Assuming you mean creation of the universe rather than subsequent creations such as the mess in my room, seconded. This is the problem: how can a theist be completely honest in this way when they truly do believe that know what caused creation? I'm happy that people who believe they know the first cause should argue between themselves ad infinitum. I just wish they'd not get in the faces of people who have the smarts to suspend judgement in the face of lack of knowledge.


Sure. And the church and some other religions are about power, superstition, fear and ignorance. The point, as you and others have made also, is that there are other methods of achieving the same thing. What this all boils down to is control of the masses. We, as a race, are getting better at controlling without extremism (in most of the world anyway). Did separation of church and state help this along? In some nations, yes. In others, not really.

I dont demand atheism be taught in schools or that you have to be a committed atheist before you attend that school.I listen to the faithful giving me advice on how to live my life because their holy book has requested they carry this message to the heathens. I dont knock on complete strangers houses giving out leaflets and asking for little time to convince them there is no god.I dont dress in silly clothes and wear distinctive decoration to pronounce my arrival as an atheist.I dont demand my parliment recognises atheism as a tool for teaching the masses moral standards.The faithful should be grateful we are not as vocal as we would like to be.

"Why atheism is irritating."


:)YO!

I am reminded of something Spinoza said, paraphrased, if someone shows love towards something I myself love, I will feel love towards that person, if someone shows disgust/hatred towards that which I love, I will feel disgust/hatred for that said individual. If this is true of smaller matters, how much more intense would it be when talking about that which that person has made the foundation of their entire life. Is there any wonder conflict is the way things, in what context does one tell them what they want to hear, but to manipulate the other individual. Actually a straightforward challenge to ones beliefs is at least respectful of the said individual, for you are assuming the other an equal, able to reason, sometimes that respect is unjustified, but there you go.


Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

It may be something as simple as control that Atheists and Religious folks are doomed to carry on back and forth.

If left to their own devices, then either party seems to manage with their own reasonings. But when General politics, which would be the control factor, is thrown into the mix, well then it brings moral dilemma's that some people believe is within human judgment(Atheism) or believe in a doctrine of sorts to apply to politics (theist).

Thats all I can understand about it so far. Both want reasoning, but reasoning is never singular, and so its application is hardly stable.

I dunno, I guess all I can say is, being in the middle is no better..........yet/ More and more are understanding that nothing is the strongest stance. Belief in nothing is a good start, and maybe ending too. Thats not going against Theists particular, I find atheism as much of stance also. They are partners no doubt. With out each other they wouldn't really matter.

Joe,

I quite agree with most of the above, but perhaps conflict could be minimized for both, if they could both agree upon the proper domains for each, You do not see the rationalists breaching the walls of the church. With the church extending its authority into the politics of the nation however conflict is inevitable--the little georgy bush adminstration. Thank Zeus that is over.


Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

Hey boagie,

I was wondering what you think the proper doamins would consist of?

Joe,

Well, the church looking after the spiritual needs of its followers within the confines of its church and/or parish, if it is to be political in the national sense it needs to be redefined and its tax exempt status removed, the rationalist is not to intrude upon the sanctity of the church--like that would be a problem.


Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

I agree. But how realistic would it be to implement this? I think any political movement is somewhat religious, and any religious movement is somewhat political. Perhaps confining is what is not possible for some on both sides of the fence. The extremists. So is it important to set the structure to counter their intentions? I ask that because it seems to be the underlying issue for either side. Prevention doesn't seem to cause understanding.

Hi Joe,

No I guess it is not really realistic, there really is no solution to the problem. Thank goodness the American public has had enough of the religious right wing for the time being. Obama might thank Bush for being such a total screwup, thus clearing his way to the presidency. Conflict around this issue I guess could not be anything else, unless a theocracy is established in America, and then we will all shut up in fear of the America brand Taleban, that not really realistic either, just venting!!

Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

I agree boagie, let it out.lol.

It really is a interesting shift from what seems like two sides of the spectrum. I guess Politically you either stand for what our president is, or you dont. What matters is the interpretation from the ideals. I think Obama is only inspirational in one way basically. He seems to understand that you cannot hide differences with a moral stance. Even if that is moral stance itself. Other then that People need to take their interpretation of this and live it. Thats the change that matters. What laws to pass or causes to get behind should come naturally. unfortunately it is not an easy task considering the size of government these days. While a big leap was taken by the Bush administration, all the presidents before him have allowed for this expansion of government in there own ways for there own reasons. I believe Obama shall be no different, but he brings something that will challenge this trend. That is the idea that a nations people is where the stability lyes, not where the government tells them to lye. Out with religious ideals mask and in with political ideals mask. lol. a roller-coaster indeed.


peace

I have to ask Boagie what it is that bothered you in my last post. I cant help it. lol. I hope Im not coming off as defensive. Now I'm curious, please dont stop the conversation if there is a dispute.

anyways,

peace

I don't think Obama's election necessarily indicates a swing away from the American religious right. I would suggest that his popularity has a lot to do with his power as an orator. I also found it refreshing that he appealed to a desire for American political discourse to mature somewhat (though how he might be able to practically enforce this I have no idea).

