First off, welcome to wheelhomies.

Saying black people are on average statistically dumber = incorrect. On average, people of african decent earn less and have less of an education because of continuing racist practices in business and school, but that's slowly changing. Had I not had the opportunity to go to school or have a good job, I wouldn't have had access o the information I was able to learn to make me the person I am today...but would that suggest I am dumber? Nope. Also, I have no idea what that has to do with atheism.

My impression of what happened was that you slipped and said something you didn't exactly intend to say. No harm there. I've said things I didn't mean to say before. For example, recently in a lively debate with debaser, I accidentally called the Kuwaitis Kurds. Needless to say, it was embarrassing. I caught my slip and apologized, and was able to move on.

Speaking to a correlation between intellect and atheism or theism, no conclusive verifiable evidence exists to suggest that atheists or theists have the smarter folk. While I am of the opinion that atheists are able to reason in a more effective and scientific way than theists, that doesn't suggest that theists are in any way less intelligent on the whole. Look at Dr. Martin Luther King and Gandhi. Two of the most important people in history, and they were deeply religious.

Well i've never said anyone is more intelligent than anyone else regarding to any group of people. What I said was African Americans are less educated often due to outside factors beyond their control. As for atheists and theists, what I said was I believe theists put more stock into faith and much less into reason and logic, this isn't a knock on their intelligence, this is just the way I see it. If i offended anyone I do apologize because that isn't what i'm trying to accomplish, in fact it's directly counter productive.

I'd agree with that. I'm just not quite sure why race was introduced into the conversation.

Well, I remembered hearing statistics revealing African Americans were more likely to believe in God than Caucasians. I thought it was pertinent to my opinion about the correlation between education and atheism.

I can understand that, but, as said before, that's not a direct link by any means. It could just be a coincedence. There are many reasons that people of african decent (IL, help me out, is 'black' kosher for general respectful use?) are more likely to be religious, and christian and muslim in general. It has a lot to do with a strong cultural tie to religion, I'd imagine. Think of it this way: people of arab decent usually have a high education level, yet they, like people of african decent, are much more likely to believe in allah.

I've not yet seen any evidence of a link between religios vs. non-religious philosophy and education level or IQ. I would say it relies more on environmental factors like upbringing.

thanks willravel. ah, the joys of being a newb.

your point about arabs and african americans has some merit. However, as you said before it also depends on their religious upbringing. Arabs are born into strong religious sentiments, whereas here in the states it's more of a choice. I think there are enough variables at work when you make comparisons about americans, but comparing different countries only amplifies them. Either way it's tough to peg the exact reasons why. Let's put it this way, it's simply my opinion based on the limited evidence I have.

I meant Arab Americans. Those of Syrian or Middle Eastern decent born and/or raised in the US. They are VERY rarely atheist or agnostic.

Former Soviet states have higher degrees of atheism despite generally poor education yet have a very small black population. Your generalization = Phail'd.

I can't believe we've only been looking at intelligence as the correlation between theism and education. What about morality. Do the statistics suggest that African Americans have, on average, a higher moral integrity than Caucasians?

Didn't think so.

The statistics aren't very useful because they are oversimplistic. As has been mentioned previously, we cannot bring about any satisfying conclusion based on them, especially not for our purposes here. The most we can agree on is perhaps a commentary on the status of religious membership by race within America. Not much else can be taken from that; certainly not a reading as deep as: African Americans erroneously believe in God because they are poor and uneducated.

The problem with generalizations is that, on their own, they are possibly as rooted in faith as a dogmatic belief in God.

Get some popcorn, this one's a doozy.


I agree that there is a lot of pop science available for anyone who happens to enjoy such things. The discovery channel is a mixed bag. I like that show "how it's made", but they do seem to have a lot of what amounts to skin deep infotainment(hello shark week).

In this day and age, where there's so much stuff to know, there isn't anyone who knows enough about enough things to not be at the mercy of other people's judgment when it comes to the dissemination of information. Even if someone happens to be extremely intelligent and well read, they're still going to have to rely on other people's interpretation of things which they don't understand.

