| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.
Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.
And they resent the implication from religious
teachings that perhaps they can't. They've adapted
the scientific notion of objective observation to the
nature of experience and come up with a hastily
thrown-together life view. But that view is really just
a band-aid, substituting for real reflection. There are
glaring inconsistencies. If we're nothing more than
chemical reactions then why live? And why do so
many care about how they'll be treated after death
if they expect to no longer exist?
(My very elderly father believes there's nothing
but what we see. I'd call him a "concretist". He accepts
experience without question and "knows" that when he
dies he'll be forever gone in every sense. Yet he's very
specific about how he wants his ashes handled.

Since all we can confirm is cognition itself,
how can anyone know what's actually happening? We'd
need to define a context of meaning for that. Ray Kurzweil
and his techie followers hope to move their consciousness
into machines and thereby achieve immortality. What
is their consciousness? What is it that wants to keep
living? Without sex, food, or going for a walk, what will
immortality mean? We only know consciousness through
human sense organs. As I see it, argumentative atheists
are simplistic thinkers who haven't really reflected on
life questions. They're simple concretists who don't
actually recognize that their view is based on uninspected
assumptions. If they'd stop attacking religious people
and maybe come up with some interesting thoughts
of their own about the nature of reality then I'd take
them more seriously. Failing that, I can only regard them
as noisy neurotics, because that's how they're manifesting.

On 5/13/2016 9:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.
Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.
And they resent the implication from religious
teachings that perhaps they can't. They've adapted
the scientific notion of objective observation to the
nature of experience and come up with a hastily
thrown-together life view. But that view is really just
a band-aid, substituting for real reflection. There are
glaring inconsistencies. If we're nothing more than
chemical reactions then why live? And why do so
many care about how they'll be treated after death
if they expect to no longer exist?
(My very elderly father believes there's nothing
but what we see. I'd call him a "concretist". He accepts
experience without question and "knows" that when he
dies he'll be forever gone in every sense. Yet he's very
specific about how he wants his ashes handled.

Since all we can confirm is cognition itself,
how can anyone know what's actually happening? We'd
need to define a context of meaning for that. Ray Kurzweil
and his techie followers hope to move their consciousness
into machines and thereby achieve immortality. What
is their consciousness? What is it that wants to keep
living? Without sex, food, or going for a walk, what will
immortality mean? We only know consciousness through
human sense organs. As I see it, argumentative atheists
are simplistic thinkers who haven't really reflected on
life questions. They're simple concretists who don't
actually recognize that their view is based on uninspected
assumptions. If they'd stop attacking religious people
and maybe come up with some interesting thoughts
of their own about the nature of reality then I'd take
them more seriously. Failing that, I can only regard them
as noisy neurotics, because that's how they're manifesting.




Bravo! Excellent post.

--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 14:55, Mayayana wrote:
| +1

I was also enjoying your comprehensive exploration
of atheism. It's nice to see there are some people
who don't regard the likes of Richard Dawkins and
Sam Harris as "top shelf intellectuals".


Thankyou.

--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 15:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:09, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed
significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a
portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when
attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some
anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their
religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC
fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they
made...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown.[7]


Interesting! thanks for posting it.


Did you just say "religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown"?


Religion *introduces* fear into believers, ie: hell.

hmmm If a person is guilty, they often fear the consequences. Don't
you think that's normal?

Hmm! I'd better be good or I'll suffer eternal damnation etc.

Consequences to ones actions are normal.

Much of religion is based on *fear of the unknown*.

Much of what people actually do is because they fear the unknown.

So that's exactly the same as fearing being sent to hell by your
"unknown"and unproved god. I mean, that IS what your *belief* teaches
you, isn't it!


--
Bod

On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.

--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 11:19 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:37, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:09, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed
significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a
portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when
attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some
anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their
religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC
fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they
made...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown.[7]


Interesting! thanks for posting it.


Did you just say "religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown"?


Religion *introduces* fear into believers, ie: hell.

hmmm If a person is guilty, they often fear the consequences. Don't
you think that's normal?

Hmm! I'd better be good or I'll suffer eternal damnation etc.

Consequences to ones actions are normal.

