Why do atheists...

[The Brain]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.

The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."

Some people pray at school.
"What do I care not like I have to pray. They can all they want, but that ain't my thing."

The 10 Commandments are posted.
"What do they matter to me I don't believe in them."

I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation. This is a serious question I'm not asking for anyone to tell me why they are atheist or not. I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever. American Muslims seldom fuss over Christianity or Judasim and its practices. American Jews seldom fuss over Christian and Islamic practices. American Christians seldom fuss over Muslim and Jewish practices in society. It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?

[BigVito]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.

The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."

Some people pray at school.
"What do I care not like I have to pray. They can all they want, but that ain't my thing."

The 10 Commandments are posted.
"What do they matter to me I don't beive in them."

I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation. This is a serious question I'm not asking for anyone to tell me why they are atheist or not. I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever. American Muslims seldom fuss over Christianity or Judasim and its practices. American Jews seldom fuss over Christian and Islamic practices. American Christians seldom fuss over Muslim and Jewish practices in society. It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?
Brain, I understand where you are coming from. I can only speak for myself and on some of these I have a hard time articulating my feelings without using trite and overused arguments, but they do have some validity.

I gladly say the Pledge. I, however, do not say "under God" when I do. For me to do so would be hypocritical and we know how the users of this board feel about that. I do feel it is state sanctioned religion but in a minor form.
I suppose to some this would make me less American than others, but so be it. I believe in my country. I believe in the Constitution. I respect the flag. Don't ask me to say something I don't believe in to prove I'm an American.

As for school prayer, children are still free to pray silently as long as it isn't under the color of law. State sponsored and scripted prayer was what was struck down. This has been extended to commencements and sporting events, etc. School prayer was determined in the 1963 case of Murry vs Curlett to be coercive. I can't see how it can't be viewed as such.

My child would be put in a situation where the state is proselytizing in a situation that is far from voluntary. I know the analogy has been overused, but imagine that your child has to take part in a Wiccian ritual every morning because it is state sanctioned. 95% of the children in the class are devout Wiccians or at least from families that pay lip service to the creed as are the teachers. Now, since your child can simply get up and leave the room, it isn't coerced is it? Think of the impact on your child in that situation.

Now, the 10 Commandments, well I try my best to live by 5-10. For me, 1 - 4 aren't applicable because of my beliefs. Strangely enough, I have no problem with the 10 Commandments being displayed in a secular fashion as a historical context for the rule of law. The case in Alabama shows that it is nearly impossible to do so.

Now, when you talk about other religions not making such a stink, check into the amicus briefs filed in many of these cases. Religious liberals including some Christian denominations, Jews, Muslims and other minority religious groups have filed in support of current case law and against public sponsorship of religion.

[solarte1969]

maybe I don't get it, but when I say under God, I have always interpreted it as the God I pray to. If atheists don't beleive in God, then they can simply chose not to say the words.

I agree...fuss for the sake of fussing is fuggin dumb.

[ECILAM]

maybe I don't get it, but when I say under God, I have always interpreted it as the God I pray to. If atheists don't beleive in God, then they can simply chose not to say the words.

I agree...fuss for the sake of fussing is fuggin dumb.

That looks good on paper, but I know all too well that even though participation in open displays of faith is theoretically "optional," the one who dares to actually abstain when everyone else is doing it is in for a rough time. Maybe it's because I'm from a small town and know that the majority will bully and brutalize the minority if there's any way they can get away with it.

Atheists and unbelievers like myself have the common ground of experiencing discrimination, threats, and general hatred spewed in our direction for this very reason. So I can relate to the fire under their asses to fight back and do something about it. But I for one know that that kind of war has no possible victory for anyone. I hate to use a hippie word like "tolerance," but the truth is that if our society is going to survive, we're going to have to make peace with the presence of others who don't believe in exactly the same things that we do.

And you're right. Fussing for fussing's sake is for the birds.

[WilliamJ]

why do atheists even read a religion and spirituality message board?

hell, i hardly read this board and i am far from atheist.

[vpkozel]

Brain, I would say that the reason that they care about those things is because of the First Ammendment. And don't underestimate the impact of it. We are the most religiously diverse country in the world by far. And a very big reason for that is the First. Every other country in the world is probably at least 75% of one religion and many are identified with that religion.

But our Founders did not intend for us to be without religion, they wanted to make sure that the State did not have an official - or even official, non-official (if that makes sense) - religion. The reason is that that type of situation leads to persecution - which many of them had experienced. Hugenots were persecuted by the French, Presbyterians and Puritans by the English, etc. So when they left and came here and made it a country, they wanted to make sure that it didn;t happen again.

So for the reasons you listed someone could not give two wits about God - or even devouly believe in God - and still care passionately about making sure that the US does not have an official religion.

[meatpile]

I agree with Brain.

[magnus]

I played on this a little yesterday. The ideal of atheism should be apathy, and yet more often than not it's anger against religion, not abscence of religion. Since it seems that a good part of the people who are atheist have issues with religion/God/practitioners, it seems atheism is a easy way to typify their own feelings, and tap into a base of opinion, rather than truly expressing what they feel. Just my take.

[BigVito]

why do atheists even read a religion and spirituality message board?
hell, i hardly read this board and i am far from atheist.Religion is one of the dominant factors in human history. Religion has been the cause of wars and the cause of peace. Outside of economic issues, I really can't think of a single topic that has had more impact on our world.

Simply put, William, I enjoy talking about religion and learning about religion and how it effects people on a personal level.

[Galethog]

I played on this a little yesterday. The ideal of atheism should be apathy, and yet more often than not it's anger against religion, not abscence of religion. Since it seems that a good part of the people who are atheist have issues with religion/God/practitioners, it seems atheism is a easy way to typify their own feelings, and tap into a base of opinion, rather than truly expressing what they feel. Just my take.

Don't you just hate it when newbies dredge stuff up from the beginning of time?

What you read on the internet is that "Vocal Minority" of atheists. Atheists are like christians in this matter. The vast majority of christians profess a belief in God but they don't let it interfere in their daily lives. We are the same way.

[Superfluous_Nut]

i think big v answered about as well as you can.

and keep in mind, we're not talking about adults here, we're talking about children. i believe an atheist has the right not to have their child exposed on a regular basis to group religious ceremonies -- particularly when that atheist is having pay for it. it's a matter of being free to raise your child with your morals and your faith without gov't intervention.

[Ignatowski]

I really, truly could not give a shit less what people who have religious beliefs go on doing there thing. Put God on the dollar bill , say it in the Pledge, shout it on the fucking street corner in NYC and annoy the hell out of everyone...I don't care...just don't try to tell me what to think....and most of the time it's people who believe in God who approach the subject and try to convince me I am wrong .

