No.
--
Bod

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
No.
--
Bod

....you must be talking to the voices in your head! ¯\_(Š™ï¸¿Š™)_/¯

On 11/05/2016 19:39, bob_villain wrote:
On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 1:06:57 PM UTC-5, Bod wrote:
No.
--
Bod

...you must be talking to the voices in your head! ¯\_(Š™ï¸¿Š™)_/¯

Ah! you're a Telepath. Hey! you shouldn't be listening ;-)

--
Bod

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

No.

They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive
religions.
If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the
public square and in the courts.

On 11/05/2016 19:44, wrote:
On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

No.

They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive
religions.
If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the
public square and in the courts.

Sorry, that doesn't apply to me. People are free to believe in what
they want, I just put my opinions across, that's all. I simply see
religion as nonsense. I am as free to offer my opinions as anybody else.

--
Bod

On 5/12/2016 7:25 AM, Bud Frede wrote:

I may disagree with your religious beliefs, but I would never march into
your child's funeral and try to disrupt it or use it for my own aims.

From my experience, it's people with strongly-held religious beliefs
that often get carried away and try to force their views on other people
- to the point of killing those who won't knuckle under or have the
wrong shaped nose or skin color, etc.


I've had all flavors of people with strongly-held beliefs get carried
away and try to force their views on me. Their reason for trying to make
me pay, or hurt me was ambiguous, or amounted to I didn't agree with them.

If someone is going to respond that way it's how they'd respond
regardless of a religious belief - it's how they deal with people they
don't understand or can't accept, and they are usually bullies, anyway.

--
Maggie

On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:25:41 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

writes:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

No.

They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive
religions.

I'm not sure I would call myself an atheist, since that word is
freighted with much baggage and thus doesn't really describe me.

I certainly don't ever try to force someone to change their views, nor
do I repeatedly invite anyone to church services, or say "I'll pray for
you," or any of the other obnoxious things that so many religious people
do.

I also don't kill people in the name of my religion, since I don't have
one.


If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the
public square and in the courts.

I might assume that you're a bit fuzzy in your thinking, or perhaps
lacking in education, but I wouldn't persecute you. I don't see people
persecuted for their beliefs in public or in the courts, unless you mean
Muslims, and they are currently being persecuted more by their fellow
monotheists than by anyone else.

Try to be a Christian in Bihar India, or in Mauritania. Also remember
the former athiest soviet republic, and China - and the current North
Korea. Many other countries in the world too.

On the other hand, if you like to use "religious beliefs" as an excuse
to infringe on the rights of others, to oppress other groups of people,
or to spread hatred, I think you should be shut down right away. Keep
those nasty beliefs to yourself and don't ever act on them.

That Westboro Baptist Church is always talking about their religious
beliefs. I support their right to have those beliefs, even though I
completely disagree with them and what they stand for. However, I don't
think they should be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others, and
especially not the grieving families of those who have died while
serving their country in the Armed Forces.

I may disagree with your religious beliefs, but I would never march into
your child's funeral and try to disrupt it or use it for my own aims.

From my experience, it's people with strongly-held religious beliefs
that often get carried away and try to force their views on other people
- to the point of killing those who won't knuckle under or have the
wrong shaped nose or skin color, etc.

I may dissagree with your beliefs, But I will stand up for your right
to believe as long as your beliefs allow others to bel;ieve what they
believe without you attacking them or their beliefs.

The current Atheistic posters on this (these) list(s) show no respect
for the beliefs of others., so although I MAY respect thier beliefs
(or lack of beliefs, as they prefer to call it), I have no respect for
them as human beings.

On 5/12/2016 10:57 PM, wrote:
On Thu, 12 May 2016 08:25:41 -0400, Bud Frede
wrote:

writes:

On Wed, 11 May 2016 19:06:51 +0100, Bod wrote:

No.

They still have the same evangelical zeal as the most oppressive
religions.

I'm not sure I would call myself an atheist, since that word is
freighted with much baggage and thus doesn't really describe me.

I certainly don't ever try to force someone to change their views, nor
do I repeatedly invite anyone to church services, or say "I'll pray for
you," or any of the other obnoxious things that so many religious people
do.

I also don't kill people in the name of my religion, since I don't have
one.


If you have any other beliefs you are persecuted for them in the
public square and in the courts.

I might assume that you're a bit fuzzy in your thinking, or perhaps
lacking in education, but I wouldn't persecute you. I don't see people
persecuted for their beliefs in public or in the courts, unless you mean
Muslims, and they are currently being persecuted more by their fellow
monotheists than by anyone else.