Much of religion is based on *fear of the unknown*.

Much of what people actually do is because they fear the unknown.


So that's exactly the same as fearing being sent to hell by your
"unknown"and unproved god. I mean, that IS what your *belief* teaches
you, isn't it!

Consequences for actions make sense.


--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to
topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.


Again, human nature's need to control others. Their reasoning is only
secondary to their human nature.

--
Maggie

On 5/12/2016 4:51 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 3:38 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not
attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they
behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base
responses, some more than others.


Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a
religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure,
they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an
adamant stance

They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to
display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control
techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling,
their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that
attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to
threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright
obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a
deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone
else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as
simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their
behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a
similar way.

Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to
behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter.

whereas a religious zealot will.

A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they
can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a
zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and
they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them.


Religion is the main problem.

Human nature is the main problem, not religion.


Good points, but religion enhances that righteousness and makes one
become adamant because even when proving a Christian wrong, they fail to
see it.

That's human nature, again, not anything to do with religion.


I don't dispute human nature, but that human nature trait is increased
when trying to appease a culture or group. Religion does just that.

We'll agree yet disagree.

On 5/13/2016 11:41 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 4:51 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 3:38 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not
attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they
behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base
responses, some more than others.


Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a
religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure,
they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an
adamant stance

They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to
display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control
techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name
calling,
their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that
attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to
threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright
obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a
deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than
someone
else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their
responses as
simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their
behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds
in a
similar way.

Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to
behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter.

whereas a religious zealot will.

A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they
can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a
zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and
they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them.


Religion is the main problem.

Human nature is the main problem, not religion.


Good points, but religion enhances that righteousness and makes one
become adamant because even when proving a Christian wrong, they fail to
see it.

That's human nature, again, not anything to do with religion.


I don't dispute human nature, but that human nature trait is increased
when trying to appease a culture or group. Religion does just that.

We'll agree yet disagree.


IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.

--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 01:47:59 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 23:38:40 -0400, wrote:

On Thu, 12 May 2016 13:35:07 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not
attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they
behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base
responses, some more than others.


Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a
religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure,
they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an
adamant stance

They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to
display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control
techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name calling,
their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that
attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to
threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright
obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a
deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than someone
else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their responses as
simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their
behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds in a
similar way.

Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to
behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter.

whereas a religious zealot will.

A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they
can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a
zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and
they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them.


Religion is the main problem.

Human nature is the main problem, not religion.


Atheism and Mass Murder






Joseph Stalin's atheistic regime killed tens of millions of people.

And wasn't hitler's regime almost entirely Catholics and Lutherans?

Hitler's killing was not in the name of Christianity, Catholcism,
orLutheranism. It was in the name of German Nationalism and the "Arian
Race"

You can't find examples of such extreme mass killing before the 20th
century because killers were not so mechanized or efficient, but
consider all the totally innocent people killed by the Crusades, the
wars initiated by Moslems, the klling of North and South American
Indians who were all but wiped out except in Colombia and Guatemala,
all by religious people.


But not in the name of any religion.
ALL of the incidents I listed were killing in the name of an "atheist
Regime" - with the express purpose of advancing the rule of atheism.


If you'd rather blame the other side in those episodes, they were
religious too, including the Indians.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:55:54 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| +1

I was also enjoying your comprehensive exploration
of atheism. It's nice to see there are some people
who don't regard the likes of Richard Dawkins and
Sam Harris as "top shelf intellectuals".

Not top shelf anything, nor intellectuals on any rung of the ladder of
life.

On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:37:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:09, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed
significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a
portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when
attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some
anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their
religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC
fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they
made...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown.[7]


Interesting! thanks for posting it.


Did you just say "religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown"?


Religion *introduces* fear into believers, ie: hell.

hmmm If a person is guilty, they often fear the consequences. Don't
you think that's normal?

Hmm! I'd better be good or I'll suffer eternal damnation etc.

Consequences to ones actions are normal.

Much of religion is based on *fear of the unknown*.

Much of what people actually do is because they fear the unknown.