I'm not sure how the subject of sheep came up, as the herd-like behavior isn't necessarily that important in the context of anything i've said. I don't think the fact that humanity can be thought of as an interconnected, interrelated community(essentially the sheep thing) is that relevant to the notion that in a complex world such as ours it is essentially impossible for one person to go about their daily business without needing to, at some point, rely on the judgement and knowledge of someone with more information or experience.

As it stands, most people have very limited knowledge of math or science, and if you happen to be going to school for anything remotely math-y or science-y they will readily tell you this if your area of study ever happens to come up in casual conversation. The next time you meet someone new, tell them you're taking a multivariable calculus class, probably 7 times out of ten you'll get a pair of wide eyes and algebra lamentations as a response. Then tell them that calculus is the study of the ramifications of division by zero, and 7 times out of ten they won't have any clue that you're full of shit.

These people are vulnerable in a sense; it doesn't take much effort to fool them when they trust your authority on a given subject and have no idea what you're talking about. Just look at the current global warming debate. I'm pretty sure that the vast majority of people who have a firm opinion on the subject have absolutely no clue about the models used to predict its effects. Even when you have two people who do know what the science is, they can and will offer widely divergent opinions on the matter (ustwo and i think superbelt).

All this blabbering is really just to say that the idea that we will be better off if more people fly the flag of rationality and science completely ignores the facts that:

1) Most people hate math and/or science(except perhaps for the pop variety).
2) Even people who love math and/or science are limited in their knowledge by the sheer magnitude of things out there to know.
3) A strong cultural commitment to science as a functional alternative to a cultural commitment to religion is meaningless if the majority of people in a society can't actually be bothered to learn the science; you'll just end up with an identical power structure that's just as liable to hijacked by those with ulterior motives(see stalin).
4) Human beings aren't rational in any sort of consistent way, therefore it is pointless to claim that there is any sort of more rational alternative to the current status quo. After all, the atheist position must assume that humans are self-organizing and therefore completely responsible for the current state of affairs. It isn't religion that has gotten us in this mess, it is us.


Now, none of this is to say that atheism necessarily need by thought of as the more rational alternative to religion, or that a bold new age of rational knowledge awaits us just beyond the horizon if only we can throw of the shackles of spirituality. It's just that this is the way that new atheism is commonly framed.


Yes, i know that stereotypes can sometimes be useful when judging people we don't know. However, if what you're actually seeking is some sort of general truth, i find that it is best to leave them at the door. We aren't in the street here.

I'd be interested in seeing how you were able to correlate belief in evolution with the ability to think rationally. You know that conclusions arrived at through rational means aren't necessarily correct? I can think rationally and believe that the universe revolves around the earth, it would be necessary that i start with some probably pretty ridiculous assumptions, but it could be done rationally.

As far as ignoring threats to comfortable belief systems, did you know that einstein disliked quantum mechanics so much that he spent his dying breath trying to come up with a unifying theory that would render it obsolete? He didn't like the idea that the universe left things up to chance. From what i understand, it's actually pretty normal for more established scientists to discourage people whose theories might threaten the current status quo.

Well, when the six(5 actually) examples are responsible for relativity, genetics, calculus, and mechanics one might wonder, what the hell those hundreds of millions of people ever did for science?

Ask the scientist what happens after you die, or why we exist, i guarantee you that if s/he is an actual scientist the answer you get won't be any more substantial that the one you'd get from your diety of choice.

