been educated, and then chooses of their own free will to be a religious adherent, that's completely fine.

Believing in God has nothing to do with religion. Religion is proving that your method of worship is right and every other way is wrong or evil.

Everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want to. If you want to believe in magic or faeries or demons, or whatever you choose, that's all well and good. But you should not expect your beliefs to have a seat at the table when solutions of everyday problems are being discussed. And if you try (which is what happens all the time now), you should be (and will be) strongly resisted.

 

[Thales750]

I don't agree with the force part, and I think an important distinction is the method of destruction. I would seek the destruction of religion through education. I think that the more education is sponsored and becomes readily available, the less people will adhere to religion. I'm not advocating burning down churches and putting priests to the sword.

If someone has not been indoctrinated to a religion, has been educated, and then chooses of their own free will to be a religious adherent, that's completely fine.



Everyone has a right to believe in whatever they want to. If you want to believe in magic or faeries or demons, or whatever you choose, that's all well and good. But you should not expect your beliefs to have a seat at the table when solutions of everyday problems are being discussed. And if you try (which is what happens all the time now), you should be (and will be) strongly resisted.

What should be resisted is Zealism. Look at the early years of the Soviet Movement. All the proof you need that Atheism is a religion. Everything you talk about is fundalmentalist.

How many will you kill in the next antireligious uprising? 10 million? 20?

Fundalmentalism is the root cause. Not belief in God.

 

[Adam Caramon]

Look at the early years of the Soviet Movement.

Could you provide a source? Often times what people try to claim is done in the name of atheism is simply done by people without any clear religious affiliations, which is not the same.

If you have a credible source that tells of the Soviet Movement's intentional repression of religion, I'd be interested in reading it. Note that I am not saying that this did not happen, but a quick google & wikipedia search did not reveal it.

How many will you kill in the next antireligious uprising? 10 million? 20?

0? If you bothered to read what I wrote before, my way of bring about the destruction of religion is through education. I can't think of any other way that would be effective.

As an example, take racist people. Older folks tend to be more racist than younger folks here in the states due to the fact that they were born and raised in different times. Would it make sense to just kill anyone who is racist? Of course not. Through education, and time, the problem fades away on its own.

I see the same happening with religion. Everyone has or knows someone who has a grandmother or grandfather that is incredibly religious. That elder person is often seen as a kook by younger people, but out of respect, they ignore the elder's ramblings.

 

[Thales750]

Whereas I share your views on keeping religion out of politics, I wonder, separate from that, why anyone would ever spend more than about 3 seconds, of their entire life, worrying about what others might believe.

Unless of course; they were indeed a religious extremist.

I leave you to your passion.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Could you provide a source? Often times what people try to claim is done in the name of atheism is simply done by people without any clear religious affiliations, which is not the same.

If you have a credible source that tells of the Soviet Movement's intentional repression of religion, I'd be interested in reading it. Note that I am not saying that this did not happen, but a quick google & wikipedia search did not reveal it.

Its a trick readily used by militant atheists all the time.

A simple typing of Soviet Union Religion into google should start you off. Glad to help. Your open mindedness - or prejudice shall take you the rest of the way.

Let us know where you end up!

 

[Galaxiom]

Fundalmentalism is the root cause. Not belief in God.

Believers use the Bible as evidence for the existence of God and the justification for God being sited as an absolute moral authority. However they also tell us that fundamentalism is to be avoided.

In other words they simultanelously use the Bible to support their beliefs while rejecting what is actually said in it. Not really so surprising since their whole belief system is littered with incongruencies.

Surely they should either accept the Bible and everything it says (including stoning children to death for disobedience) or they should reject it outright. But no, they hold it up as evidence to back their bigotry when it suits them and hide from the parts they don't agree with.

What this really means is they stand behind the principle of higher authority but are free to make up whatever perspective they wish on any subject yet still claim that it is backed by the moral absolutes of their deity.