" If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't know what I know now"

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 12:06:57 PM UTC-6, Bod wrote:
No.
--
Bod

On Friday, May 13, 2016 at 8:46:05 AM UTC-6, Mayayana wrote:
| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.
Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.
And they resent the implication from religious
teachings that perhaps they can't. They've adapted
the scientific notion of objective observation to the
nature of experience and come up with a hastily
thrown-together life view. But that view is really just
a band-aid, substituting for real reflection. There are
glaring inconsistencies. If we're nothing more than
chemical reactions then why live? And why do so
many care about how they'll be treated after death
if they expect to no longer exist?
(My very elderly father believes there's nothing
but what we see. I'd call him a "concretist". He accepts
experience without question and "knows" that when he
dies he'll be forever gone in every sense. Yet he's very
specific about how he wants his ashes handled.

Since all we can confirm is cognition itself,
how can anyone know what's actually happening? We'd
need to define a context of meaning for that. Ray Kurzweil
and his techie followers hope to move their consciousness
into machines and thereby achieve immortality. What
is their consciousness? What is it that wants to keep
living? Without sex, food, or going for a walk, what will
immortality mean? We only know consciousness through
human sense organs. As I see it, argumentative atheists
are simplistic thinkers who haven't really reflected on
life questions. They're simple concretists who don't
actually recognize that their view is based on uninspected
assumptions. If they'd stop attacking religious people
and maybe come up with some interesting thoughts
of their own about the nature of reality then I'd take
them more seriously. Failing that, I can only regard them
as noisy neurotics, because that's how they're manifesting.

Most religious kooks like you are neurotic in my estimation...and take you "uninspected" bull**** and shove it as well. Judgmental arsehole.

====

On 5/13/2016 12:52 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 09:37:46 -0500, Muggles
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 1:23 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:09, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:44 PM, wrote:

Compared to non-believers, the religious participants showed
significantly less activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), a
portion of the brain that helps modify behavior by signaling when
attention and control are needed, usually as a result of some
anxiety-producing event like making a mistake. The stronger their
religious zeal and the more they believed in God, the less their ACC
fired in response to their own errors, and the fewer errors they
made...

Their findings show religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown.[7]


Interesting! thanks for posting it.


Did you just say "religious belief has a calming effect on its
devotees, which makes them less likely to feel anxious about making
errors or facing the unknown"?


Religion *introduces* fear into believers, ie: hell.

hmmm If a person is guilty, they often fear the consequences. Don't
you think that's normal?

Hmm! I'd better be good or I'll suffer eternal damnation etc.

Consequences to ones actions are normal.

Much of religion is based on *fear of the unknown*.

Much of what people actually do is because they fear the unknown.


" If I knew then what I know now, I wouldn't know what I know now"


smile

--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.


True - a very large portion of the North American population, both
Canada and the USA are technically Agnostic - including many who would
loosely identify themselves as "christian".

They don't really know if there is a god,, and really don't much care
in their daily lives.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.

They are, on the whole, totally ignorant of what any of the world
religions believe, the history of those religions, and what they stand
for. They have no idea what "God" constists of in any of those
beliefs - and they really don't care to know because it could cloud
their issues and make them - "god" forbid - have to THINK.

Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.


What thew vehement atheist Realy is, is a person who can not concieve
of a situation where there might be more to life, or a question of
life, than they in their "ultimate wisdom" could concieve.. They are
basically, in essense, VERY lazy thinkers.

And they resent the implication from religious
teachings that perhaps they can't. They've adapted
the scientific notion of objective observation to the
nature of experience and come up with a hastily
thrown-together life view. But that view is really just
a band-aid, substituting for real reflection. There are
glaring inconsistencies. If we're nothing more than
chemical reactions then why live? And why do so
many care about how they'll be treated after death
if they expect to no longer exist?
(My very elderly father believes there's nothing
but what we see. I'd call him a "concretist". He accepts
experience without question and "knows" that when he
dies he'll be forever gone in every sense. Yet he's very
specific about how he wants his ashes handled.