[Superfluous_Nut]

also, i think the idea is to keep the battle in an area that's relatively low stakes, rather than wait till the gov't starts rounding up atheists or non-christians. obviously, that's a long way away, but by pitching a fit now, it keeps the focus on this relatively minor aspect and keeps it from escellating. this is the proverbial inch that nobody wants to give for fear of losing a mile.

[barry49s]

...
The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."



Could someone translate this for me?

[Fred]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.

The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."

Some people pray at school.
"What do I care not like I have to pray. They can all they want, but that ain't my thing."

The 10 Commandments are posted.
"What do they matter to me I don't believe in them."

I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation. This is a serious question I'm not asking for anyone to tell me why they are atheist or not. I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever. American Muslims seldom fuss over Christianity or Judasim and its practices. American Jews seldom fuss over Christian and Islamic practices. American Christians seldom fuss over Muslim and Jewish practices in society. It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?
because they don't feel it's right to have a society base laws on the Bible when they don't believe in to begin with.

[CrazyIvan]

Very well said, Big Vito.

When I was a kid -- growing up Jewish in an upper-middle class area of east-coast Florida, I was confronted by numerous incidents of anti-semitism. I was frequently the target of both physical and verbal abuse (which the school authorities consistently did nothing about). When my 10-speed bicycle was repeatedly vandalized, I was told (by the school principal) that it was MY fault for having such a nice bicycle.

When my dad caught one of the neighborhood brats throwing an egg at our house (it was "holiday" time and our Chanukah decorations had been destroyed and someone had taken spray snow and wrote "Jews" on our front yard), he took the kid to his parents, understanding that the parents would not be very happy to know that their child had done this. Well, the result was quite the opposite: the father told my dad that it served us right for being Jews. This was during the late 1960s.

The moral of the story is that the kid who has the moral backbone to not say "under G-d" in the Pledge; to not participate in the prayer, risks being ostracised -- or far worse.

[articulatekitten]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.

The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."

Some people pray at school.
"What do I care not like I have to pray. They can all they want, but that ain't my thing."

The 10 Commandments are posted.
"What do they matter to me I don't believe in them."

I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation. This is a serious question I'm not asking for anyone to tell me why they are atheist or not. I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever. American Muslims seldom fuss over Christianity or Judasim and its practices. American Jews seldom fuss over Christian and Islamic practices. American Christians seldom fuss over Muslim and Jewish practices in society. It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?


I'm not an atheist. But I AM a member of a "non-traditional" religious group in the US. And I have (I think) some understanding of what motivates atheists to protest so strongly against certain religious observances.

Yeah, the pledge says "under God." I feel hypocritical if I say this--so I don't. Believe me, people notice; & it pisses them off. I love my homeland; but I don't appreciate being singled out & accused of being "ungodly & un-
American" because I'm not a member of the "majority" religion here.

I don't object to people praying in school. I don't object to people praying anywhere. I DO object to school/state-SPONSORED prayer. Trust me on this--if there's a public prayer situation in which you choose not to participate, it is noted; & you will suffer for it.

The 10 Commandments? I have no problem with them in general. And the Bible is a legitimate element of the history of our nation. What I do have a problem with, regarding the public display of those commandments in a government institution, is that such a display publicly negates other beliefs. Can you imagine the public uproar if some other religious document was enshrined in such a public forum? Suppose I'm in a position of political power & decide to set a statue in or around the court building where I work, engraved with the Wiccan Rede: "If it harms no one, do what you will." I suspect I'd be lynched in short order.

Some people protest just for the sake of protesting. But they're the minority. Most of us who protest the things that you don't think should matter are doing so in a sincere effort to protect what they believe--atheist or pagan or Jewish or Muslim or whatever.

Try not looking at it from the point of view of "If I believed this . . . then . . ."

Take what you DO believe; & consider: if you were in a distinct minority, how you would/might feel if some "authority" decided that people in your school or community should pray THIS way & not THAT.

Our core spiritual beliefs define us more than anything else, I think. If the culture in which you live consistently downgrades & disregards the core of who you are--whether atheist or pagan or whatever--don't you think you'd be a bit defensive?

[Playa]

You people still say the pledge? :wtf23:

[Superfluous_Nut]

When my dad caught one of the neighborhood brats throwing an egg at our house (it was "holiday" time and our Chanukah decorations had been destroyed and someone had taken spray snow and wrote "Jews" on our front yard), he took the kid to his parents, understanding that the parents would not be very happy to know that their child had done this.
do that today and you might end up on sex offender registry.

[kshead]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.
..............
It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?

I'm a lot more interested in how a bunch of people in the majority can continually whine about being under attack from a pretty small minority.

Brain, I'd advise you to take a good look around - say - NOTD to see who really makes the "most fuss" about religion.

[hasbeen99]

I think that if people were largely "live and let live" regarding personal beliefs, many atheists who are 'passionate' would not be so. Apathy (or at least mutual respect) would be the order of the day.

But I really think that in many -- even most -- cases, passionate atheists have become so in retaliation to passionate religious people. As has already been mentioned in this thread, the discrimination, the looks, the slander, and even open terrorism have accomplished the exact opposite of the sole purpose of evangelism, if you can even call it that.

I've spoken with more people than I can recall who have walked away from God, not because of Him, but because of those who claim to be His. We are in a culture now that refuses to tolerate such misled and perverted efforts of conversion, and rightfully so in my opinion.

The misunderstood of this reality, however, are those who are so passionate about their fellow man, that their evangelistic efforts are rooted in desparation rather than confidence, yet those whom they target see it as overbearing and manipulative. The wrong method, even with the best of reasons and motivations, still can result in animosity.

Not that I'm advocating ending evangelistic efforts -- not at all! I'm a big supporter of open sharing of thoughts, beliefs, philosophies and even civilized debate. I think that's the only way to get past the spirit of fear and defensiveness that often breeds amongst differences in beliefs. I believe in letting doctrines stand on their own merits, and see what cream rises to the top. Anger doesn't make anything more or less true.

[Thelt]

It is all part of the culture war that has been going on since the 1960s. Some groups want to change the nature of America and do that they will use any means. Breaking down religion is a way to help break down traditional morality.

I think many issues are used by people who have this agenda. Take PETA for example. I like animals and do not want to see any mistreated or forced to suffer unneccissarily but I could never support PETA. I think that they do not really care about animals. They merely want to use people who do care to affect the sort of social change they want. When you have a group like NOW that turns a blind eye to a guy like Bill Clinton even though he was the epitome of the things they sought to end then you can see they have an agenda that is deeper than the stated goal of protecting women's rights.

The short answer is that it is all political. The impetus behind atheists who make so much noise is all politically driven.

[kshead]

Well, Brain, it turns out you don't even have to go to NOTD.

[BigVito]

It is all part of the culture war that has been going on since the 1960s. Some groups want to change the nature of America and do that they will use any means. Breaking down religion is a way to help break down traditional morality.