Empty calories!!! I'll have some dried blueberries.
I love shark week.
ROFL. You're a funny guy. I think the problem may be that people want to appear as if they know everything. It's embarrassing to be uncovered as an idiot, and people generally nod when they don't know what's going on. Maybe if people were able to separate themselves from a superficial intellectual vanity, we'd all be in a better place to learn.
That's just the thing, the ability to go to a library and learn for yourself is available to everyone. I did some research and am convinced that global warming (global climate change) is real. Anyone is free to do this.
Well to that I've said:
I recognize all of the correct points above, except that it's obviously harder to hijack that which is scientifically verifiable. How many Martin Luther's have there been vs. how many Einsteins? Both fundamentally changed their fields, but the Reformation stands in a small group of attempted corrections. Science is corrected every day. Also, there was no diet of Worms for Einstein. He stated facts, and while many backwards scientists disagreed, hey eventually came around.
The only thing I'd like to say to this is the following:
To me, believing in the supernatural suggests a susceptibility to believe in that which is counter intuitive or counter to reason. This isn't a bash of religious people, as many are seeking spiritual enlightenment and peace, it's simply my observation. I wonder about the ability to be skeptical among those who accept that which is unprovable. Atheism is the ability to accept being skeptical and reasonable so far as the supernatural.

You won't hold it against them, but will imply that they are weak?

If one is addicted, that does not require weakness as a prerequisite. The implication simply is to the nature of the relationship between believer and faith as being similar to the relationship between an addict and his or her addiction. I wouldn't disagree with that entirely, but it's obviously more complicated than alcoholism.

Will, you're just lucky we don't hold your addiction to scientific reason against you.

I don't think anything should be held against anyone in the context of atheism and theism. One can be a good theist or atheist, just as one can be a bad atheist or theist. I would say that for something to held against someone, one would need to produce it's effects on them negatively, or visa versa. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was a theist, and used his faith to inspire true progress. He was one of the post important people who ever lived. Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi was a theist of much the same caliber who brought about true progress.

It's only when faith (or a lack of faith) becomes destructive that it should be addressed in the negative.

It's funny, you can actually track the change in my philosophy through my post history. Heh.

Yeah, me too.

This is patently false. How is being religious the same thing as being addicted? I suppose some people could be addicted to religion but that is more of a condition of the individual rather than a wholesale trait of a person with religious beliefs.

ACA's are normally religious.

Leaving an addiction causes withdrawal (irritability, depression, etc.).
Leaving religion causes withdrawal (irritability, depression, etc.).

Google 'religious addiction'.

What is ACA?

Oh, sorry, adult children of alcoholics.

Ah, got it, thanks.

Well, the thing is, while a person can be addicted to religion (just like anything else), just being religious doesn't make you an addict.

No, but I believe there to be some similarities. I'm not suggesting that everyone is addicted to religion. Addiction suggests a negative (to tie into what I said above). Seriously, if you google 'religious addiction' you'll get a good idea.
http://desertpastor.typepad.com/para...ous_addic.html
I believe the other name for it is spiritual abuse. Religion is like any other substance that can be addictive, when used responsibly it can be fine, even good. It can be and is often abused. Many people use it in the stead of healthier connections like friendship and companionship. Some people use it as a tool to judge others.

That's a much better thought out answer.

atheism: the hate cult for wimps..when they get really angry, they beat up Buddhists

Um... I'm an atheistic Buddhist... :uhh: Good thing I don't get angry, or I'd beat myself up... if I weren't so wimpy.... :confused:

Wait... a theist with a 'holier than thou' attitude? You broke my irony meter, damnit!

You owe me an irony meter, son.

I am not an atheist, though I have thought at times it would be much easier to be an atheist. I could spend my whole life looking for answers, only to come up with more questions. When people ask me what religion I follow, I can't really give them an answer..most then assume I am an atheist. But I seek my god in my own way, not somebody else's way.

You're an agnostic, then (by my understanding of the term). You believe that there is probably a higher power, but you are still in the process of defining it. I hope you find peace in your search, no matter where it takes you.

Believe nothing, no matter where you read it, or who said it, no matter if I have said it, unless it agrees with your own reason and your own common sense. - Buddha Might that also include the Belief in Atheism? - Josobot

I've always liked that line. Mainly because it does so much to summarize what the Buddha was teaching: find your own path to truth.

If you find the Buddha in the road, kill him...and all that.

Thought for the Year: If one believes that there is an " Enduring Rational Reality", what is wrong with calling that "God" ? Especially if one sees a link between reason and morality. My thanks to Kant and Aristotle.