Since all we can confirm is cognition itself,
how can anyone know what's actually happening? We'd
need to define a context of meaning for that. Ray Kurzweil
and his techie followers hope to move their consciousness
into machines and thereby achieve immortality. What
is their consciousness? What is it that wants to keep
living? Without sex, food, or going for a walk, what will
immortality mean? We only know consciousness through
human sense organs. As I see it, argumentative atheists
are simplistic thinkers who haven't really reflected on
life questions. They're simple concretists who don't
actually recognize that their view is based on uninspected
assumptions. If they'd stop attacking religious people
and maybe come up with some interesting thoughts
of their own about the nature of reality then I'd take
them more seriously. Failing that, I can only regard them
as noisy neurotics, because that's how they're manifesting.

On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:41 AM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 4:51 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 3:38 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 2:35 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


A good majority of people live by some moral code, so I try to not
attribute their attitudes to any particular belief system when they
behave self-righteously. Often times we all revert back to our base
responses, some more than others.


Most good Atheists live by the "do unto others" code and not one of a
religious nature. IMO, when/if proven wrong in their belief structure,
they will not revert to a book proclaiming their righteousness with an
adamant stance

They just revert back to their human nature which requires them to
display any number of responses, such as, rejection or control
techniques, manipulation, any number of logical fallacies, name
calling,
their own version of self-righteous indignation, implications that
attack the character of their opponent, or some even go so far as to
threaten violence in some way. Some of those responses are outright
obvious, and others are passive aggressive, but they all point to a
deeply held belief that something they reject is more valid than
someone
else who doesn't reject the same ideas. They justify their
responses as
simply supporting their particular point of view, and can't see their
behavior is no different from someone who is religious who responds
in a
similar way.

Any belief that prompts such responses to the opposition is akin to
behaving religiously. A book have no bearing in the matter.

whereas a religious zealot will.

A zealot is just as likely to be found amongst Atheists as it is they
can be found amongst computer programmers, even. The mindset of a
zealot if just simply they are right and everyone else is wrong, and
they won't hesitate to go on the attack if anyone challenges them.


Religion is the main problem.

Human nature is the main problem, not religion.


Good points, but religion enhances that righteousness and makes one
become adamant because even when proving a Christian wrong, they fail to
see it.

That's human nature, again, not anything to do with religion.


I don't dispute human nature, but that human nature trait is increased
when trying to appease a culture or group. Religion does just that.

We'll agree yet disagree.


IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

On 5/13/2016 12:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to
topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.


Again, human nature's need to control others. Their reasoning is only
secondary to their human nature.

Their reasoning stems from and is enhanced by a religious standpoint.

On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their
bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to
topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have
come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name
is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect
of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.


Again, human nature's need to control others. Their reasoning is only
secondary to their human nature.


Their reasoning stems from and is enhanced by a religious standpoint.

Likewise, their reasoning could be enhanced by a sore toe on any given
day. Religion isn't the cause.

--
Maggie

On 13/05/2016 19:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?

I personally resisted peer pressure from being virtually made to go to
church and constantly told that I will burn in hell if I didn't believe
in god.

--
Bod

On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:57:48 PM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 5/12/16 2:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" writes:
On 5/12/16 2:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


You should be able to cite thousands of court cases, if this
is true. Please, feel free to support your assertion with
the corroborating facts.

Look up ANY of the first amendment cases, especially the ones they have
lost (like one nation under God and In God We Trust).

Is it an important part of Christianity to have "under God" in the
Pledge, or "In God We Trust" on the currency? I don't see what
the fuss is all about.

Although I am willing to admit that it is not possible to prove that
God does not exist. However, proving that he does would require
extraordinary evidence.

Cindy Hamilton

On 13/05/2016 19:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
On Thursday, May 12, 2016 at 4:57:48 PM UTC-4, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 5/12/16 2:53 PM, Scott Lurndal wrote:
"Kurt V. Ullman" writes:
On 5/12/16 2:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/12/2016 12:49 PM, Muggles wrote:


You should be able to cite thousands of court cases, if this
is true. Please, feel free to support your assertion with
the corroborating facts.

Look up ANY of the first amendment cases, especially the ones they have
lost (like one nation under God and In God We Trust).

Is it an important part of Christianity to have "under God" in the
Pledge, or "In God We Trust" on the currency? I don't see what
the fuss is all about.