I think many issues are used by people who have this agenda. Take PETA for example. I like animals and do not want to see any mistreated or forced to suffer unneccissarily but I could never support PETA. I think that they do not really care about animals. They merely want to use people who do care to affect the sort of social change they want. When you have a group like NOW that turns a blind eye to a guy like Bill Clinton even though he was the epitome of the things they sought to end then you can see they have an agenda that is deeper than the stated goal of protecting women's rights.

The short answer is that it is all political. The impetus behind atheists who make so much noise is all politically driven.Wow. Just wow.

[chipshot]

Thelt must have alot of tinfoil

[ECILAM]

It is all part of the culture war that has been going on since the 1960s. Some groups want to change the nature of America and do that they will use any means. Breaking down religion is a way to help break down traditional morality.

I think many issues are used by people who have this agenda. Take PETA for example. I like animals and do not want to see any mistreated or forced to suffer unneccissarily but I could never support PETA. I think that they do not really care about animals. They merely want to use people who do care to affect the sort of social change they want. When you have a group like NOW that turns a blind eye to a guy like Bill Clinton even though he was the epitome of the things they sought to end then you can see they have an agenda that is deeper than the stated goal of protecting women's rights.

The short answer is that it is all political. The impetus behind atheists who make so much noise is all politically driven.

But what is the underlying motivation?

[Superfluous_Nut]

But what is the underlying motivation?
could it be......... satan?

[ECILAM]

could it be......... satan?

Superflu, I'm trying to ask Thelt a question.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Superflu, I'm trying to ask Thelt a question.
good luck with that. while my post was partly in jest, it was what i understand the christian rationale for why somebody wouldn't want to accept jesus and his teachings -- namely, that satan has influenced them in some way. perhaps thelt will answer for himself, so i'll surrender the floor to him.

[ECILAM]

good luck with that. while my post was partly in jest, it was what i understand the christian rationale for why somebody wouldn't want to accept jesus and his teachings -- namely, that satan has influenced them in some way. perhaps thelt will answer for himself, so i'll surrender the floor to him.

Well, I'm pursuing the issue to both to confirm a suspicion of mine and correct what I expect to be erroneous information.

Strict traditionalists seem to focus their views of modern society in terms of "pre-60s" and "post-'60s." They build this outlook on a romanticized version of the post-WWII era modeled after wholesome TV sitcoms of the time, where the man of the house always knew best, no one ever cursed - not even the bad guys - and all teens saved themselves for marriage. All Americans were Christians by default, and this alone was the sole reason for their harmonious prosperity. Of course the '60s are seen as the end of paradise, where Elvis and the Beatles ruined everything.

When asked about the motives of those who oppose this outlook, it's common to hear things like "they oppose God and morality because they hate the idea of morals and stanards." This is yet another oversimplification, kind of like drawing a stick-figure and calling it a portrait. Having lived both sides, I can say that's not where the "opposition" is coming from at all.

Secularists, even the ones that go overboard, pursue the goals they do because they don't want to see the abuses of the past happen anymore. Easy, older examples of these abuses are the Inquisitions and witch-hunts that claimed the lives of millions over the centuries. More modern examples are book-burnings, censorship, and smaller-scale instances of harassment, abuse and persecution of individuals who don't go along with traditional religion.

If you live in a city or even a large town, this might come across as silly. Full-on bigotry and discrimination have largely died out in places like that. But it's alive and well out in the "sticks." I should know. So it doesn't shock me at all to see people vehemently oppose the teachings of the old time religion. Go to any small town and you'll find bored, restless young people looking for any way they can to "get out." These are the refugees that move to bigger cities where they can be who they are without taking crap about it from the intolerant local yokels of their hometowns.

[Thelt]

What is the motivation? The satan answer already given is part of it. I am sure he would like to see moral decline. I think it is in human nature to want to rebel against authority. I think that is part of the motivation. We basically had a generation come through in the 1960s that, because of the war, decided that america was not "good" and that our leadership was evil and not to be trusted. I think ever since then they have sought to change the way americans live and the way americans view the world. They are certainly those who came along later that feel this way but they are following the lead of the 60s generation.

This explains why they glorify all other cultures but disdain our own. This explains why they can not see true evil for what it is. If the Sadaam Hussiens and Osama Bin Ladens are opposed to our government, especially with a traditionalist president in charge, then they can not really be evil. This explains why they want to let the UN make decisions for us. It is basically a world view that clashes with the world view of "traditionalists" who are often religious.

[Superfluous_Nut]

the 1960's are probably the infancy of the information age. as people become more informed, they become less religious.

[Thelt]

the 1960's are probably the infancy of the information age. as people become more informed, they become less religious.

We have seen a huge increase in information and communications in the last fifteen years due to computers and the internet. It does not seem to have had much affect on religion.

The veitnam war turned a good chunk of that generation against their country. Prehaps they were partially justified but in any case it was the spark that started the fire of the "counter culture" movement.

[slydevl]

the 1960's are probably the infancy of the information age. as people become more informed, they become less religious.
And now we are seeing the pendulum swing the other way more information leading to scientists returning to the idea of a creator.

[vpkozel]

the 1960's are probably the infancy of the information age. as people become more informed, they become less religious.

Link?

Knowledege doubles every generation, which - if your theory held up - should result in a halving of the total number of religoius people.

That has not happened.

[Superfluous_Nut]

We have seen a huge increase in information and communications in the last fifteen years due to computers and the internet. It does not seem to have had much affect on religion.

really? in 1990 8% of people polled (of like 120,000+) said they didn't follow any particular organized religion. in 2001 it was up to 14.1% (polling 50,000+).

plus, i'll bet the overall interest in religion is down even among those who still consider themselves to be of a particular religion (like calling themselves catholic tho they don't actually strictly adhere to the pope's declarations).

[Superfluous_Nut]

And now we are seeing the pendulum swing the other way more information leading to scientists returning to the idea of a creator.
missing link?

[Superfluous_Nut]

Link?

Knowledege doubles every generation, which - if your theory held up - should result in a halving of the total number of religoius people.

That has not happened.your math is wrong. first off, i don't propose that there's a one for one exchange of religion for knowledge. secondly, double the amount of one thing does not halve it's reciprocal -- 1% doubles to 2%, 99% remaining would then fall to 98%.

[Superfluous_Nut]

here's a write up of the surveys from 1990 and 2001:

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_studies/aris.pdf

[Thelt]

Interesting how that study ends in 2001 and therefore does not account for any changes in people's religious beliefs post 9/11. I think recent events such as Bush's re-election and the public opinions on gay marriage support the idea that religion is alive and well.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Interesting how that study ends in 2001 and therefore does not account for any changes in people's religious beliefs post 9/11. I think recent events such as Bush's re-election and the public opinions on gay marriage support the idea that religion is alive and well.
perhaps it's just me, but it seems that there's the same thing going on in religion as there is in politics -- people are choosing sides and the middle of the road folks are a shrinking demographic.

so yeah, there are probably a lot of religious folks who've gotten more religious and probably a number of atheists who've really gone off the deep end -- both at the expense of the middle (whatever that might be in a religious context).

