namelesstavern.net

This forum is way too quiet, so I'll throw out some meat

http://theweek.com/articles/552685/new- ... -than-ever

It's funny that he chastises supposed atheist op-ed article titles, yet his own is called "The New Atheists are back — and dumber than ever".

Pretty much an entire article of baseless conjecture and ad hominem attacks about group of people he knows very little about. I guess that's the new level of discourse he's talking about.

Worthless.

Zanchief wrote:Pretty much an entire article of baseless conjecture and ad hominem attacks about group of people he knows very little about. I guess that's the new level of discourse he's talking about.

Worthless.

Bingo. However, you pretty much summarized his point above about the 'New Atheists' nicely!

I think more discussion should be had regarding what happens when people do move more away from belief and religion and their basis of the meaning of life and is more self absorbed and less about hope, faith, and charity.

Atheist doesn't necessarily mean anti Christian. I can't speak for anyone else here but I have nothing against Christians.

Lyion wrote:

Zanchief wrote:Pretty much an entire article of baseless conjecture and ad hominem attacks about group of people he knows very little about. I guess that's the new level of discourse he's talking about.

Worthless.

Bingo. However, you pretty much summarized his point above about the 'New Atheists' nicely!

I think more discussion should be had regarding what happens when people do move more away from belief and religion and their basis of the meaning of life and is more self absorbed and less about hope, faith, and charity.

I think it's a fallacy to state that someone who moves away from religion automatically becomes more self absorbed, and cares less about hope, charity, etc. I think the percentages of atheists that are self-absorbed uncaring assholes is roughly the same as the percentage of theoretically "devout" followers of any religion you care to name are. Likewise, I think the percentages of good people that are both are probably the same.

You also assume people need to make a decision to leave a faith based belief. I think the belief in something without evidence should not be the default position, but rather an acquired belief. I never chose not to be religious.

People are as they are. Religion doesn't enter it.

People are not as they are. Applied Behavior has and will always play a role in things. Good and Evil are 'acquired' beliefs, especially if one thinks morality is relative. Like it or not, a lot of what we are is acquired from friends and family. Most atheists in America are 'ingrained' with Christian values. The same is true in India with Hindu values and in Muslim countries.

We have countries that are built on a foundation of atheism to use as a product of comparison, although the variables of first vs third world, technologies, etc also likewise come into play. We also can compare lifestyle, giving, etc of those with faith vs those without solely in America and the results to me are a bit troubling.

While I loathe the 'religious right' and believe questioning is good, I think teaching the way of a servant's heart, following the golden rule, and trying to live ones life in a manner that befits true Christianity is the foundation of inner peace and betterment of society. It's not some mythical man in the sky, it's following a way designed to make one a better person and search for the truth of their soul. The problem is people do not have discussions about religion, faith, charity and the meaning of life and are indeed self absorbed. The Internet is a great tool, but also an avenue to pure self entertainment and absorption. Too many spend more time trying to get Platinum's on Playstation versus exploring morality or donating any time to help those less fortunate.

All that servants heart and golden rule is all good, but it comes with a poopoo platter of hypocrisy and hate mongering that is frankly unacceptable to a progressive society.

The only "alarming" statistic that stands out among the things you mentioned is charitable donations, because religious donations are considered charitable. Hardly surprising that religious people donate more to religious institutions.

Are you saying there's no place for charity in a progressive society, or should it come from the government versus individuals and churches? That seems a more political versus philosophical argument. People are built to be selfish. That is pretty much agreed upon by scientists (i.e. the selfish gene, natural selection, etc) and religion (variety of original sin interpretations). I do agree most charitable donation systems are not set up properly, but then most donations come from those who gain little financially from them and do so out of a desire to be good. I personally think appealing to people to be better and believing in a soul is stronger than a transient belief we are nothing and just animals that need to be ruled by strong governments to ensure we play nice. Ironically enough, your views are very similar to the Pope's ones right now.

I guess you aren't a Randian conservative with all your talk of charity. I think ideally the government should subsidize charities properly based on needs without the need for charitable contributions. The world doesn't really work that way though, and as bad as charities operate right now, they'd be worse so under a system of full government subsidies.

I'm not against charity though, I just think if you judge a person's morality based on this narrow view, you might be missing the mark.

I think you have an odd view of non-belief though. We are all transient, whether we have a belief in something or not. To be honest I just don't buy belief. I think people all have just about the same amount of it as I do, they just kid themselves. Why else would people be so sad when others die. They are going to paradise and we say things like "taken before their time" and "what a tragedy" why? What is the tragedy in going to heaven? Sorrow for the dead is a by-product of non-belief, and everyone is sad when people die.

Also non-belief has nothing to do with a need for government. Anarchists can be atheists. Makes no difference. We just don't want to be ruled by laws which have no place. The bible is chalk full of good ideas, and those ideas have manifested themselves directly into our laws and government. The bad ones, or the ones that become abhorrent to a civilized society need to be ignored, and that is something that faith does not abide. For that reason it is not objective, and therefore cannot be trusted.

Preach your golden rule all you like Lyion, you don't need to go to church to buy into it though.

All the non-religious people I know just don't think about it. You think they're rebelling, Lyion, or putting effort into going against your grain. More often than not they just think it's a waste of time. But they also easily appreciate what it does for the people that it betters. You can still be a good person without spending a good portion of your life sitting in a church, mosque, etc. You said yourself most religions have similar core values. The standards of basic human decency. I don't think people need religion to show them what those are

Drem wrote:You said yourself most religions have similar core values. The standards of basic human decency. I don't think people need religion to show them what those are

It's very true, and if you believe we created these religions it speaks to inherent human kindness.

People were being nice to each other long before Jesus was born and people are being shitty to each other long after he died.

I guess my point is that I don't believe the number of good vs bad people in the world has any relation to religion. If anything, religion is more likely to make someone act on their murderous, hateful disposition.

Drem pretty much described me in a nutshell. I consider myself atheist although I do practice a few Buddhist rituals to honor my parents on their birthdays and anniversaries and such. I've always thought it a cultural thing rather than a religious thing and I've always felt that the Buddhism in my household wasn't even a religion. It just was. We never even thought to tell people stuff from a religious standpoint or convert anyone. You were just as you are.

As for my own belief regarding religion, I very much respect it, but I can't "take the blue pill" so to speak. It doesn't resonate with me. I understand that people are raised with it and know it to be their truth for much of their lifetime so I basically keep my thoughts to myself. Who am I to deny someone's reality? Ultimately, my motto has always been "it's ok to have things beyond your understanding." I don't think those things happened, but I really don't know what happened and I'm not against you believing in some sort of "magic" as it were. Just keep it personal and don't try to impose laws on me, or my friends, or women, or gays based on what are supposed to be guidelines on how to live, not rules. Rules and laws should only come into practice if they represent everyone regardless of their belief. Sorry, kind of a common, non complex answer but that's how I see it.

Drem wrote:All the non-religious people I know just don't think about it. You think they're rebelling, Lyion, or putting effort into going against your grain. More often than not they just think it's a waste of time. But they also easily appreciate what it does for the people that it betters. You can still be a good person without spending a good portion of your life sitting in a church, mosque, etc. You said yourself most religions have similar core values. The standards of basic human decency. I don't think people need religion to show them what those are

this

also lyion i am an anti-christian christian. fit me in your little worldview, go ahead :P

I am an anti-atheist, atheist.

I hate atheists. (Mostly)

I'm kinda the same. I'm athiest but I think athiests who HATE religion are just as bad as bible thumping Jesus freaks. The only requirement of being an athiest is non belief. Everything else is just people being dicks.

There are actually very few atheists who hate religion. It's just a myth created by the martyred Christians. Most just don't give a shit.

I live near Seattle and work in Portland pretty often. I'm surrounded by hipster athiests who hate religion. They exist, believe me.

I have almost no friends of faith. We are all atheists one way or another, although I don't personally identify as an atheist because I find it silly to classify yourself in a group of people who do not share a belief. The amount of times we talk about religion in a give year can be counted on one hand, and is almost only to talk about something that happened in the media. I see no point. Hopefully reason and apathy will take their course. Being vicious about it is counter productive. I don't know what it's like in the northwest though. Things are different in Canada I guess.

.

Tikker wrote:

Jay wrote: hipster

that's your problem, not atheism

I'm atheist so I'm not suggesting atheism is the problem. I'm just saying that there are atheists who hate religion as opposed to those who just don't believe in it and the ones I know of that hate it happen to be mostly hipsters.

Besides, stay out of our atheist business you devout Pastafarian. =P

.

Well I think that is the nature of belief. I'm not saying you should be a dick about it, but if you didn't think other people weren't wrong, you would have their belief, so at the root of it you do think they're wrong (not necessarily stupid of course).