Although I am willing to admit that it is not possible to prove that
God does not exist. However, proving that he does would require
extraordinary evidence.

Cindy Hamilton

Well said.

--
Bod

On 5/13/2016 1:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?

I personally resisted peer pressure from being virtually made to go to
church and constantly told that I will burn in hell if I didn't believe
in god.


The 'burn in hell' version of preaching is one brand of presentation
mainly promoted by Baptists. The general message is that of warning
that ones actions have consequences. It's not necessarily the only
message via Baptists, but at the same time despite it being fire and
brimstone in nature it's intended to warn people to turn away from their
sin and turn to God.

Taken in context the message isn't wrong.

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 2:15 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their
bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to
topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have
come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name
is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect
of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.


Again, human nature's need to control others. Their reasoning is only
secondary to their human nature.


Their reasoning stems from and is enhanced by a religious standpoint.

Likewise, their reasoning could be enhanced by a sore toe on any given
day. Religion isn't the cause.


The Crusaders
Thirty Years War
French Wars of Religion
First and Second Sudanese Civil War
The Holocaust
Jewish Diaspora
Branch Davidians
Heavens Gate

Above are just a small sample of religious acts and cults who's
existence was based on a religious nature. Is it human nature for people
to end their lives in hopes of an afterlife of paradise? Is it human
nature to start wars or follow those who start wars because their sect
was threatened? The majority of people do not have the notion of war or
killing them self as an individual. They never pondered the thought
until they've been urged by a leader, group or culture. The majority of
those groups are religiously led.

Approximately 17 million deaths have occurred in the name of religion
throughout centuries of wars.

You can repeat the same rhetoric all day long but the majority of people
would not act harshly without the urging by another especially when
promised of a spiritual reward. Extreme Muslims have been doing it for
decades.

I'm guessing your adamant standpoint is due to your religious beliefs
and proves the point how many within the Christian belief fail to admit
the obvious.

On 5/13/2016 2:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.


True - a very large portion of the North American population, both
Canada and the USA are technically Agnostic - including many who would
loosely identify themselves as "christian".

They don't really know if there is a god,, and really don't much care
in their daily lives.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.

They are, on the whole, totally ignorant of what any of the world
religions believe, the history of those religions, and what they stand
for. They have no idea what "God" constists of in any of those
beliefs - and they really don't care to know because it could cloud
their issues and make them - "god" forbid - have to THINK.

Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.


What thew vehement atheist Realy is, is a person who can not concieve
of a situation where there might be more to life, or a question of
life, than they in their "ultimate wisdom" could concieve.. They are
basically, in essense, VERY lazy thinkers.


These articles (and more can be found) argue your point.


http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-a...-people-250727

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cientific.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ss-intelligent

On 5/13/2016 2:57 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 2:15 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:06 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 12:41 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 11:26 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 15:40, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:25 AM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 05:11, Muggles wrote:
On 5/12/2016 10:48 PM, wrote:

“Rather than hurling ad hom*inem attacks on Craig from their
bunkers,
it would be good to see these figures come forward to rationally
defend the atheism they publicly espouse.”[20]

YES! Good discussion often ends up with ad homs when it comes to
topics
like this.

If you check back in this discussion, you'll find the ad homs have
come
from the religious posters, like; Gunner Achs (or whatever his name
is).


How much of such responses do you attribute to the religious aspect
of a
poster vs. their personality and human nature?

I don't know why some people think that just because someone espouses
affiliation with a religion that it makes that person suddenly reject
their human nature?

Have you reminded the religious Muslim terrorists about their "human
nature"? Many Muslims who aren't terrorists even kill each other if
they happen to be the wrong flavour.
That includes many Catholics and Protestants in Northern Ireland.


Again, human nature's need to control others. Their reasoning is only
secondary to their human nature.


Their reasoning stems from and is enhanced by a religious standpoint.

Likewise, their reasoning could be enhanced by a sore toe on any given
day. Religion isn't the cause.


The Crusaders
Thirty Years War
French Wars of Religion
First and Second Sudanese Civil War
The Holocaust
Jewish Diaspora
Branch Davidians
Heavens Gate

Above are just a small sample of religious acts and cults who's
existence was based on a religious nature. Is it human nature for people
to end their lives in hopes of an afterlife of paradise? Is it human
nature to start wars or follow those who start wars because their sect
was threatened? The majority of people do not have the notion of war or
killing them self as an individual. They never pondered the thought
until they've been urged by a leader, group or culture. The majority of
those groups are religiously led.


It is human nature to follow leaders, and for some people, it's their
nature to accept what they're told to do. People won't do anything that
they don't accept as part of a tenant they believe or support, and in
order for people to even do that they have to have a quality in their
own human nature that allows them to respond that way.

How do you explain that only certain people get caught up in such
things, yet, other people don't?

Approximately 17 million deaths have occurred in the name of religion
throughout centuries of wars.

You can repeat the same rhetoric all day long but the majority of people
would not act harshly without the urging by another especially when
promised of a spiritual reward. Extreme Muslims have been doing it for
decades.

I'm guessing your adamant standpoint is due to your religious beliefs
and proves the point how many within the Christian belief fail to admit
the obvious.





--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 2:08 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?


I avoided peer pressure which is why my friends where a limited
selection of close nit allies. I have older brothers whose acts where
under my observation which was enough to teach me what and what not to
do. Unfortunately, I, and obviously you, are a rarer breed whereas the
majority fall prey to the urging of their peers. Take a look at the
millions of idiots in online videos who perform idiotic acts such as
stunts and fights as their peers are yelling for them to go for it and
girls who feel pressured to fit the so called "norm" of social body
standards and social interaction.

On 5/13/2016 3:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?

I personally resisted peer pressure from being virtually made to go to
church and constantly told that I will burn in hell if I didn't believe
in god.


The 'burn in hell' version of preaching is one brand of presentation
mainly promoted by Baptists. The general message is that of warning
that ones actions have consequences. It's not necessarily the only
message via Baptists, but at the same time despite it being fire and
brimstone in nature it's intended to warn people to turn away from their
sin and turn to God.

Taken in context the message isn't wrong.


You have no proof it's right. It's a perfect example of pressured
application to make one do or not do to avoid upsetting the higher power.

Religion also instills denial within their followers.

On 5/13/2016 3:10 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 2:08 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?


I avoided peer pressure which is why my friends where a limited
selection of close nit allies. I have older brothers whose acts where
under my observation which was enough to teach me what and what not to
do. Unfortunately, I, and obviously you, are a rarer breed whereas the
majority fall prey to the urging of their peers. Take a look at the
millions of idiots in online videos who perform idiotic acts such as
stunts and fights as their peers are yelling for them to go for it and
girls who feel pressured to fit the so called "norm" of social body
standards and social interaction.

yeah ... something we both can agree with!

--
Maggie

On 5/13/2016 3:13 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 3:07 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:32 PM, Bod wrote:
On 13/05/2016 19:08, Muggles wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:04 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 1:02 PM, Muggles wrote:

IF human nature is bent in the direction of the negative aspects of
personality traits every interaction will include those negative
aspects. Religion is simply one other means that can be used to
proliferate such responses.


Ever hear of peer pressure? You probably wouldn't have done half the
things as a kid if you didn't have someone egging you on or
something to
prove. Same thing.

As a kid I made a conscious decision to reject peer pressure, and I
made
it a point to learn from any instances where peer pressure could have
influenced me to do something I'd not normally do without it.

What about you?

I personally resisted peer pressure from being virtually made to go to
church and constantly told that I will burn in hell if I didn't believe
in god.


The 'burn in hell' version of preaching is one brand of presentation
mainly promoted by Baptists. The general message is that of warning
that ones actions have consequences. It's not necessarily the only
message via Baptists, but at the same time despite it being fire and
brimstone in nature it's intended to warn people to turn away from their
sin and turn to God.

Taken in context the message isn't wrong.

You have no proof it's right. It's a perfect example of pressured
application to make one do or not do to avoid upsetting the higher power.

As I said, taken in context, as in, context of the Bible and
Christianity, the message isn't wrong.

Religion also instills denial within their followers.

hmmm I'm not sure what you mean.

--
Maggie

"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it."

- Neil deGrasse Tyson

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 2:06:57 PM UTC-4, Bod wrote:
No.
--
Bod

What the F...does this have to do with home repairs?

On 5/13/2016 4:19 PM, Muggles wrote:

Taken in context the message isn't wrong.

You have no proof it's right. It's a perfect example of pressured
application to make one do or not do to avoid upsetting the higher power.

As I said, taken in context, as in, context of the Bible and
Christianity, the message isn't wrong.




....yet it's followers do so without proof. Is that human nature?

On 5/13/2016 4:37 PM, Meanie wrote:
On 5/13/2016 4:19 PM, Muggles wrote:

Taken in context the message isn't wrong.

You have no proof it's right. It's a perfect example of pressured
application to make one do or not do to avoid upsetting the higher
power.

As I said, taken in context, as in, context of the Bible and
Christianity, the message isn't wrong.




...yet it's followers do so without proof. Is that human nature?

I don't understand. They do so what w/o proof?

--
Maggie

On Fri, 13 May 2016 16:02:57 -0400, Meanie
wrote:

On 5/13/2016 2:03 PM, wrote:
On Fri, 13 May 2016 10:45:52 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| In my experience,
| atheists are scientific materialists who view all
| religion/spirituality as being dumb, literal belief in
| a cosmic daddy figure. They then pat themselves
| on the back for believing in science, which they
| regard as a rational belief. They're anti-religious
| in a very condescending way, but mostly they're
| just ignorant.
|
|
| You've just accused half of America as being ignorant.
| A bold and "condescending" claim.
|
| "Religion is dying out in America: Just 18% of people 60 and younger
| attend church and less than 50% believe in God"
|

You've made some jumps in logic there that
don't apply. I made a comment about people
who self-describe as atheists. That's not half
the population. Lots of people don't believe in the
Christian god. Those people are not necessarily
atheists. Most that I know don't have much
interest in the topic at all. They were raised
Christian. It didn't seem to be relevant for them.
Case closed. They're not curious and they don't
experience notable existential anxiety, so they
simply don't care about the topic.


True - a very large portion of the North American population, both
Canada and the USA are technically Agnostic - including many who would
loosely identify themselves as "christian".

They don't really know if there is a god,, and really don't much care
in their daily lives.

What I meant by ignorant is that the atheist
argument always characterizes religion in the
very simplest terms. They're ignorant of religion,
lumping all religious peoples together as childish
believers in fairies or angels, or a simplistically
defined "personal god", seemingly unaware of
any other aspects of religion.

They are, on the whole, totally ignorant of what any of the world
religions believe, the history of those religions, and what they stand
for. They have no idea what "God" constists of in any of those
beliefs - and they really don't care to know because it could cloud
their issues and make them - "god" forbid - have to THINK.

Thomas Merton? Theresa of Avila? St John of the
Cross? Monks of various faiths who spend their lives
in prayer, in some cases locked away for decades
in caves? Could any reasonable person really look
at all of those various aspects of what they call
"religion" and still conclude that it's all just a scam
to dupe fools?

What I hear from self-described atheists prone to
argument is a simple-minded position that refutes
its opposite. They don't grasp religion, or much of
anything else. They're not really capable of reflection.
They just believe in scientism and regard religious
people as "the opposing team". Since their own thinking
is simplistic they define religion as simplistic as well.
Such people are also ignorant of science, which is
not a philosophy and has no capacity to address the
meaning of life or the nature of reality.

What the vehement atheist really is, is a person
who likes to imagine they can think for themselves.


What thew vehement atheist Realy is, is a person who can not concieve
of a situation where there might be more to life, or a question of
life, than they in their "ultimate wisdom" could concieve.. They are
basically, in essense, VERY lazy thinkers.


These articles (and more can be found) argue your point.


http://www.medicaldaily.com/proved-a...-people-250727

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...cientific.html

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...ss-intelligent





"Lies, damned lies, and statistics" is a phrase describing the persuasive power of numbers, particularly the use of statistics to bolster weak arguments. It is also sometimes colloquially used to doubt statistics used to prove an opponent's point.