This is the reason religious zealots are able to take such liberties and justify anything as being "what God said". The Bible is so incoherent that passages to back any position can be found making it utterly worthless as any kind of a philosophical guide.

Science is certainly fundamentalist. It is fundamentalist because anything else is outside of its scope. If something is not based on the fundamental theories then either it is wrong or the fundamental theory needs refinment. Yes, fundamentalist and unashamedly so. It would be incongruent, profoundly dishonest and just plain stupid if it was any other way becaue then it would be a religion.

The scientific equivalent of relativist religion would be to promote a theory then insist that it is suspended if that suits a particular case and suggest that anyone who wholly believes in the theory has some kind of problem.

 

[Rabbie]

Whereas I share your views on keeping religion out of politics, I wonder, separate from that, why anyone would ever spend more than about 3 seconds, of their entire life, worrying about what others might believe.

Unless of course; they were indeed a religious extremist.

I leave you to your passion.

If any of my adult friends seriously believed in the tooth fairy, the spaghetti monster or father christmas then I would worry about them for more than 3 seconds. Wouldn't you? Those beliefs would make me query their mental health but of course if that was their only symptom then I would not worry about them though I suspect there are some religious people that might persecute them. If they had other symtoms then I would try to persuede them to seek professional help.

In rational terms what is the difference between the beliefs outlined above and religious beliefs? There seems to be the same amount of rational evidence for all these.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

If any of my adult friends seriously believed in the tooth fairy, the spaghetti monster or father christmas then I would worry about them for more than 3 seconds. Wouldn't you? Those beliefs would make me query their mental health but of course if that was their only symptom then I would not worry about them though I suspect there are some religious people that might persecute them. If they had other symtoms then I would try to persuede them to seek professional help.

In rational terms what is the difference between the beliefs outlined above and religious beliefs? There seems to be the same amount of rational evidence for all these.

I find it more worrying - that you think you have the answers to the meaning of life to such an extent that you ridicule others for still seeking those answers for themselves.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Believers use the Bible as evidence for the existence of God and the justification for God being sited as an absolute moral authority. However they also tell us that fundamentalism is to be avoided.

In other words they simultanelously use the Bible to support their beliefs while rejecting what is actually said in it. Not really so surprising since their whole belief system is littered with incongruencies.

Surely they should either accept the Bible and everything it says (including stoning children to death for disobedience) or they should reject it outright. But no, they hold it up as evidence to back their bigotry when it suits them and hide from the parts they don't agree with.

What this really means is they stand behind the principle of higher authority but are free to make up whatever perspective they wish on any subject yet still claim that it is backed by the moral absolutes of their deity.

This is the reason religious zealots are able to take such liberties and justify anything as being "what God said". The Bible is so incoherent that passages to back any position can be found making it utterly worthless as any kind of a philosophical guide.

Science is certainly fundamentalist. It is fundamentalist because anything else is outside of its scope. If something is not based on the fundamental theories then either it is wrong or the fundamental theory needs refinment. Yes, fundamentalist and unashamedly so. It would be incongruent, profoundly dishonest and just plain stupid if it was any other way becaue then it would be a religion.

The scientific equivalent of relativist religion would be to promote a theory then insist that it is suspended if that suits a particular case and suggest that anyone who wholly believes in the theory has some kind of problem.

The irony of it - you pick and choose the religiuos aspects that are fitting to your prejudice, and disregard the rest.

 

[Thales750]

If any of my adult friends seriously believed in the tooth fairy, the spaghetti monster or father christmas then I would worry about them for more than 3 seconds. Wouldn't you? Those beliefs would make me query their mental health but of course if that was their only symptom then I would not worry about them though I suspect there are some religious people that might persecute them. If they had other symtoms then I would try to persuede them to seek professional help.

In rational terms what is the difference between the beliefs outlined above and religious beliefs? There seems to be the same amount of rational evidence for all these.

My only interest in this conversation was to point out that religious atheist are indeed at least as extremist as the most fundamentalist theist.

