Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism

There are 289 comments on the News24 story from May 10, 2013, titled Christianity vs Religion vs Atheism. In it, News24 reports that:

Awarded after your tenth article is published on MyNews24. You've got 15 more to go to reach the next level! All children are born Atheist, without the knowledge of God or whatsoever.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at News24.

havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#121 May 18, 2013
Misa wrote:
<quoted text>
It's unethical and illegal.
That has absolutely nothing to do with whether Ethics _the discipline_ is worth studying.
Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but your point above doesn't address that.
<quoted text>
I didn't say it was. Just that it has been becoming less worth studying as a discipline.
<quoted text>
The only epistemology required to develop computer models was that already subsumed into the sciences.
That was to someone else, but since you seem to agree that Ethics as a discipline is worth studying, and we also seem close enough in our agnostic-atheist views, would you please look at my two comments just above to people who seem to be Believers, and tell me your attitude with regard to people who have a kind and compassionate and peace-loving sense of ethics, and who also claim to be Christians or religious in some sense.

I believe in constructing a grand coalition against those who are evil and superstitious. I would hope that a vast majority of agnostics and atheists would be in the camp opposing war and cruelty,(though I do not claim or expect them all to be), but I also hope that a significant number of Christians and other religious persons would agree with a kind and compassionate set of Ethics. So I oppose writing off the "nice" religious persons. I think it is worth enquiring of religious persons what their ethics are, and finding out whether they would be acceptable allies in good causes, before burning bridges and denouncing them as idiots and making them feel disliked and unwelcome.

I suspect their feelings can be easily hurt, and thus oppose such terms as buybull and nasty words about Jesus, and similar putdown hostilities, that could offend believers who do have what I consider decent ethics despite their religious views. We need every decent person possible in the fight against those who are evil and cruel and warmongers. We need the votes of all decent persons on election day for one thing. I just wish there were enough good ones who are motivated enough to dominate both political parties, rather than letting the evil ones take over the GOP completely, and the so-so types have too much influence in Democratic high circles.

I am a supporter of Elizabeth Warren, rather than HC. for example.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#122 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the Dawkins scale? The one where he defines a scale from 1 (true believer) to 7 (exact opposite)?
Here: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei... ;
And here: <quoted text>
I am a 6, with respect to the very generalized meme "god"--that is, the one which is so ill-defined, it can be twisted to mean just about anything: from the blind, non-sentient rules of the Universe (Einstein's so-called god) to Ancient Aliens with Amazing Powers/Technology and any branches in-between.
However. Once a god has been defined? Such as, the god described in the BuyBull or Quoran?
That god-- I'm a 7. Because the definitions within the books in question describe a being which cannot exist. You simply cannot have a square-circle, no matter how much you twist reality.
Unfortunately, the nebulous, un-defined deities are seldom on anybodies' Agenda. Your average god-zealot, has a *firm* definition in mind, when he's thinking about "god".
so glad you are here when I am. I too am a 6 on that scale, and did not know about it before. thanks for presenting it on this thread, a very good place for a good discussion, I think.

I wish you would not use the term buybull, for reasons I explained just above. However, you are obviously not a political recruiter in your purposes here, whereas I am always partly that, even when I am trying to explain my view of agnostic atheism.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#123 May 18, 2013
because this is a short thread just beginning, I will try to get back more often, and welcome any detailed discussion with anyone already here. I suppose I should even try to get along with Skeptic if he is not nasty to me. I am still uncomfortable with folks who insist they know there is no god, and with folks who are nasty and insulting to others. i prefer that the nasty ones be like BC, and hope he does not show up here.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#124 May 18, 2013
Lincoln wrote:
The study authors, Catherine Caldwell-Harris and Patrick MacNamara studied discussions by 192 different posters on an autism website. They also looked at a survey of 61 people with high-functioning autism, and graphed against results from the Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) test.
The results appeared to show that those with high AQ scores were 'more likely' to be atheists.
Hope you will stay on this thread, and look at the scale which was discussed above. I think that high IQ people are most likely to be agnostic atheists. However, I place more value on ethics - especially public policy ethics - than on religious views (which are most offensive when they claim to support an evil ethic). Have you explained your views re some of the matters we have been discussing?

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#125 May 18, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
because this is a short thread just beginning, I will try to get back more often, and welcome any detailed discussion with anyone already here. I suppose I should even try to get along with Skeptic if he is not nasty to me. I am still uncomfortable with folks who insist they know there is no god, and with folks who are nasty and insulting to others. i prefer that the nasty ones be like BC, and hope he does not show up here.
:)

If you wish to find a cause for the nastiness from Skeptic, and occasionally, me?

You'd need to read over 1000's of posts into the past, right here on Topix.

Back in 2005, when I first began, I took great pains to use non-absolute wording, and was careful of other peoples opinions, and even beliefs.

It did not take me very long, to rub that off, going up against such displays of seething hate and intolerance from the god-crowd.

They would quickly pounce on my qualifying words, seeing it as a kind of weakness they might exploit, to "convert" me to their ugly ways.

Well... I suppose they did "convert" me in a way: I quit trying to be nice to these people several years ago.

There really is no point in giving them a millimeter-- they not only do not appreciate the effort? They are constitutionally incapable of grasping the nuances between saying "almost all" and "all".

To your average god-zealot? There can be but two choices, for 100% of the questions that could theoretically be asked.

They literally see the universe as being binary: 0% or 100%.

It's unfortunate, but they are what they are.

So I seldom bother with careful language, when replying to them-- a wasted effort.

But I can be careful, if I find a person who is careful in return; seldom happens from the theist crowd, though.
havent forgotten

Lamoni, IA

#126 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
:)
If you wish to find a cause for the nastiness from Skeptic, and occasionally, me?
You'd need to read over 1000's of posts into the past, right here on Topix.
Back in 2005, when I first began, I took great pains to use non-absolute wording, and was careful of other peoples opinions, and even beliefs.
It did not take me very long, to rub that off, going up against such displays of seething hate and intolerance from the god-crowd.
They would quickly pounce on my qualifying words, seeing it as a kind of weakness they might exploit, to "convert" me to their ugly ways.
Well... I suppose they did "convert" me in a way: I quit trying to be nice to these people several years ago.
There really is no point in giving them a millimeter-- they not only do not appreciate the effort? They are constitutionally incapable of grasping the nuances between saying "almost all" and "all".
To your average god-zealot? There can be but two choices, for 100% of the questions that could theoretically be asked.
They literally see the universe as being binary: 0% or 100%.
It's unfortunate, but they are what they are.
So I seldom bother with careful language, when replying to them-- a wasted effort.
But I can be careful, if I find a person who is careful in return; seldom happens from the theist crowd, though.
I know. But you are still nice, and skeptic is not.
You do understand my point about wanting a grand coalition that even includes religious types with decent ethics, against those with evil ethics. I am political.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#127 May 18, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> oops, it seems I am about to quibble with two persons I mostly agree with on matters of definition. I generally like both you and Bob, but I have these differences on definition. I am not so sure how different our views are, because that is not clear enough unless our definitions are clear.
I regard the words agnostic and gnostic as referring to whether or not one makes a knowledge claim about one's own knowledge, first of all. Agnostic means not to make a knowledge claim, and can be used as a modifier for one's opinion - or lack thereof - for many matters, not just religion. I am agnostic about the Big Bang, for example. I do not claim to know whether it is a true or false theory. I also do not have any belief about whether it is true or false. I generally think that scientists are a bit too pushy in asserting that they know things, and my reaction is often "not so fast." That does not mean I think the opposite of what they claim to be true, or that what they claim is definately not true.
Agnosticism with regard to the God issue, is best defined as not claiming knowledge about the existence of a God, god, Gods, or gods. I am an agnostic in that sense. Not making a knowledge claim about my own knowledge.(I have strong suspicions that no one knows, ever has known, or ever will know, but that is another matter).
I do not believe in any God or gods that I have ever heard about, but that non-belief makes me an atheist with regard to them - not a complete atheist, not a gnostic atheist, and not an agnostic.
I would define a complete atheist as someone who does not believe in any God, Gods, god, or gods, without the qualifier "that I have ever heard about". I would define a gnostic atheist as one who claims to know there is no God.
I define myself as an agnostic atheist, with the qualifier "that I have ever heard about."
I hope this explanation makes sense to you and makes it clearer than if I were too argumentative with you, or with Bob. I wonder whether you - or he - would accept my version of agnostic atheism (with qualifier) as a very reasonable attitude to take. I also wonder whether you would accept my definations, and the way they differ slightly from yours.
This fits with the definitions that I prefer. You write more from a philosophical place, I from a practical, but we are essentially in agreement.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#128 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>
Are you familiar with the Dawkins scale? The one where he defines a scale from 1 (true believer) to 7 (exact opposite)?
Here: " http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_of_thei... ;
And here: <quoted text>
I am a 6, with respect to the very generalized meme "god"--that is, the one which is so ill-defined, it can be twisted to mean just about anything: from the blind, non-sentient rules of the Universe (Einstein's so-called god) to Ancient Aliens with Amazing Powers/Technology and any branches in-between.
However. Once a god has been defined? Such as, the god described in the BuyBull or Quoran?
That god-- I'm a 7. Because the definitions within the books in question describe a being which cannot exist. You simply cannot have a square-circle, no matter how much you twist reality.
Unfortunately, the nebulous, un-defined deities are seldom on anybodies' Agenda. Your average god-zealot, has a *firm* definition in mind, when he's thinking about "god".
I think this could be a useful tool for demographers if they would use it. The current scale seems to be equivalent to 1-2.4 (believer), 2.5-4.4 (agnostic), and 4.5-7 (atheist). Not only is it imprecise, but it mixes people together whose attitudes differ too much, which puts a strain on the validity of any correlations that may be inferred. Using the Dawkins scale would fix that at the cost of making calculations more complicated. Since my interest in classification has more to do with statistics than with philosophy, I find that useful.
KJV