[Thelt]

perhaps it's just me, but it seems that there's the same thing going on in religion as there is in politics -- people are choosing sides and the middle of the road folks are a shrinking demographic.

so yeah, there are probably a lot of religious folks who've gotten more religious and probably a number of atheists who've really gone off the deep end -- both at the expense of the middle (whatever that might be in a religious context).

Could be but IMHO you have a long way to go to prove any coorelation between declining religion and increase in information.

[barry49s]

And now we are seeing the pendulum swing the other way more information leading to scientists returning to the idea of a creator.

More information because these so called scientists can make a quick buck bywriting junk novels. People buy the hell out of those things.

Why must you cling to these fairy tales? It's okay to die and let the worms eat you. Be at peace with your mortality brother.

[hasbeen99]

I fully plan on the worms having what's left of me when I die. Good riddance!

[slydevl]

More information because these so called scientists can make a quick buck bywriting junk novels. People buy the hell out of those things.

Why must you cling to these fairy tales? It's okay to die and let the worms eat you. Be at peace with your mortality brother.
There being no afterlife would not dissuade me from thinking a creator had to play a part in the creation of life.

[barry49s]

There being no afterlife would not dissuade me from thinking a creator had to play a part in the creation of life.

People as well read and intelligent as you are, that still believe, baffle the hell out of me. I don't get it and I never will.

[slydevl]

People as well read and intelligent as you are, that still believe, baffle the hell out of me. I don't get it and I never will.
And people like you who think they grasp evolution but don't realize natural selection can't explain how a single irreducibly complex system came into being or epigenesis or really the whole theory of evolution but still think it is the best explanation we have baffle the hell out of me.

[hasbeen99]

People as well read and intelligent as you are, that still believe, baffle the hell out of me. I don't get it and I never will.
What specific information have you learned that gives you a reason not to believe, Barry?

[Superfluous_Nut]

What specific information have you learned that gives you a reason not to believe, Barry?
not believing is a natural state. believing something requires proof or evidence. the lack of sufficient proof or evidence would leave people in the natural state of non-belief.

[Thelt]

not believing is a natural state. believing something requires proof or evidence. the lack of sufficient proof or evidence would leave people in the natural state of non-belief.

The fact that we are here and self aware is evidence to me of some higher plan or authority at work. I would argue that given the propensity of people all over the world and through out history to believe in various religions that it is not the natural state to "not believe".

[kshead]

The fact that we are here and self aware is evidence to me of some higher plan or authority at work. I would argue that given the propensity of people all over the world and through out history to believe in various religions that it is not the natural state to "not believe".

If that is the case, what is the point of missionary work? Why bother?

[slydevl]

If that is the case, what is the point of missionary work? Why bother?
Conversion. Most of the people already have some form of religious belief.

[Superfluous_Nut]

The fact that we are here and self aware is evidence to me of some higher plan or authority at work. I would argue that given the propensity of people all over the world and through out history to believe in various religions that it is not the natural state to "not believe".
how many "spontaneous christians" have there been? every single religion gains adherents by indoctrination.

i look at it this way, christians think they're right, but so do hindus, muslims, budhists, jews, wiccans, zoastorians, druids, etc, etc. so why would i pick christianity over one of these other equally implausible religions? in fact, why even pick one? i could just make one up and it'd be just as likely. of the thousands of religions to come and go over the course of time, christianity is but one -- what are the chances that it's the right one?

[kshead]

Conversion. Most of the people already have some form of religious belief.

Check out Nut's response right after yours.

If Thelt is right in his assertion, why wouldn't God simply make everyone worship the same - or "correct" - God to begin with? There'd be no need for converting either.

[slydevl]

Check out Nut's response right after yours.

If Thelt is right in his assertion, why wouldn't God simply make everyone worship the same - or "correct" - God to begin with? There'd be no need for converting either.
I'm not entirely sure God doesn't appear to different people differently. I simply believe a higher power had a hand in our creation.

[Thelt]

how many "spontaneous christians" have there been? every single religion gains adherents by indoctrination.

i look at it this way, christians think they're right, but so do hindus, muslims, budhists, jews, wiccans, zoastorians, druids, etc, etc. so why would i pick christianity over one of these other equally implausible religions? in fact, why even pick one? i could just make one up and it'd be just as likely. of the thousands of religions to come and go over the course of time, christianity is but one -- what are the chances that it's the right one?

The first christians became christians after seeing Christ. There is a starting point that is outside the realm of indoctrination. God himself came down and started christianity.

[Superfluous_Nut]

The first christians became christians after seeing Christ. There is a starting point that is outside the realm of indoctrination. God himself came down and started christianity.
actually, it wasn't after SEEING christ, it was after HEARING christ. jesus taught them christianity -- it's the whole point of the bible, isn't it?

[barry49s]

And people like you who think they grasp evolution but don't realize natural selection can't explain how a single irreducibly complex system came into being or epigenesis or really the whole theory of evolution but still think it is the best explanation we have baffle the hell out of me.

Never said a word about evolution.

[barry49s]

What specific information have you learned that gives you a reason not to believe, Barry?

Absolutely none. Nor have I found any specific info that gives me a reason to believe.

[Thelt]

actually, it wasn't after SEEING christ, it was after HEARING christ. jesus taught them christianity -- it's the whole point of the bible, isn't it?

I think it acutally developed after his death and ressurection. When he was preaching and ministering no one seemed to know for sure what to make of him. Even the disciples were not sure.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I think it acutally developed after his death and ressurection. When he was preaching and ministering no one seemed to know for sure what to make of him. Even the disciples were not sure.
and after he died people began to relay what it was he had told them (and added their own stuff, inevitably).

[a_b]

Just speaking for myself, of course . . .

"The pledge says "God"."

Yes, it does. That is why, just like prayer, it should not be led in government schools, by government employees, getting paid by the taxpayer. Which god is the pledge referring to? Whichever one you want - but none of them should be taught in government schools.

Now, I am not going to get into the socialist history of the pledge, the nazi salute that was once a part of it, the wording, the addition of god, or the idea of a loyalty oath being anathema in a constitutional republic, unless you would like to discuss those issues.

"Some people pray at school."

There is nothing wrong with individuals praying silently, any time they wish.

"The 10 Commandments are posted."

The first five, whether you are referring to the Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish version, are religious teachings. Religious teachings have no place in secular government.

"I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation."

If there is no mixing of religious teachings with government, there is no fuss at all. I believe strongly in religious freedom, and this by definition means that government, which we are forced to support, should not favor religion - any religion.