Why not call it Enduring Rational Reality? If that's too long try the acronym E.R.R. After all, to E.R.R. is human. (I slay myself:) )

but why would you believe such a thing as "there is an enduring rational reality"?
it makes no sense.

Bwahahahaha....
Do you mean that believing in reality is believing in god makes no sense? Or are you saying believing that reality is real makes no sense?

There are things we know we know. There are things we know we don't know. And then there are things we don't know that we don't know. Wait, what was the question again?:)

It's about nine months late, but welcome to TFP, Mr. Rumsfeld.

Reminds me of my favorite theological quote:

Alright, so I definitely didn't read all of this. But I'm more agnostic than atheist. I feel no need to justify my existance with a fairly tale about a big man in the sky. I mean really, I think atheism comes about do mostly to the fact that every day more scientific discoveries prove that religion is nothing more than a cult.

The ideas are preposterous. It was more a ways to control the masses than any real divine intervention that started Christianity. It was a happy fairy tale to impose one man's morals on the rest of society. We no longer feel the need to believe in some higher power.

Quiet a lot of food for thought in this post, some of the comments about addiction to religion interseted me as an alcoholic/drug addict who was involved with the 12 step program a few yrs back. Not to knock that particular method of recovery but for myself I could never get over the whole higher power aspect of it all, and as open-mindedness is a principle central to the 12 step method, I tried it, and got nowhere with it, talking to a 'no one there' is how I felt, so I left. But I could see that addiction to recovery in so many people I met during that time was so similar to the addiction to Religion and/or to substance abuse, maybe by day to day not as damning as getting loaded all the time, but nevertheless just as vacant. I myself am not religious or athiest nor agnostic. Perhaps spirtitualy content to just live my life in the day as best possible and try not to upset others. And in keeping with the thread title, I'm sure as long as people have been predisposed to grow in an envirnoment that preaches a religion (whatever that religion might be) they're have been as many Athiests among them as ever, presuming that non-belief is not anything new to the human mind that asks questions. I feel that many just don't question it that much and are content to agree with the message they hear.
Sorry rambling on my first post....

I for one am an athiest who doesn't want to be. I want to believe hat there is some higher power and life goes on etc.... but with all the thought and scientific fact, I just can't.

I grew up in Catholic school and I had so much exposure to the idea of God that I actually was able to sit back and think things through. I began to reject the concept after I left Catholicism and tried Buddhism. I then realized it's what I naturally am.


I think the case is that we're at a point where science can prove just about everything in the bible to have a natural scientific explanation. Aside from that I believe another problem is that in this age, we have all the exposure in the world to these facts. This means that we hear about God our entire lives and we are told otherwise, therefore it's only natural that we are bound to reject it.

We have been musing abstractly, personally, and Occidentally. Consider this writer's global prediction: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/China/IH07Ad03.html

The Progressive: Apart from Buddhism, what are your sources of inspiration?

The Dalai Lama: Human values. When I look at birds and animals, their survival is without rules, without conditions, without organization. But mothers take good care of their offspring. That’s nature. In human beings also, parents—particularly mothers—and children have a special bond. Mother’s milk is a sign of this affection. We are created that way. The child’s survival is entirely dependent on someone else’s affection. So, basically, each individual’s survival or future depends on society. We need these human values. I call these secular ethics, secular beliefs. There’s no relationship with any particular religion. Even without religion, even as nonbelievers, we have the capacity to promote these things.

Religion isn't necessary; human values are. Yet, the purpose of religion, if you cut out the corrupted teachings and appropriated cultures, is to teach these values. Be religious if that works for you; be atheistic if that works better. Compassion is not exclusive to those who believe in a "Greatest Conceivable Being" (GCB).

I don't believe in a GCB, but I don't like being lumped in with the Atheist Orthodoxy either. Do I have to fit my beliefs into a preconceived pidgeon-hole?

Atheist Orthodoxy? That's a doxymoron. Bwahahaha.

Sorry.

Have you ever read the bible? There's some crazy shit in there (no offense to bible lovers). Some things if true have no apparent scientific explanation. The logical conclusion that most come to, which is better supplied by historians than scientists, is that the stories in the bible aren't true, or, a more pc answer, that they're not literal. It's not so much that science can explain everything in the bible, it's more like science takes the wind out of the sails of the religion boat. I know that if the most learned man in my village(let's say some 600 years ago) presented the things in the bible as true, I'd be inclined to believe him. Subsequently, it would be hard for me to question the existence of god. That hurdle has been removed by science so now it's more like just one lap around the track without hurdles to get to atheism. (Two analogies I'm on fire!)

It is impossible to explain everything in the Bible by natural, scientific means. Miracles are a breaking of God's own natural laws. That's why they're considered miracles. It also explains why miracles have a very low probability of occurring. For an interesting explanation of miracles within the context of human understanding, read David Hume's On Miracles.




Life is too complex to be pigeon-holed. But before I try it on you, what say you of human values?

Define human values. I am human, and I have a certain set of values, but they may not be the same as yours.

EDIT - Nevermind, I see you are refering to your post above. I agree for the most part with what is written there, certainly there is a universal set of behaviors that is neccessary for our survival as a species. Whether this is a value judgement or simple instinct is another matter all together.

I do not take either the bible or religion literally, but rather poetically. And I believe that the poetic can be just as real as anything--even science. Pure science is atheistic and anti-poetic. And many atheists reject the poetic. However, many of the great scientists, awed by existence, have needed to resort to the poetic.

For example: There are moments when one feels free from one's own identification with human limitations and inadequacies. At such moments one imagines that one stands on some spot of a small planet, gazing in amazement at the cold yet profoundly moving beauty of the eternal, the unfathomable; life and death flow into one, and there is neither evolution nor destiny; only Being. - Albert Einstein

as stated above i think it is very obvious that it is impossibile to proof or refutate the miraculous stories of the bible.

thus it is only possibile to interpret the bible in a allegoric way. in my point of view it is very primitive to read word for word of the bible and to applicate word for word on the world. there are also scientist which believe in god and evolution. there is no reason why the bible contradicts evolutionary theory if you interpret the bible allegoric. you will often find allegoric interpretations in history in that periods of civilisations in which dominate wealth and security.

i'm not a believer or atheist. i'm a agnostic.

Yes. The Bible appears to me to be more about the why, not the how. I think it is essential to read as allegory. I haven't read enough of the Bible, nor do I know enough about its history, but isn't it considered the word of God, not a journal of happenings?

Even the Dhammapada uses allegory, as do many other ancient texts, I'm sure. In it the Buddha says:

Killing mother and father, and two warrior kings, killing a kingdom with all its subjects, the priestly one goes untroubled.

-Miscellany, XXI

An everyday practictioner--the kind Buddha taugh himself--was not expected to kill their parents or their rulers or their entire society. Here is a legend to what Buddha teaches here:

• Mother and father = greed and conceit
• Two warrior kings = grasping and rejecting
• The kingdom with all its subjects = the totality of the individual's experience of life in the domain of conditioned existence.

(From the Dhammapada, trans. Thomas Cleary)

It would be folly to read this passage literally. Why would we do it the Bible? Ancient literature is heavily allegorical. Allegory is a teaching tool. Realist literature didn't come about in any large sense until the 19th century.

A Cartesian perspective:


http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d1...ATT0005888.jpg

I'm going to go scare the living shit out of Pastor Manuel.

Don't worry. Took care of it.



http://i170.photobucket.com/albums/u...churchsign.jpg

:lol:
Well met, good sir.

Atheists have always been there, its only lately a lot have been coming out of the closet so to speak.

There must be a God because Ustwo is back.

people try to relate things to a god but there is no proof. Give the world just one sign and then we will all unite have one religon.

I don't know, I've thought things out and I've come to the conclusion that I'm athiest. It's not easy. Religion is a great way to deal with problems and to not be afraid of death. However, I just don't see the reality in God or any religion.