Try to be a Christian in Bihar India, or in Mauritania. Also remember
the former athiest soviet republic, and China - and the current North
Korea. Many other countries in the world too.

On the other hand, if you like to use "religious beliefs" as an excuse
to infringe on the rights of others, to oppress other groups of people,
or to spread hatred, I think you should be shut down right away. Keep
those nasty beliefs to yourself and don't ever act on them.

That Westboro Baptist Church is always talking about their religious
beliefs. I support their right to have those beliefs, even though I
completely disagree with them and what they stand for. However, I don't
think they should be allowed to inflict their beliefs on others, and
especially not the grieving families of those who have died while
serving their country in the Armed Forces.

I may disagree with your religious beliefs, but I would never march into
your child's funeral and try to disrupt it or use it for my own aims.

From my experience, it's people with strongly-held religious beliefs
that often get carried away and try to force their views on other people
- to the point of killing those who won't knuckle under or have the
wrong shaped nose or skin color, etc.

I may dissagree with your beliefs, But I will stand up for your right
to believe as long as your beliefs allow others to bel;ieve what they
believe without you attacking them or their beliefs.

The current Atheistic posters on this (these) list(s) show no respect
for the beliefs of others., so although I MAY respect thier beliefs
(or lack of beliefs, as they prefer to call it), I have no respect for
them as human beings.


I've found that people who are comfortable in their
beliefs have a great strength. The strength to let
others be what they want to be.

People who spend all their time trying to convince
me "we're OK, too!" worry me. For example people who
spend lots of time on gay pride marches, and campaigns
for bathrooms make me think that they know full well
that sodomy, homosexuality and perversions are wrong.
But that they need approval from the rest of us.

-
..
Christopher A. Young
learn more about Jesus
.. www.lds.org
..
..

On 5/11/2016 1:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

Being "religious" is a behavior, and not necessarily related to
religion, so, yes, Atheists can be religious.

--
Maggie

On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?

--
With all this €œgun control€� talk, I havent heard one politician say how
they plan to take guns away from criminals and terrorists€” just from law
abiding citizens€¦

On 2016-05-11 2:59 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?

**** it, comes to mind.

--
Froz....

---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

On 11/05/2016 20:03, FrozenNorth wrote:
On 2016-05-11 2:59 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?

**** it, comes to mind.

lol

--
Bod

On Wednesday, May 11, 2016 at 2:00:03 PM UTC-5, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?
--

In the newest incarnation of Battlestar Galactica, the curse was,"Gods dammit!" In the original series the writers had to invent curse words like,"Frak" and my favorite,"Feldercarb" which was the equivalent of "male bovine droppings." ^_^

[8~{} Uncle Fraking Monster

On 5/11/2016 2:59 PM, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?


They still say God Dammit but without the guilt of being brainwashed
that it's the Lords name in vain.

On 11/05/2016 19:59, Wade Garrett wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.

One wonders.....what do they say instead of "God dammit"?

What other way is there to say it in English?

--
Bod

On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.
Correct, but it is a faith.

On 12/05/2016 01:21, Kurt V. Ullman wrote:
On 5/11/16 2:06 PM, Bod wrote:
No.
Correct, but it is a faith.

You're misusing the word faith in the context that we are discussing.
You're twisting the word to suit yourself.

--
Bod

A theist believes there is a god or gods, whatever
that means. An atheist believes there is no god or
gods.

What do they mean by god? That could be a big
topic. But both types of people believe in something
by definition. It's implied that their belief exists with
or without experiential evidence. Thus, it's dogma.
Dogma seems to be what most atheists think religion
is.
An atheist does not believe in their own definition
of a god. (They're typically not curious about how
the religious people define god.) And atheists espouse
that anti-belief quite vehemently in most cases. Thus
most atheists are deeply religious by their own definition.
But don't tell them that. They'll seethe at you and
brand you a heretic.

(If you don't think so, check out the philosophy
newsgroup. It's populated in large part by intensely
religious, atheist zealots.)

On 05/12/2016 08:44 AM, Mayayana wrote:
A theist believes there is a god or gods, whatever
that means. An atheist believes there is no god or
gods.

That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god
or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that
is not the definition of atheist.

BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods.
It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused.

On 5/12/2016 12:54 PM, notX wrote:
On 05/12/2016 08:44 AM, Mayayana wrote:
A theist believes there is a god or gods, whatever
that means. An atheist believes there is no god or
gods.

That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god
or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that
is not the definition of atheist.

BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods.
It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused.