Whilst I like to believe that the unpopularity of Bush's administration was to do with people waking up to it's moral and environmental naivity, sadly I think it has a lot more to do with economic problems and cooling enthusiasm to the Iraq war.

I'm not sure I understand Joe's points about Obama, but I have my own doubts about his practical abilities matching up to his (undoubtably inspiring) oration. It's great to hear someone talk so movingly about hope and change for the better - it's also great to see that the American people demonstrate that being a member of a minority is no barrier to becoming president - but the reality is that he is now going to be responsible for choosing between various evils - as all leaders are. When he does his talk of hope and change might look a little empty.

The proof will be in the pudding I suppose. Had I been an American voter he would certainly have been the most appealing candidate for me.

Joe,

Why would you think I was bothered by anything in your post, I quite agree with you.

Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread. If any more posts have to be edited from a former moderator I'm going to scream! JK

You did "No Thank" him.

Dam, still not use to that new function, its been automatic for so long when wishing to thank someone, sorry Joe, will fix!! Good there are no nuclear war heads under those buttons.


Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

To be honest - I think it's nothing more than an invitation to pettiness. The "Thank" button is a nice way to acknowledge that someone has articulated an interesting or agreeable post - but I think that if you disagree with someone you should write a rebuttal or put up - rather than having a one click "I disapprove" option.

Erm, which shouldn't really indicate anything more than a mild objection to the otherwise great job the admins and moderators do with this lively forum.

Dave Allen,

Yes this is an unusually good site for keeping hostilities down. I however had the same instinctive feeling about this new addition of negative response. Perhaps though it has been tested out somewhere else and found to workout in the longrun. Still, seems a move in the wrong direction, just doesn't feel right.

Mod Edit: Redundant quote removed again. Please quite duplicating the quote in every thread.

Awesome... someone get that man a drink!

By the same token, how can scientism devotees act like they KNOW physicalness and theories derived from it (such as Darwinistic evolution and abiogenesis) are "facts" (even stated as such by experts like Dawkins), when they really aren't facts yet? No, not all science/physicalist believers do that, but not all theists claim they "know" either. Aren't we talking about a certain radical element in each faction? Anyone, no matter how smart they think their theory is, is deluded if they believe it before it is properly supported by evidence.

You might not believe this, but I have fiercely debated both sides of this issue. In fact, read my exchanges here with some Christians, and you might not be able to tell I am not an atheist.

I tend to be a warrior for objectivity. I love it, practically worship it. I am not saying I achieve it all the time, but I long to. If I resist physicalist creation theories, it is only because I haven't been able to find any physical traits capable of the quality of self-organization that would lead to the quality of organization found in life.

If I resist religious concepts, it is only because I haven't found reality to behave as some creationist theories claim.

Why must one decide on a "side." What is wrong with pure, unadulterated wait-and-see, uncommitted, looking-for-the-truth-fully-supported-by-observation/experience ideas? One can't be objective and rule out a conscious universe, or the possibility that physicalness does indeed possess some self-organizing principle we've not discovered yet. But what freaking difference does it make if some sort of consciousness is part of the fabric of our existence, or if if it's pure mechanics? We still exist . . . whatever is-- IS. Partisan attachment to things being a certain way is the absolute biggest hindrance to truth discovery.

And in the meantime, why tolerate partisan interpretations at a philosophy site? Shouldn't there be a standard for understanding all sides, a standard for scholarship? A standard for practicing the principles of sound logic, and condemning those who use reason in a sophist manner merely to score points for their "side"? Shouldn't the true philosopher resist hatred, prejudice, superficial study intended to spin the argument in one's favor?

Geez, if I wanted partisan debate, I could've joined a skinhead or nationalistic website. I thought philosophy was supposed to be about the dispassionate, courageous, unbiased search for truth . . . no matter how much it confronts one's personal beliefs and fears.




Anyone who wants to "control" what the masses believe has assumed they know the "truth" and therefore are justified in manipulating that part of humanity susceptible to indoctrination.

But to me, a true lover of humanity will want to educate people on the means for discovering truth for themselves. If we genuinely trust there is a truth, and a means for discovering it, then we should put our faith in educating people on truth discovery methods, not on one faction's interpretation of results.

odenskrigare,

I hear you.

It's a constant source of irritation for me that people who love Richard Dawkins' "God Delusion" cannot understand why anyone WOULDN'T love this book, who wasn't themselves a bible-thumping, evolution denying, geology inventing, fundamentalist lunatic. I consider Charles Taylor's "A Secular Age", brimming with insights on this topic, as well as Andrew Sullivan's recent debate with Sam Harris.

Also, if you'll excuse the shameless self-promotion, I have recently written three blog posts on this subject:

Drowning in Vitriol: Parachute Colours 1 of 2

followed by

Drowning in Vitriol: The Razor and the Garden God Part I (Parachute Colours 2 )
Drowning in Vitriol: The Razor and the Garden God Part II