When people start to congratulate each other for a terminal illness then I'll believe it. I don't think it really does much about the fear of death for most people.

Do you mean that faith doesn't help people? Death is hard no matter what. But, believing that you're going to see your loved one after they die in heaven, and that they're looking down on you helps you overcome the fact that they are gone.

I on the other hand, believe that once my family is gone, they're gone. They are just going to be recycled by earth.

And believing that you're going onto live in heaven is a better thought than believing that you're done, and you have nothing else after death.

I've been an atheist for a few years, and I've found that my feelings about death have shifted fundamentally. I don't fear death. I hope my posterity outlives me, and I hope no one dies painfully, but the death itself is just fine.

I mean, if people really believed in their religions they would find out someone had cancer and throw a party in celebration. Soon that person would be free from the potential of sin and hell and now be one with god.

Just imagine the reaction of you congratulated someone whos kid had cancer. By logical extension of religious thought, that child will go to the grace of god without facing the temptations of adult sinning, if life is but a tiny fraction of the eternal what matters 70 years of life compared to an eternity in heaven?

Now mind you there are some people with this level of faith or as I like to say blissful delusion, but they are looked upon as nutjobs by the population as a whole.

A belief in an afterlife doesn't mean we shouldn't be sad when someone dies, just like a belief in Akron doesn't prevent us from being sad when a friend moves there.

I never said it wasn't going to be hard I said "Death is hard no matter what."

All I'm saying is that believing in an afterlife is sometimes an easier way to get through these situations, kind of like a healing method.

When I speak to my mother about her mom's death, it's always "I know she's looking down on me, and I know I will see her in heaven." She's not an overly religious person. She goes to church probably once or twice a year. However, this thought has helped her through times.

My cousin who just died of Hepatitis turned to God a few years before he died, and so did all of his family. I just find it odd that THEN they found God. It helps heal the thoughts that someone is gone. I'm not saying it makes everything ok that they died, but it does help.

How is that a logical extension? It seems more of a stretch, to me. Solace is taken in the fact that you'll see the departed again one day; Not that they're dead.

If you are a believer why would you CARE?

Death should be a celebration, a triumph, a graduation of sorts.

If you believe in God and an afterlife then death shouldn't be a time for tears and needing comfort, in fact you should be jealous if anything as they are now free from the devils temptations, they are one with god!

Of course, almost no one is like that (though some in fact are), most 'religious' people at best are uncertain deep inside, and I guarantee if you gave out pills that caused one to be immortal very few would turn them down.

You are forgetting the aspect of suffering. Christians left behind their barbaric view of physical suffering and closeness to God back in the Middle Ages.

Also, you described many people here, including atheists, when you say most people are at best uncertain deep inside. The fear of suffering is in us all, whether we are religious or not. To assume we should be otherwise is to assume we should be perfect: We are going to die, so why do we fear it? What's the big deal? Come on now. It's the way things are.

It's simple, as a human being (I'm speaking for myself here) I'm selfish. I DO rejoice that a loved one is with God and their loved ones that have passed on previously (as that is what I believe). I grieve for myself and what I will no longer have in my every day life.

Sorry but I don't buy it, I'm not saying you don't think thats your reason, I'm saying calling grief selfishness sounds like sophistry to justify the concept.

We are all selfish of course but a common lament among survivors in some tragedy where they lost a love one is they wish they had died instead of their wife/child etc.

I know I would take a bullet for my kids but it wouldn't be because I was so selfish I couldn't stand the grief, but because I want them to be ALIVE because I care for them so much.

But lets say I'm wrong, it is the selfishness...

Then why are people not happy when they themselves get a terminal illness? It should be like winning the lottery, you not only get to see god and family (who aren't in hell of course) but you get time to say goodbye and wish them to hurry along and come see you soon.

I do believe religion is that comfort for some people, but its a hallow empty comfort of make believe and tricking yourself in your grief to believe that maybe, some day you will see them again.