United States

#129 May 18, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
I think it is interesting to explore what one means by "knowing" as part of a detailed discussion about what one knows about God. Though I insist that I am an agnostic atheist with regard to most Gods, I do claim to have a certain type of knowledge with regard to the God defined as existing, and as being allgood and allpowerful. I claim that cannot be possible, given the horrid things in the universe, and especially on this planet. Senator Cruz, and a dead squirrel on the road, are both proof to me that there cannot be an allgoodallpowerful God. Both prove the existence of some type of "evil." Evil in my view involves infliction of pain, and suffering of pain. It does not necessarily imply free will, which I do not really believe in.
Under your skewed definition then a pitcher is baseball is not a pitcher if he throws the perfect pitch and the batter hits it out of the park.

God created a perfect universe and world and gave man freedom of choice.
Mans sin not God brought suffering and death into the world. Just as God had told Man if he choose to sin.

God made a perfect world
God gave man freedom of choose
God created choices for man
God warned man man about the Consequence of sin.

Without choices there would not have been freedom of choice.
God did not make man as a robot he made him with both good and evil and let man choose his own path. All men (humans) have this in them. God is there to help them make the best choices if they ask.

Your dead squirrel is dead because man brought death into the world.
The person who drove the car that hit the squirrel made the choice to drive that day on that road at that speed that resulted in the squirrel getting killed.

Every choice has it's Consequences.
KJV

United States

#130 May 18, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text>Hope you will stay on this thread, and look at the scale which was discussed above. I think that high IQ people are most likely to be agnostic atheists. However, I place more value on ethics - especially public policy ethics - than on religious views (which are most offensive when they claim to support an evil ethic). Have you explained your views re some of the matters we have been discussing?
" I think that high IQ people are most likely to be agnostic atheists."

Atheist have an IQ average a couple of points above normal. Of course most atheist reside in university's or have graduated from one.("Leaving county's out of this that make it the law of the land to be atheist") ok so now you have a 2 point higher IQ then the rest of the theist world all the third would country's
And what not. I'd be willing to bet that the university professors and graduated population that are theist have about the same IQ as the atheist of the same back ground.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#131 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Under your skewed definition then a pitcher is baseball is not a pitcher if he throws the perfect pitch and the batter hits it out of the park.
God created a perfect universe and world and gave man freedom of choice.
Mans sin not God brought suffering and death into the world. Just as God had told Man if he choose to sin.
God made a perfect world
God gave man freedom of choose
God created choices for man
God warned man man about the Consequence of sin.
Without choices there would not have been freedom of choice.
God did not make man as a robot he made him with both good and evil and let man choose his own path. All men (humans) have this in them. God is there to help them make the best choices if they ask.
Your dead squirrel is dead because man brought death into the world.
The person who drove the car that hit the squirrel made the choice to drive that day on that road at that speed that resulted in the squirrel getting killed.
Every choice has it's Consequences.
[/QUOTE]

Cop out, blame everything but the thing you attribute everything to.
KJV

United States

#132 May 18, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
Under your skewed definition then a pitcher is baseball is not a pitcher if he throws the perfect pitch and the batter hits it out of the park.
God created a perfect universe and world and gave man freedom of choice.
Mans sin not God brought suffering and death into the world. Just as God had told Man if he choose to sin.
God made a perfect world
God gave man freedom of choose
God created choices for man
God warned man man about the Consequence of sin.
Without choices there would not have been freedom of choice.
God did not make man as a robot he made him with both good and evil and let man choose his own path. All men (humans) have this in them. God is there to help them make the best choices if they ask.
Your dead squirrel is dead because man brought death into the world.
The person who drove the car that hit the squirrel made the choice to drive that day on that road at that speed that resulted in the squirrel getting killed.
Every choice has it's Consequences.
"

Cop out, blame everything but the thing you attribute everything to.
Not so KK, the perfect pitch can still be hit.

Sorry you can't follow the logic that in fact to have freedom of choice you must have choices and consequences.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#133 May 18, 2013
havent forgotten wrote:
<quoted text> I know. But you are still nice, and skeptic is not.
You do understand my point about wanting a grand coalition that even includes religious types with decent ethics, against those with evil ethics. I am political.
I understand, and have no fault with your goals.

In spite of the acerbic tone I frequently take on Topix?

In truth, I have no beef in the least, with religions that keep pretty much to themselves.

Take Judaism, for example: even in it's milder forms, they typically eschew bacon/pork products.

And that is their right.

The difference between them, and most Genuine Christians™?

The Jewish community isn't interested in creating secular prohibitions on pork products. They are content to avoid it individually; they feel no need for *secular* compulsion.

Genuine Christians™ on the other hand? Are hell-bent on force-feeding their ugly religion's rules into *secular* venues, such as the 10 commandments (of which few of these people actually follow, or understand even) as a "monument", or forcing the idiotic idea of creationism into science class and so on.

I find their actions so repugnant, that I actually campaign to get their tax exempt status revoked-- they do not deserve such support.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#134 May 18, 2013
NightSerf wrote:
<quoted text>
I think this could be a useful tool for demographers if they would use it. The current scale seems to be equivalent to 1-2.4 (believer), 2.5-4.4 (agnostic), and 4.5-7 (atheist). Not only is it imprecise, but it mixes people together whose attitudes differ too much, which puts a strain on the validity of any correlations that may be inferred. Using the Dawkins scale would fix that at the cost of making calculations more complicated. Since my interest in classification has more to do with statistics than with philosophy, I find that useful.
I also find it useful, but like many things, it's a single-dimensional snapshot of what is more likely a complex, multidimensional reality.

;)

I also have noticed, that many folk simply do not think about this scale at all-- it simply flies under their internal radar.

They see religion as a kind of ID badge, which gives them a since of belonging, and allows them to participate in certain rituals for situations that are otherwise extremely uncomfortable (such as death--in any of it's forms).

That may seem shallow to someone who is always looking inward, but I've found it describes the majority of folk; they simply do not care that deeply about it.

And the scale fails to take that level of engagement on the subject in hand.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#135 May 18, 2013
(dammit Jim-- I should have written "sense of belonging" back there... wrong word choice.... meh.)

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#136 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
" I think that high IQ people are most likely to be agnostic atheists."
Atheist have an IQ average a couple of points above normal. Of course most atheist reside in university's or have graduated from one.("Leaving county's out of this that make it the law of the land to be atheist") ok so now you have a 2 point higher IQ then the rest of the theist world all the third would country's
And what not. I'd be willing to bet that the university professors and graduated population that are theist have about the same IQ as the atheist of the same back ground.
The problem with religion?

It literally causes people to suppress thoughts.

And I'm not speaking hyperbole here-- I'm quite serious.

Religion teaches it's followers to *literally* suppress the natural tendency to ask questions.

It punishes question-askers severely, typically with shunning, ridicule or even death.

So people from an early age, learn to *never* ask questions.

This puts them at a severe disadvantage, when it comes to testing of the IQ-- having lost the ability to ask questions, diminishes the mind.

A lot.

You are a most excellent example of exactly how bad the mental abuse can be.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#137 May 18, 2013
KJV wrote:
<quoted text>
Not so KK, the perfect pitch can still be hit.
Sorry you can't follow the logic that in fact to have freedom of choice you must have choices and consequences.
Really?

Here's the problem with your world-view:

You are given a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

According to your ugly beliefs? There are no alternatives!

Either become a broken-minded slave to your god in it's "heaven" or be tortured forever in it's "hell".

Neither outcome is desirable; both are undesirable.

Is that "free will"?

No.

It *is* extortion, though...
KJV

United States

#141 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>The problem with religion?

It literally causes people to suppress thoughts.

And I'm not speaking hyperbole here-- I'm quite serious.

Religion teaches it's followers to *literally* suppress the natural tendency to ask questions.

It punishes question-askers severely, typically with shunning, ridicule or even death.

So people from an early age, learn to *never* ask questions.

This puts them at a severe disadvantage, when it comes to testing of the IQ-- having lost the ability to ask questions, diminishes the mind.

A lot.

You are a most excellent example of exactly how bad the mental abuse can be.
You sure don't know what you're talking about in this post.

The more you dig the more God is the answer.

Seek and he shall find.

bobby what fueled the Big Bang ( again I am not talking of the Big Bang theory because the Big Bang theory can't answer this question so they don't try)

So come on bobby what was there that powered the Big Bang when there was no energy, or space or matter or time or anti matter or dark matter or dark energy in short bobby what powered the Big Bang when there was nothing.

How can nothing lead to everything with out any intervention of anything.

It's weird to fight so strong to support this and harder to fight God. Just weird bobby just weird.
KJV

United States

#142 May 18, 2013
Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:
<quoted text>Really?

Here's the problem with your world-view:

You are given a choice between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich.

According to your ugly beliefs? There are no alternatives!

Either become a broken-minded slave to your god in it's "heaven" or be tortured forever in it's "hell".

Neither outcome is desirable; both are undesirable.

Is that "free will"?

No.

It *is* extortion, though...
bobby if you don't clean up your post I can not longer read them or respond.

Just saying, not that I would expect you to change.

“Quantum Junctn: Use Both Lanes”

Since: Dec 06

Tulsa, Oklahoma USofA

#143 May 18, 2013
[QUOTE who="KJV
"]<quoted text>
You sure don't know what you're talking about in this post.
The more you dig the more God is the answer.[/QUOTE]

To what?

Nobody is asking your EXTORTIONIST god any questions, stupid.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr Dogen 83,187
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 14 hr Science 2,576
High School Atheism Nov 14 Reason Personified 3
Reasoning with Insanity (Jun '16) Nov 14 Reason Personified 106
Science Disproves Evolution (Aug '12) Nov 14 Eagle 12 - 3,988
News Tampa Teacher @LoraJane Hates Christians, Promo... (May '17) Nov 6 Frindly 1,175
a prayer of salvation for those who are willing Oct 24 xfrodobagginsx 1
More from around the web