"I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever."

I guess you missed the Baptists raising hell over the lowering of the flags to half-staff for the recently departed pope? They were correct, in that instance.

"Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?"

There are no gods to worry about, true. But their are people who believe in gods - they are the ones to watch ;)

[Thelt]

and after he died people began to relay what it was he had told them (and added their own stuff, inevitably).

Prehaps and prehaps not but in any event the intial group of christians became such upon seeing the miracles and the ressurection. They were not told by others.

[Thelt]

Just speaking for myself, of course . . .

"The pledge says "God"."

Yes, it does. That is why, just like prayer, it should not be led in government schools, by government employees, getting paid by the taxpayer. Which god is the pledge referring to? Whichever one you want - but none of them should be taught in government schools.

Now, I am not going to get into the socialist history of the pledge, the nazi salute that was once a part of it, the wording, the addition of god, or the idea of a loyalty oath being anathema in a constitutional republic, unless you would like to discuss those issues.

"Some people pray at school."

There is nothing wrong with individuals praying silently, any time they wish.

"The 10 Commandments are posted."

The first five, whether you are referring to the Protestant, Catholic, or Jewish version, are religious teachings. Religious teachings have no place in secular government.

"I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation."

If there is no mixing of religious teachings with government, there is no fuss at all. I believe strongly in religious freedom, and this by definition means that government, which we are forced to support, should not favor religion - any religion.

"I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever."

I guess you missed the Baptists raising hell over the lowering of the flags to half-staff for the recently departed pope? They were correct, in that instance.

"Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?"

There are no gods to worry about, true. But their are people who believe in gods - they are the ones to watch ;)


Just a question, where do you draw your morality from? Do you have any higher authority that you accept or do you just see everything as situational and open to change?

[a_b]

Just a question, where do you draw your morality from? Do you have any higher authority that you accept or do you just see everything as situational and open to change?
I drew my morality from many facets of society. Initially, from the teachings of parents, teachers, and church. Later, from the law, and from the study of history.

So, are ethics situational and open to change? Yes. But before you argue about this, if you are coming from a Christian perspective, and use the Bible to support your views, you are using the big book of situation ethics ;)

[slydevl]

Religious teachings have no place in secular government.
The is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution based upon the words of the founding fathers themselves. The Constitution was never intended to be reinterpreted, just amended.

[a_b]

The is an incorrect interpretation of the Constitution based upon the words of the founding fathers themselves. The Constitution was never intended to be reinterpreted, just amended.
Then we should not interpret it? Well, I actually agree. We should take it as written:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

That line of the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the state and local governments, so NC, Alabama, Charlotte, etc. also shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Thelt]

I drew my morality from many facets of society. Initially, from the teachings of parents, teachers, and church. Later, from the law, and from the study of history.

So, are ethics situational and open to change? Yes. But before you argue about this, if you are coming from a Christian perspective, and use the Bible to support your views, you are using the big book of situation ethics ;)

I do not want to argue this again but if you do not see anything as higher than your own intellect I do not understand how you can have any morals. Why do anything selfless or for the good of another person if you have nothing above yourself telling you to do so. If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy.

[Galethog]

I do not want to argue this again but if you do not see anything as higher than your own intellect I do not understand how you can have any morals. Why do anything selfless or for the good of another person if you have nothing above yourself telling you to do so. If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy.

Most people don't go through life with a constant "WWJD" on their minds. They make decisions based on their personality and their social training.

[Ignatowski]

I do not want to argue this again but if you do not see anything as higher than your own intellect I do not understand how you can have any morals. Why do anything selfless or for the good of another person if you have nothing above yourself telling you to do so. If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy.

Let me get this straight....your telling me in order to be a decent person...to do something nice for another person, that one has to have a belief in a superior being? That you can't have any morals?

You make a lot of good arguments , but this is not one of them.

[slydevl]

Then we should not interpret it? Well, I actually agree. We should take it as written:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

. . . No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States

That line of the 14th Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the state and local governments, so NC, Alabama, Charlotte, etc. also shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
You just owned yourself. What is written above is not what is being applied in our country today. Can you name one law that has established a religion? That is just for starters.

[NDL]

If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy. I understand your point, although to an extent, I disagree.

We love God. And because we love God, we seek to uphold His commandments; a natural byproduct of the love relationship we have with God.

But there are people of different perspectives, who have big hearts', are compassionate, are forgiving, are longsuffering, and care for their fellow man. Ignatowski is one of them; a person that is, in his actions and deeds, truly Christian-like.

Thelt, if you're saying that there are no assurances that an unbeliever will do what is moral, to that I would agree (then again, because we are of a fallen nature, we don't always do the right thing). But to say that unbelievers are incapable of doing good works and deeds - I think it's incorrect.

[a_b]

I do not want to argue this again but if you do not see anything as higher than your own intellect I do not understand how you can have any morals. Why do anything selfless or for the good of another person if you have nothing above yourself telling you to do so. If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy.
Well Thelt, I am glad you are not an atheist then, as you would give us a bad name.

Why do anything good or selfless? Because it contributes to society, and makes the giver feel better.

Are you saying that the only reason you do something for anyone is because some passage in the Bible tells you to do so?

[a_b]

You just owned yourself. What is written above is not what is being applied in our country today. Can you name one law that has established a religion? That is just for starters.
The First Amendment was intended to prohibit government from supporting or promoting religious beliefs or practices, even if that promotion favors no particular cult. This prohibits government from favoring religion over non-religion, using tax dollars to support religious activities, or even requiring people to be exposed to religious practices in the course of everyday governmental activity.

With that in mind, laws that established a religion:

State laws that allowed government entities to organize or encourage prayer in the government schools.

State and federal laws that use government funds to aid parochial schools (vouchers).

Religious displays on government property when these displays convey government support of religious beliefs.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I do not want to argue this again but if you do not see anything as higher than your own intellect I do not understand how you can have any morals. Why do anything selfless or for the good of another person if you have nothing above yourself telling you to do so. If I were an atheist I would be one selfish and devious guy.
a man's got to know his limitations.

[KrisJenkins77]

You just owned yourself. What is written above is not what is being applied in our country today. Can you name one law that has established a religion? That is just for starters.
Sly, nothing personal, me and you both root for the same team, but you seem to "own" everyone you argue against. If Jesus came down and told you that you were wrong and told you why, I'm sure you'd say "Nice job of owning yourself my savior."

[Superfluous_Nut]

Sly, nothing personal, me and you both root for the same team, but you seem to "own" everyone you argue against. If Jesus came down and told you that you were wrong and told you why, I'm sure you'd say "Nice job of owning yourself my savior."sly's on a one-man crusade to bring back slavery.:satana:

edit: are satan bananas okay to post in here?