If you cannot see that, then it even proves my point all the more.

 

[Galaxiom]

I find it more worrying - that you think you have the answers to the meaning of life to such an extent that you ridicule others for still seeking those answers for themselves.

They don't seek the meaning of life but start out with an "answer" that was instilled into them as children.

The question of the "meaning of life" is an artifact concocted to justify an "answer" that makes no sense anyway.

 

[Galaxiom]

The irony of it - you pick and choose the religiuos aspects that are fitting to your prejudice, and disregard the rest.

Exactly as I pointed out. You expect the parts you agree with to be taken seriously while you think you should be able to hide from the rest.

In science, the equivalent would be to promote observations that support a hypothesis while insisting that observations that refute it should be ignored.

Like I said, religion is littered with incongruencies.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

They don't seek the meaning of life but start out with an "answer" that was instilled into them as children.

The question of the "meaning of life" is an artifact concocted to justify an "answer" that makes no sense anyway.

The fact you can dismiss millions or billions of good, intelligent or not so good or intelligent people , in a couple of sentences made up alomost entirely of your own mistaken beliefs says it all really.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

Exactly as I pointed out. You expect the parts you agree with to be taken seriously while you think you should be able to hide from the rest.

In science, the equivalent would be to promote observations that support a hypothesis while insisting that observations that refute it should be ignored.

Like I said, religion is littered with incongruencies.

Youve now taken to disregarding everything you disagree with, whilst repeating the same old mantra. ;-)

I expect nothing , except for you to be differant than that which you criticise, in fact you are almost identical to the extremist religiuos types.

I see your views ultimatley as a bit of self flagellation. Thats ok - but I'm not sure you need to involve others.

 

[Galaxiom]

Youve now taken to disregarding everything you disagree with, whilst repeating the same old mantra.

As is typical of religious aplogists you fail to address the actual points but use your own mantra ad nauseum.

The fact is any objective analysis of religion shows exactly as I describe. The believers simply choose to ignore the parts of their holy books that don't fit their philosophy while claiming the book as a whole is evidence of its higher source of authority.

I do understand that part of the Bible is not without merit. My point is that its hideous passages amply demonstrate that, far from being the work of an advanced guide, it is written by stone age goat hearders.

In science a single anomaly in observation compared to theory disproves the hypothesis. The Bible's divine origin hypothesis is disproved.

 

[AnthonyGerrard]

As is typical of religious aplogists you fail to address the actual points but use your own mantra ad nauseum.

The fact is any objective analysis of religion shows exactly as I describe. The believers simply choose to ignore the parts of their holy books that don't fit their philosophy while claiming the book as a whole is evidence of its higher source of authority.

I do understand that part of the Bible is not without merit. My point is that its hideous passages amply demonstrate that, far from being the work of an advanced guide, it is written by stone age goat hearders.

In science a single anomaly in observation compared to theory disproves the hypothesis. The Bible's divine origin hypothesis is disproved.

You see, when you adopt a more moderate religious viewpoint rather than the ultra atheist nonsense - you're quite a nice boy.

 

[Galaxiom]

The fact you can dismiss millions or billions of good, intelligent or not so good or intelligent people , in a couple of sentences made up alomost entirely of your own mistaken beliefs says it all really.

You insist my beliefs are mistaken yet you provide nothing in support of your claim while pretending that my words support your case. Clearly you are incapable of presenting a coherent rebuttal and expect throwaway lines to serve instead.

 

[Alc]

I find it more worrying - that you think you have the answers to the meaning of life to such an extent that you ridicule others for still seeking those answers for themselves.

1. Rabbie has never claimed to have these answers. Or have you seen a post that says otherwise and I just missed it?
2. Belief in gods doesn't demonstrate seeking answers, it is a final answer in itself. Whereas science will suggest a theory, test it, find faults, and suggest another until it finds an answer that works, belief in gods just takes an untestable theory and places all faith in it, regardless of everything else.