The thing is I'm not sure it is the right thing. I think people would think of life as a lot more precious if they couldn't limit its importance with a myth of immortality.

And you have every right to that opinion Ustwo

Which is exactly why I'm an athiest.

break in your regularly scheduled debatery on the old 'god and jesus' bit to say welcome back ustwo. it's good to see you creeping back into some of these threads.

--carry on--

i have no doubt that belief in higher 'powers' and deities helps with the suffering of this world and the fear of death. but you can't really overanalyze it ustwo...it doesn't work that way, and you know it. i've always found the heaven concept to be a grab bag. it's sort of 'what you like'...and its relation to events in the mortal world are also 'what you like.' the heaven concept is not a particularly logical concept (no offense to anyone...but i think this falls under the old faith/logic split) - so why would its ancilliary relations be logical?

Ummm... Why wouldn't I care? If Jesus lamented the death of Lazarus then why shouldn't I lament the death of a love one?

It is, but not in the way you want to portray it.

*Points all the way upwards*

Seriously. Now you're just being absurd bordering on callous.

It has very little to do with uncertainty. The allure of living forever simply appeals to one's inner-most desire; A desire, mind you, that is shared by all living organisms.

I must not be living then..."cause I sure as hell dont want to live forever...heh.

Like I said, the desire to live is a basic instinct present in all living organisms. Since you 'say' you don't want to live forever, let me rephrase my statement: "You want to live as long as possible." Everything does. It's a natural.

Ok so you KNOW there is a God and all those loved ones waiting for you, YET you choose to never meet him in person?

Come now.

In what way is that callous? I'm honestly curious about this - I would have thought that what ustwo wrote was the natural extrapolation of Christian belief.

You've overlooked one very important flaw in your argument. One doesn't need to die to see God; You only need to live up until the Rapture :D ;) :thumbsup: [/insert more smilies here]

People, in general, aren't afraid of death so much as they are afraid of the pain associated with it.

Extrapolation my foot. I guess you'd accept "We should kill young children before they have the chance to sin, as they'll go to heaven and be with God!" a logical extension of Christian belief too, huh?

An absurd statement an argument does not make.

The question I'm asking isn't about my beliefs Infinite_Loser. I'm not a Christian, so my thoughts won't lead me to understand where Christians draw their lines.

I'm asking a Christian where these lines are, so I can learn. The situtation as I understand it doesn't make sense. So in a way, I'm paying you the oblique compliment of assuming that there must be more to it than contradiction -- I just haven't understood it yet.

I'm trying to understand you and you're trying to argue with me.

This has become a tedious pattern.

You are trying to avoid the question with a bad straw man.

Murder is a sin of course, though this has been used as an excuse by the faithful before for murder.

I think we all have our answer here.

I think this is the question: if when someone dies they enter paradise, why would you missing them be such a consideration? I mean when someone moves away because they get their dream job, I don't cry. I might miss them a bit.

Answer: Assuming the existence of an afterlife, mourning the dead isn't actually mourning the dead, it's morning yourself. You're feeling badly because you won't see them until you die.

are you really going to sit there and say there is not difference between a person dying and there never ever being a possibility of interacting with them while you're alive and someone moving away, someone you can still actively communicate with?

and as far as your "answer" thats exactly what I stated previously

I wasn't avoiding the question. I answered it the first time you asked why should I care when a loved on dies and you chose not to respond to it.

Yes, and as I said to you a couple of posts ago, why shouldn't we be sad when a loved one dies? Jesus lamented over the fact that Lazarus died, after all. And that was BEFORE Jesus raised him from the dead.

If your significant other goes overseas for a few months, would you not be sad even though you know you'll see them again? Yes, you would. Same concept here.

When I was Catholic, I viewed death much differently than I do now...I truly feared it. I had no Idea if I was good enough for God, or if I had done something that might send me packing to a Heated Afterlife of Torment. The whole "What does God want" thing was so unclear that I could hope I was right....but deep down I couldnt be sure.
Once I gained my own understanding of the personal truth aspect of life, things cleared up pretty nicely, and I can honestly say I just dont know what happens. Its a great relief to admit to myself that I really have no control over my own death, and then just let the whole concept go. Now, I only need fear the Way I'm gonna die, rather than the way I live.

I just hope a wood chipper isn't involved

Cart before the horse. Its the seeing them when you die mythology thats the comfort. Its not the waiting period that causes the grief, its the death.

If I KNEW without doubt that a loved one would be there for me after their death, I'd be sad at their parting but I wouldn't be grief stricken. It would suck and it would be hard depending on how close they were, but I'd have to be really self absorbed to cry grief stricken over a few years in the face of eternity. It would be childish and petty. Billions and billions of years in our future and I'm weeping over a few decades?

So back to my original questions....

Lets try this one....

A mans entire family has been killed by a house fire 10 years ago.

He now has terminal cancer.

Do you tell him how wonderful it is?

And, once again, the answer you're getting is "Why would you?"

I can easily imagine a theist saying that it's wonderful he'll get to see his family again. And I suppose there's no harm in that besides unintended trickery. It would probably make him happier, despite it being fiction.

And what's wrong with this?

We are god.

What's wrong with an adult believing in Santa Clause?

What's wrong with an adult believing in euclidean geometry?

I don't think it is trendy in the sense of doing it to be cool. But the rise in atheism is more than coincidence. I think it is a reaction to the rise of religious fundamentalism in this country and the political power these nutcases have.

In the old days you could just go through your Episcopalian motions without ever seriously thinking about faith and its ramifications. But when the wingnuts try -- with a lot of success -- to take over the country then you have to think about what you really believe about God. And if you do, you have to conclude that there is no middle ground, no defensible form of "moderate" religious belief. God either exists or he doesn't. When forced to choose, which is basically what is happening, a lot of people are concluding that he doesn't.

You mean there was less religion and religious thought in the past? :orly:

I'd venture to say your statement lacks historical backing. "God" help you if you would have said you were an atheist publicly until the 70s at the earliest.

I've had to ask myself whether a delusion was bad in and of itself or because of the result of the delusion. It's difficult for me to call those who have faith and do good wrong or to condemn their faith. I can disagree with them, of course, but condemning them somehow seems disingenuous. I help people, too.

I think the self defense mechanism is at work in everyone. Perhaps someone who had some localized brain damage might actually be free of self defense mechanisms, but then they might not last long. My theory is that everyone I have met is on a sliding scale of hipocrazy and house of cards of emotions and beliefs. I am thankful that we don't live longer than we do, or the damage would be worse, but then if people lived longer, they might be more educated if they retained that education however is an unfounded supposition. But do round worms have more ethics and morals because they live such short lives ? Delusion and self defense mechanisms go hand in hand, but does your left hemisphere know what your right hemisphere is doing ?

Atheism equals theism.

We've got to be kidding.

Can you elaborate?

I am an atheist. I haven't read through the entire thread so I'll just respond to the OP.

It's not the responsibility of atheists to explain to everyone why they're atheists. What if everyone who didn't have an orange on them was expected to explain to the rest of the world why they're orangeless? It's just silly.

Despite that, I will explain why I'm an atheist: there isn't a shred of evidence for the existence of any god or deity.

Would it be nice if there was a warm, smiling god responsible for all that is? Of course, but that doesn't make it true.

Truth is not decided by the individual. If you have faith in a god, be it Thor or the god of the Abrahamic religions, fine. If you and everybody else in the world believed in Thor, Thor would still be a fabrication of human imagination.

Truth is not decided by the institution. The one piece of "proof" given to me, over and over again, is the bible. Who claims the bible is proof that the words IN THE BIBLE are true? The church. Think about that. Who profits most from the masses of people who believe this absurdly illogical claim? The church. Durrrr... me thinkies that sumthin' ain't right.

Bottom line (assuming you believe in truth): Believe what you want, but if you're going to claim that something is true, have evidence. Actual evidence, not circular bullshit.

Very well put my friend!

Be content;
Magic surrounds you,
Making more.