[Thelt]

I do not mean to say atheists never have morals or do anything good. I am just saying I can not understand why they would be motivated to do so. If I thought this life was it and that I will simply go into oblivion after death I would not see much motivation in helping anyone else. Maybe if it were going to help me somehow but not just out of being good.

[slydevl]

The First Amendment was intended to prohibit government from supporting or promoting religious beliefs or practices, even if that promotion favors no particular cult. This prohibits government from favoring religion over non-religion, using tax dollars to support religious activities, or even requiring people to be exposed to religious practices in the course of everyday governmental activity.

With that in mind, laws that established a religion:

State laws that allowed government entities to organize or encourage prayer in the government schools.

IF you mean allowed by not strictly prohibiting then you are wrong. Prohibiting would itself have been a violation of the 1st.

State and federal laws that use government funds to aid parochial schools (vouchers).

Not according to the SC. Only a problem is they only aided certain parochial schools.

Religious displays on government property when these displays convey government support of religious beliefs.

You are going to have to be more clear as to exactly what law congress passed which caused that.

You just interpreted the 1st and did so incorrectly.....nice.

[slydevl]

sly's on a one-man crusade to bring back slavery.:satana:

edit: are satan bananas okay to post in here?
If you mean because slavery was originally in the Constitution then this is an incredibly stupid post. I have said the Constitution should be amended not interpreted.

If that is not what you meant, you lost me with this post.

[slydevl]

Sly, nothing personal, me and you both root for the same team, but you seem to "own" everyone you argue against.

I know! Its so easy.

If Jesus came down and told you that you were wrong and told you why, I'm sure you'd say "Nice job of owning yourself my savior."

No, I wouldn't but nice try.

.

[a_b]

You just interpreted the 1st and did so incorrectly.....nice.Sly, perhaps you didn't understand, so I will try again. The 14th amendment to the Constitution applied the Constitution, and all amendments, to government - state, local, and all branches of the federal government. So it is no longer just Congress prohibited from establishing a religion - it is government, at all levels..

If you would like an example, the government of New York established school prayer in government schools, until the Supreme Court overturned it. The case was called Engel vs. Vitale. Justice Black:

"The respondent Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 9, New Hyde Park, New York, acting in its official capacity under state law, directed the School District's principal to cause the following prayer to be said aloud by each class in the presence of a teacher at the beginning of each school day:
Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessing upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country.

This daily procedure was adopted on the recommendation of the State Board of Regents, a governmental agency created by the State Constitution to which the New York Legislature has granted broad supervisory, executive, and legislative powers over the State's public school system. These state officials composed the prayer which they recommended and published as a part of their "Statement on Moral and Spiritual Training in the Schools," saying: "We believe that this Statement will be subscribed to by all men and women of good will, and we call upon all of them to aid in giving life to our program."...

We think that by using its public school system to encourage recitation of the Regents' prayer, the State of New York has adopted a practice wholly incon-sistent with the Establishment Clause. There can, of course, be no doubt that New York's program of daily classroom invocation of God's blessings as prescribed in the Regents' prayer is a religious activity. It is a solemn avowal of divine faith and supplication for the blessing of the Almighty. The nature of such a prayer has always been religious, none of the respondents has denied this and the trial court expressly so found...

The petitioners contend among other things that the state laws requiring or permitting use of the Regents' prayer must be struck down as a violation of the Establishment Clause because that prayer was composed by governmental officials as a part of a governmental program to further religious beliefs. For this reason, petitioners argue, the State's use of the Regents' prayer in its public school system breaches the constitutional wall of separation between Church and State. We agree with that contention since we think that the constitutional prohibition against laws respecting an establishment of religion must at least mean that in this country it is no part of the business of government to compose official prayers for any group of the American people to recite as a part of a religious program carried on by government.

It is a matter of history that this very practice of establishing governmentally composed prayers for religious services was one of the reasons which caused many of our early colonists to leave England and seek religious freedom in America. The Book of Common Prayer, which was created under governmental direction and which was approved by Acts of Parliament in 1548 and 1549, set out in minute detail the accepted form and content of prayer and other religious ceremonies to be used in the established, tax-supported Church of England...
http://usinfo.state.gov/usa/infousa/facts/democrac/47.htm

Do you disagree with that ruling?
Do you think that prayer written by government is a good idea?

[a_b]

I do not mean to say atheists never have morals or do anything good. I am just saying I can not understand why they would be motivated to do so. If I thought this life was it and that I will simply go into oblivion after death I would not see much motivation in helping anyone else. Maybe if it were going to help me somehow but not just out of being good.
Thelt, why do you do good things?

Did you ever do good things before you were a Christian?

[KrisJenkins77]

Sly, nothing personal, me and you both root for the same team, but you seem to "own" everyone you argue against.

I know! Its so easy.


Bad choice of color. Teach me your ways.



If Jesus came down and told you that you were wrong and told you why, I'm sure you'd say "Nice job of owning yourself my savior."

No, I wouldn't but nice try.


Lies. :D



.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I do not mean to say atheists never have morals or do anything good. I am just saying I can not understand why they would be motivated to do so. If I thought this life was it and that I will simply go into oblivion after death I would not see much motivation in helping anyone else. Maybe if it were going to help me somehow but not just out of being good.
i think morals are deeper human traits than simply choices people make on a daily basis. humans are social animals and social animals can't go around hurting each other or they won't stay very social. i think morals are partly instinctual -- or at least, the "root" moral: don't hurt people.

[Superfluous_Nut]

If you mean because slavery was originally in the Constitution then this is an incredibly stupid post. I have said the Constitution should be amended not interpreted.

If that is not what you meant, you lost me with this post.

see kris' claim that you like to "own" people.... nevermind.

[slydevl]

see kris' claim that you like to "own" people.... nevermind.
got it now

[slydevl]

Do you disagree with that ruling?
Do you think that prayer written by government is a good idea?
No I don't.
No I don't.
But the answer to either of those questions doesn't really boost your case at all.

[Thelt]

Thelt, why do you do good things?

Did you ever do good things before you were a Christian?

I became a christain at twelve years of age and although I may have done some good things before that it was mostly due to my parents telling me to do it or because I had been taught that way. The reason I do good things now is because I have a code of right and wrong I follow that is derived driectly from my religion.

[a_b]

I became a christain at twelve years of age and although I may have done some good things before that it was mostly due to my parents telling me to do it or because I had been taught that way. The reason I do good things now is because I have a code of right and wrong I follow that is derived driectly from my religion.
Would you kill a homosexual, if you could get away with it? Is killing a homosexual good or bad?

Thelt, your morality is no better today than when you were a child. You did good things then because your parents told you, you do good things now because your Bible tells you.

[a_b]

No I don't.
No I don't.
But the answer to either of those questions doesn't really boost your case at all.
Isn't a prayer, dictated by government, and recited by government employees, in government schools, an establishment of religion?