A way to keep people together based on the belief of a higher power
and/or deity whose precept is base on a moral nature. Though, you're
correct, it is often misused as it's true meaning has no mention of a
belief in a god.

| That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god
| or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that
| is not the definition of atheist.
|
Look it up in the dictionary. a-theist. Agnostic
or non-theist would be someone who doesn't adopt
a belief. Atheists believe no god exists. If you talk
to atheists they'll often wiggle around, saying they're
openminded, if only theists can prove the existence
of their god. But generally atheists are defining that
god as a personal god -- an 80-foot-tall man with a
long beard living in the sky. So what they're really
saying is that they're intelligent and religious people
are idiots. They're oblivious to any more sophisticated
version of religion/spirituality.

| BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods.
| It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused.
|

It can be all sorts of things. There is no god
in Buddhism, but that's considered a religion.
The Scientologists could be considered to have
a religion. The Mormons are arguably the first
New Age cult, but now present as an established
religion.
A way to keep people together would be debt,
clubs, tribes, sexual attraction, common interests,
etc. The dictionary, and most people, would
define a religion as some kind of guiding system
of morals and social rules, with a spiritual
orientation, that may or may not involve gods
or deities. Again, look it up in the dictionary.

In the US most people would define religion as
belief in the Christian god, and atheism as denial
of the Christian god. But that's why I touched on
that issue in my posts. Religion is different things
to different people. Spirituality is different things
to different people. How does the Christianity of
Thomas Merton compare to that of Billy Graham?
Probably not much common ground there. So if
someone says they're atheist or religious they really
need to define that *for them*. 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.

On Thu, 12 May 2016 16:15:39 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote:

| That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god
| or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that
| is not the definition of atheist.
|
Look it up in the dictionary. a-theist. Agnostic
or non-theist would be someone who doesn't adopt
a belief. Atheists believe no god exists. If you talk
to atheists they'll often wiggle around, saying they're
openminded, if only theists can prove the existence
of their god. But generally atheists are defining that
god as a personal god -- an 80-foot-tall man with a
long beard living in the sky. So what they're really
saying is that they're intelligent and religious people
are idiots. They're oblivious to any more sophisticated
version of religion/spirituality.

| BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods.
| It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused.
|

It can be all sorts of things. There is no god
in Buddhism, but that's considered a religion.
The Scientologists could be considered to have
a religion. The Mormons are arguably the first
New Age cult, but now present as an established
religion.
A way to keep people together would be debt,
clubs, tribes, sexual attraction, common interests,
etc. The dictionary, and most people, would
define a religion as some kind of guiding system
of morals and social rules, with a spiritual
orientation, that may or may not involve gods
or deities. Again, look it up in the dictionary.

In the US most people would define religion as
belief in the Christian god, and atheism as denial
of the Christian god. But that's why I touched on
that issue in my posts. Religion is different things
to different people. Spirituality is different things
to different people. How does the Christianity of
Thomas Merton compare to that of Billy Graham?
Probably not much common ground there. So if
someone says they're atheist or religious they really
need to define that *for them*. 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.

+1

| +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".

On 12/05/2016 21:15, Mayayana wrote:
| That second thing is wrong. At atheist DOES NOT have a belief in a god
| or gods. SOME may have a belief that there is no god or gods, but that
| is not the definition of atheist.
|
Look it up in the dictionary. a-theist. Agnostic
or non-theist would be someone who doesn't adopt
a belief. Atheists believe no god exists. If you talk
to atheists they'll often wiggle around, saying they're
openminded, if only theists can prove the existence
of their god. But generally atheists are defining that
god as a personal god -- an 80-foot-tall man with a
long beard living in the sky. So what they're really
saying is that they're intelligent and religious people
are idiots. They're oblivious to any more sophisticated
version of religion/spirituality.

| BTW, "religion" does not really have anything to do with a god or gods.
| It's a way to keep people together. The word is often misused.
|

It can be all sorts of things. There is no god
in Buddhism, but that's considered a religion.
The Scientologists could be considered to have
a religion. The Mormons are arguably the first
New Age cult, but now present as an established
religion.
A way to keep people together would be debt,
clubs, tribes, sexual attraction, common interests,
etc. The dictionary, and most people, would
define a religion as some kind of guiding system
of morals and social rules, with a spiritual
orientation, that may or may not involve gods
or deities. Again, look it up in the dictionary.

In the US most people would define religion as
belief in the Christian god, and atheism as denial
of the Christian god. But that's why I touched on
that issue in my posts. Religion is different things
to different people. Spirituality is different things
to different people. How does the Christianity of
Thomas Merton compare to that of Billy Graham?
Probably not much common ground there. So if
someone says they're atheist or religious they really
need to define that *for them*. 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"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...#ixzz48VpYgRjb





--
Bod

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

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?