[slydevl]

Isn't a prayer, dictated by government, and recited by government employees, in government schools, an establishment of religion?
Look at your questions and look at my answers. What part of them do you fail to understand? Couldn't be more clear. Reread them until you understand.

You couldn't have picked a more obvious case for the 1st being applied. But a judge deciding to hang the 10 in his court or a teacher deciding to wear a cross outside of her clothing don't meet the clear standards of the 1st.

[hasbeen99]

could it be... satan?while my post was partly in jest, it was what i understand the christian rationale for why somebody wouldn't want to accept jesus and his teachings -- namely, that satan has influenced them in some way.
There is a significant number of Christians out there who seem to find Satan's influence under every rock and bush, often using it as an excuse to mask their own (or someone else's) free will, or to give them a safe target to get mad about rather than calling a sin a sin.

For that reason, many contemporary churches have become hesitant to teach about the influence of Satan on both a personal and global level. Blaming everything on the 'boogeyman' isn't really conducive to spiritual growth.

[hasbeen99]

When Secularists, even the ones that go overboard, pursue the goals they do because they don't want to see the abuses of the past happen anymore. Easy, older examples of these abuses are the Inquisitions and witch-hunts that claimed the lives of millions over the centuries. More modern examples are book-burnings, censorship, and smaller-scale instances of harassment, abuse and persecution of individuals who don't go along with traditional religion.
This is sort of what I was referring to in my original post. Looking at the big picture, the church has given those outside of it good cause to be defensive.

But if you read about Christian martyrdom outside the U.S., the tide seems to be turning a bit. In several regions of the world, Christians are being imprisoned, tortured, and killed in large numbers. There have been more Christians martyred in the 20th century than there were in the previous 19 (source: Voice of the Martyrs).

[hasbeen99]

I think it is in human nature to want to rebel against authority. I think that is part of the motivation.
If you subscribe to the Biblical viewpoint of human nature (and for the most part, I do), the desire to rebel against authority is rooted in a 'default setting' to be the apex of our own world. Submission is not something that usually comes without at least some resistance or ill will.

From what I've heard and read, after WWII our culture became indulgent of that core desire to believe we control our own lives and our own piece of the world. It continually fed that desire (especially in the youth) until collectively, long-established authorities were being challenged left and right, often with no other purpose or agenda other than to simply remove it or lessen it somehow, thereby bringing the individual closer to that level of authority, or more likely, that level of power and control.

We live in a nation that actually celebrates its victory over authoritarian rule, having been a motley collection of militiamen who threw off the yoke of the most powerful government in the world at the time. It doesn't get much more empowering than that. And pretty much every other nation who's taken a shot at bringing Lady Liberty into submission has gone back home with their collective asses in a sling.

But with all that rah-rah, puffing ourselves up tradition comes a lot of responsibility to keep it in balance, which I don't think we as a country have done a very good job of for quite a long time now. And I tend to think that imbalance has led to many of the problems we face in our society today, namely this "victim mode" mentality that's become so common, in which entitlement is king, and consequences are an afterthought at best.

[hasbeen99]

not believing is a natural state. believing something requires proof or evidence. the lack of sufficient proof or evidence would leave people in the natural state of non-belief.
I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think the current global society may be moving in that direction, but I don't think we're there yet. Every poll I've seen (both religious and secular) indicate that atheists tend to comprise roughly 10% of the world's population, and that may be a little generous.

[hasbeen99]

how many "spontaneous christians" have there been? every single religion gains adherents by indoctrination.
Admittedly, I agree that there probably never has been a 'spontaneous' Christian, but Christianity really isn't set up for one to figure out even the simplest form of the gospel by himself. But that doesn't mean a person can't look around at the world around him, especially focusing on nature, and discern that a higher power exists. Arguably, that's how most major religions were born.

i look at it this way, christians think they're right, but so do hindus, muslims, budhists, jews, wiccans, zoastorians, druids, etc, etc. so why would i pick christianity over one of these other equally implausible religions? in fact, why even pick one? i could just make one up and it'd be just as likely. of the thousands of religions to come and go over the course of time, christianity is but one -- what are the chances that it's the right one?
It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for something that will make you feel better, then your options remain very broad. If you're looking for truth, then a process of elimination takes place based on several factors, ultimately leading to one best option, then a choice to accept or reject.

[Superfluous_Nut]

I'm going to have to respectfully disagree. I think the current global society may be moving in that direction, but I don't think we're there yet. Every poll I've seen (both religious and secular) indicate that atheists tend to comprise roughly 10% of the world's population, and that may be a little generous.
a baby is born without a belief system, thus belieiving in something requires an action whereas continuing to believe in nothing is completely passive. that's all i really meant by that.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Admittedly, I agree that there probably never has been a 'spontaneous' Christian, but Christianity really isn't set up for one to figure out even the simplest form of the gospel by himself. But that doesn't mean a person can't look around at the world around him, especially focusing on nature, and discern that a higher power exists. Arguably, that's how most major religions were born.

agreed -- religion formed by people looking around and trying to answer the questions that occured to them (or the people who looked to them for answers).


It depends on what you're looking for. If you're looking for something that will make you feel better, then your options remain very broad. If you're looking for truth, then a process of elimination takes place based on several factors, ultimately leading to one best option, then a choice to accept or reject.
i serously doubt the people that made up the various religions just stumbled onto the truth when coming up with stuff. if i took people at their word that they had visions or saw miracles or god spoke to them, then why wouldn't i look at all the religions where people claimed this? joseph smith comes to mind in this regard. lots of folks think he was profit... i mean, prophet.

[hasbeen99]

If Thelt is right in his assertion, why wouldn't God simply make everyone worship the same - or "correct" - God to begin with? There'd be no need for converting either.
I don't know the intricacies of most world religions to answer that intelligently, but as it applies to several of them, I think it's a great question. There have been several religions that have featured terribly oppressive and control-hungry deities, most of which have died out over time. I would think that if these were legitimate gods, the character portrayed in their doctrines and legends would indicate a desire to force the world to worship them. Somehow, though, that never seemed to work out. For whatever reason, the world has never united in such a way to the best of my knowledge.

But regarding the Biblical God, particularly in the age of grace, will not make people believe in Him. He has given each man, woman, and child a choice whether to believe in Him. That is not to say that one day, there will be consequences for those who reject Him, but at least they have the choice.

[hasbeen99]

actually, it wasn't after SEEING christ, it was after HEARING christ. jesus taught them christianity -- it's the whole point of the bible, isn't it?
In some cases, yes. But most of the first Christians (a.k.a. Messianic Jews), had been taught about Jesus long before He was born through the prophecies of OT prophets like Isaiah, Daniel, and others. Either way, it was indoctrination as you suggested.

[hasbeen99]

Absolutely none. Nor have I found any specific info that gives me a reason to believe.
If you haven't seen compelling evidence either way, doesn't the term "fairy tale" seem a bit extreme?

[hasbeen99]

and after he died people began to relay what it was he had told them (and added their own stuff, inevitably).Some undoubtedly tried (see the Gnostic Gospels). That's why the New Testament gospels were comprised of those who were first-hand eyewitnesses, and whose accounts were in agreement.

[hasbeen99]

Most people don't go through life with a constant "WWJD" on their minds. They make decisions based on their personality and their social training.
:agreed:

[hasbeen99]

edit: are satan bananas okay to post in here?
Of course. :)

[hasbeen99]

I do not mean to say atheists never have morals or do anything good. I am just saying I can not understand why they would be motivated to do so. If I thought this life was it and that I will simply go into oblivion after death I would not see much motivation in helping anyone else. Maybe if it were going to help me somehow but not just out of being good.
People perform acts of kindness all the time for their own ends. A person doesn't have to be completely selfless to show kindness to others, or to reap some benefit from it.

[hasbeen99]

I became a christain at twelve years of age and although I may have done some good things before that it was mostly due to my parents telling me to do it or because I had been taught that way. The reason I do good things now is because I have a code of right and wrong I follow that is derived driectly from my religion.
I became a Christian at 27. I did a good deed or two before that, and to this day I'm the only Christian in my family.

[hasbeen99]

a baby is born without a belief system, thus belieiving in something requires an action whereas continuing to believe in nothing is completely passive. that's all i really meant by that.
A baby is born without a belief system because he has such limited awareness. A stronger, more developed sense of awareness of one's surroundings, however, is sometimes enough of a catalyst to lead him or her to believe in a higher power.

[hasbeen99]

i serously doubt the people that made up the various religions just stumbled onto the truth when coming up with stuff.Why? I agree that some -- maybe even most -- may have had selfish, even sinister motives, but I wouldn't say that's the case across the board. Many theologians I've read and spoken to have just as much a thirst for what is true as any science lab geek.

if i took people at their word that they had visions or saw miracles or god spoke to them, then why wouldn't i look at all the religions where people claimed this? joseph smith comes to mind in this regard.So does Mohammad. Honestly, that's the major reason behind my personal choice to pass over Mormonism and Islam -- both are largely based on the revelation(s) of a single man with little or no corroborating evidence. I think the same could be applied to Buddhism.

But Judaism and Christianity are somewhat set apart in that there are many corroborating experiences, testimonies, and even some scientific evidence that support their claims. The same cannot be said for most other belief systems, at least the ones I've studied anyway.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Why? I agree that some -- maybe even most -- may have had selfish, even sinister motives, but I wouldn't say that's the case across the board. Many theologians I've read and spoken to have just as much a thirst for what is true as any science lab geek.

i'm talking origin, not study. you gotta keep in mind that i don't buy the litteral stories from the bible. instead, it seems to me that somebody made it up. i seriously doubt they just happen to make up the unknowable truth.

jesus is a bit similar. there were plenty of messiahs before him and probably a good number after, tho i think his legend probably killed the market. after the fact, jesus ends up being the one that is "true" because everybody agrees and writes it that way. maybe brian was the messiah and nobody noticed.


So does Mohammad. Honestly, that's the major reason behind my personal choice to pass over Mormonism and Islam -- both are largely based on the revelation(s) of a single man with little or no corroborating evidence. I think the same could be applied to Buddhism.

as opposed to moses?


But Judaism and Christianity are somewhat set apart in that there are many corroborating experiences, testimonies, and even some scientific evidence that support their claims. The same cannot be said for most other belief systems, at least the ones I've studied anyway.
not exactly. there's no doubt that there's history in the bible. but just because you can find the place doesn't mean the story is true. look at troy. supposedly there's a site that people think is troy. does that mean odyseus was a real guy and fought cyclops? or that achilles was truly only vulnerable in his heel -- afterall, how else did it get the name "achilles tendon"?

the story of mohamed and joseph smith are steeped in history as well. they existed, they visited places, things happened. finding other people referencing them doesn't really do much to validate their teachings, tho.

[hasbeen99]

i'm talking origin, not study. you gotta keep in mind that i don't buy the litteral stories from the bible. instead, it seems to me that somebody made it up. i seriously doubt they just happen to make up the unknowable truth.
Why? Is discovery by deduction so hard to accept?

[reb]

...feel so strong about NOT believing in something? If I were an atheist frankly I wouldn't give a rats ass about what Christians, Muslims, or any other deity based religion did.

The pledge says "God".
"What do I care if I say it? I don't believe ain't gonna hurt nothing not like I'm going to hell."

Some people pray at school.
"What do I care not like I have to pray. They can all they want, but that ain't my thing."

The 10 Commandments are posted.
"What do they matter to me I don't believe in them."

I mean what is the point in all the fuss?? I understand when religions disagree, but for non-religious to cause so much trouble I'm confused in their motivation. This is a serious question I'm not asking for anyone to tell me why they are atheist or not. I'm asking to know why the non-religious are 90% of the time the ones fussing over any type of representation in society pretaining to God or Allah or whatever. American Muslims seldom fuss over Christianity or Judasim and its practices. American Jews seldom fuss over Christian and Islamic practices. American Christians seldom fuss over Muslim and Jewish practices in society. It seems that the majority of Church and State argument stems from a group that doesn't believe in a deity. Why... if there's nothing to fuss about, why fuss?


I don't give a rats ass and you are right I don't see why atheists care. You shouldn't give a rats ass what I think either. But you can't you NEEEEED to convert. So get off your high horse.

[Superfluous_Nut]

Why? Is discovery by deduction so hard to accept?
not sure how one discovers the supernatural.

[hasbeen99]

not sure how one discovers the supernatural.
How about an eyewitness account? :D


Actually, what I was inferring is that there have been events throughout history that don't seem to have a scientific explanation, or cannot be resolved logically within the physical realm. Under those circumstances, 'wider' possibilities can be considered, including Intelligent Design, and other deity-based options.

Ultimately it still boils down to a choice of what to believe, but the degree of open-mindedness of the individual can be beneficial, or a detriment if taken too far (or not far enough). And that goes for both the religious and non-religious alike.

[CrazyIvan]

Every poll I've seen (both religious and secular) indicate that atheists tend to comprise roughly 10% of the world's population, and that may be a little generous.
I suspect that there may actually be more "agnostics" than atheists, per se. Ultimately, one asks the question of "How does one know the unknowable?"

[hasbeen99]

a baby is born without a belief system, thus belieiving in something requires an action whereas continuing to believe in nothing is completely passive. that's all i really meant by that.
Oh, okay. I can go along with that.

[hasbeen99]

I suspect that there may actually be more "agnostics" than atheists, per se. Ultimately, one asks the question of "How does one know the unknowable?"
:agreed: