My blog posts on religion have attracted a lot of controversy. Religious people are annoyed by my claim that belief in God will go the way of horse transportation, and for much the same reason, specifically an improved standard of living.
Why do atheist talk about religions forcing god upon people when atheist are forcing people not to believe in god? If a person wishes to believe in god let them believe, if they don't then don't bother them.
How do you see atheists forcing the religious not to believe in their myth of choice?? Seriously.... how?
Interesting... The UK Whigs ran from 1680 to 1850ish and then evolved into the Liberal party. Now that's a brand name difficult to sell to the US. Today's Liberal Democrats currently form part of s ruling coalition with the larger Conservatives.
Perhaps coalitional governments and parliaments are superior to their American counterparts. Something has gone terribly wrong in America that doesn't seem to be plaguing the other Western democracies. Their problems, when they have them, seem to be economic. America has to deal with the worst political parties, the worst church, the least effective schools, and the worst gun problems in the West.
And the economic problems, which it largely caused for itself and much of the world.
<quoted text> Sorry, the Bible disagrees with you, it says you do know God, but that you have denied and suppressed that truth so that you can carry on living a sinful life. I base my worldview on the Bible, not your opinion. As to why I should apologise, are you saying there is an absolute standard of morality you are pointing to, which I should adhere to? And do you also think that the atheists on this thread that have insulted christians, should also apologise based on that same absolute standard? No? I thought not...
What EVER other people do isn't the issue here. YOU insult my intelligence, therefore YOU SHOULD apologize. I couldn't care LESS what the bible agrees or disagrees, its a load of BS, so WHY should I? I base my worldview on real, not virtual, unlike you. WTF do you perpetually refer to absolute this/that/other? That's yet another words' meaning that eludes you. You're nothing more than someone trying his damnedest to mimic a uni don, whilst having failed to understand Enid Blyton.
<quoted text> Perhaps coalitional governments and parliaments are superior to their American counterparts. Something has gone terribly wrong in America that doesn't seem to be plaguing the other Western democracies. Their problems, when they have them, seem to be economic. America has to deal with the worst political parties, the worst church, the least effective schools, and the worst gun problems in the West. And the economic problems, which it largely caused for itself and much of the world. I really don't understand that.
All of America's problems are caused by the rise of liberalism. It began with Woodrow Wilson.
All economic recessions have been caused by liberal governance. Every single one.
...and America has no gun problems, except for needing more people with guns. Liberals want more criminals to have guns. Law-abiding citizens should arm themselves to shift the balance of power more heavily toward the peaceful people.
But that's not a gun problem. The guns work pretty well, generally. Usually, a problem-gun gets discarded.
But you accept their are absolute universal laws of logic?
What do you mean by absolute? Do they transcend your god? If not, they're arbitrary, aren't they - the whim of a god?
Is it your hope that if you can append the qualifier "absolute" onto something, that it will then point to your god? It can't.
The most you can do with these types of arguments - the axiological argument, the ontological argument, etc.- is suggest the existence of "a god," not your god.
What if we cut to the chase and I stipulate to a god. OK. There was a creator god. I say that it's a god that has never communicated with us and has no demands of us. It does not ask to be worshiped or prayed at.
With such an understanding, my life would continue as before - no bibles, not praying, no worshiping, no churches, no priests, no tithing, etc.
And if that were the case - that there is a god that we don't know - America needs to divest itself of all of the Jesus stuff, such as the scapegoating and persecuting of atheists and gays that Jesus seems to require. The real god might not approve.
Furthermore, the real god hasn't given you permission to your currency as religious tracts, or to call it "God," so I'd suggest that you remove that word from the money. And the Pledge. And the courthouse walls.
Are you good with that, or do you need this god to be Jehovah-Jesus? If so, perhaps you should skip all of this "absolute laws of logic" stuff and present your argument that that god must be Jehovah-Jesus. How are you planning to do that?
<quoted text> How much empathy are you looking for? I'll tell you what: I promise to ALWAYS exceed your church's empathy for unbelievers. Here's some now :  "The fool says in his heart,'There is no God.' They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good" - Psalm 14:1  "But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." - Revelation 21:8 And the result of such hate speech is predictable: I'm not sure that I buy into the expectation that unbelievers unilaterally show respect to Christians whose holy bible calls us fools, no good, corrupt, abominable, the moral equivalent of murderers and whoremongers, and fit for to me dropped conscious into a burning fire to suffer forever. Wouldn't you agree that that is unreasonable to ask for our empathy? If you consider those words holy, and authored by a perfectly loving and just god, then you've already gotten just about all of the empathy you deserve from unbelievers.
He didn't say anything about empathy for a church.
<quoted text> Why would anybody believe that? That flood part describes a moronic and incompetent god. He allegedly was unhappy with mankind, which he was wholly responsible for, and whose future he could allegedly see before he built them. When they turned out to be sinful as he knew they would be, he decided to nearly sterilize the earth with an impossible rainstorm that caused the miserable and terrifying torture of not just almost all men, but almost all life. Can you picture the puppies and kitten seeking higher ground until there was no escape, and then, while in a state of sheer terror, have the water level cover their little noses and snuff the life out of them? He could have just "poofed" them away in the manner he created them, but he preferred this. But wait - besides being senselessly cruel, it's a stupid plan doomed to failure. To repair the problem, that god reseeded the earth using the exact same breeding stock - a drunk and his family. Sorry, but that's just not plausible. It's all nonsense. There never was a Noah, nor an Eve, nor a Jehovah. And there is no such thing as sin, nor any need for redemption.
<quoted text> As with many things in morality, the pleasure of one person is balanced by the harm done to another and the necessity of that harm. In this case, the harm done is severe, the necessity low. So the morality is clearly against rape. On the other hand, there are many species where rape seems to be a necessary aspect of reproduction, so for those species (assuming such could become conscious, another requirement for morality), rape would be moral. For example, it would be moral for intelligent spiders to eat their mates.
A spider cannot be moral or immoral. Morality is an abstract idea which is beyond the capability of spider cognition.
Your definition concerning the morality of rape is absurd. "Necessity", in the sense you used it, is a subjective term. It is not a "necessity" to reproduce. It is not a "necessity" to experience pleasure.
You use a subjective standard to try and construct an objective standard.
Now here is the question you won't be able to answer: Was it wrong for that person in that society to rape.
Wrong for what? You need to state a purpose. If your purpose is to maximize satisfaction in a community, then yes, it is wrong.
If so why?
Because rape doesn't serve that purpose, and shouldn't be tolerated.
You seem to consider these posers. This stuff isn't as difficult for me as it seems to be for you. But I suspect that is because of what is likely our different upbringings, our differing philosophies, and our different life paths since then. Rational ethics is really not that hard, but you have to learn how to do it. I don't see where a theist would have the opportunity to learn, given your metaphysics.
<quoted text> What do you mean by absolute? Do they transcend your god? If not, they're arbitrary, aren't they - the whim of a god? Is it your hope that if you can append the qualifier "absolute" onto something, that it will then point to your god? It can't. The most you can do with these types of arguments - the axiological argument, the ontological argument, etc.- is suggest the existence of "a god," not your god. What if we cut to the chase and I stipulate to a god. OK. There was a creator god. I say that it's a god that has never communicated with us and has no demands of us. It does not ask to be worshiped or prayed at. With such an understanding, my life would continue as before - no bibles, not praying, no worshiping, no churches, no priests, no tithing, etc. And if that were the case - that there is a god that we don't know - America needs to divest itself of all of the Jesus stuff, such as the scapegoating and persecuting of atheists and gays that Jesus seems to require. The real god might not approve. Furthermore, the real god hasn't given you permission to your currency as religious tracts, or to call it "God," so I'd suggest that you remove that word from the money. And the Pledge. And the courthouse walls. Are you good with that, or do you need this god to be Jehovah-Jesus? If so, perhaps you should skip all of this "absolute laws of logic" stuff and present your argument that that god must be Jehovah-Jesus. How are you planning to do that?
I am a theist, but do no worshipping, have no church, and no priest.
Your argument is a straw man.
And whether any god gave permission for the words on currency is entirely irrelevant. The people decided it. It's the people's right. They don't need your permission, and you don't have to like it.
I suspect you accepted your share of the green paper "religious tracts" anyway, and would have taken more if you could get it.
As an atheist is merely someone who denies the knowledge of God, that has been revealed to him, then an atheist does not in reality exist beyond the realm of lies in their own mind.
What are you hoping to accomplish here? A little entertainment for yourself?
If your purpose is more than that, you are wasting your time. You are not going to flip a mature rational skeptic at this stage of his or her intellectual and moral development. You have nothing to offer.
FYI, we define ourselves, not our ideological enemies.
<quoted text> "All newborns, toddlers and most children are atheist" .....rather desperate generalization :-) You have scientific data to back this ?
It's self-evidently true. Whoever is not a theist is an atheist. The youngest theists are children, not infants or toddlers. They are thus atheists by default, just as all that is not symmetric is asymetric by default, and life arising by means other than by biogenesis arises by abiogenesis.
<quoted text>As an Atheist, I believe that a lost being akin to youself simply could not be so thick/dense & absolutely full of BS without practicing 24/7 over a life-time. You would be well advised to research the definition of the word "Atheist" prior to insulting the intelligence of an unborn gnat with your current assumption of the word. I'm a DEVOUT Atheist, and DO NOT harbour any lies in my mind re the none existence of ANY deity what-so-ever. I abhor the fact that you have the right to suggest I do. IF there is ANYTHING in your scrotum, you would apologize in your very next post. That though, would be your first post with any amount of thinking in it.
That's a healthy reaction.
It's time to emphatically reject the theist dehumanization and marginalization of unbelievers. I don't think that we should sit for such insolence, either. Your style is different from mine, but your attitude resonates.
Do you know about Pat Condell? He's on widely available on YouTube. Check this out, excerpted from
 "If you criticize religion, every so often someone will say to you quite disapprovingly "You may not have faith in God, but you could show a bit more respect for those people who do." And you might find yourself thinking: Actually, maybe they're right. It wouldn't hurt to show a bit more respect. After all, nobody likes to be told point blank that their religion is a crock of delusional garbage and a force for evil in the world, that what they call faith is merely fear dressed up as virtue, and that their puerile beliefs are a straitjacket on the whole of humanity. That's bound to put anybody's nose out of joint.
"So yes, maybe I could show a bit more respect. The only fly in the ointment is I don't actually feel any respect. I have tried, I really have, and I feel just terrible about it, but it just isn't there. I suppose I could lie to myself and pretend for the sake of people's feelings, because we all know how delicate and tender they can be these days, but the bald truth is I don't actually care about their feelings, at all, not even slightly. And of course I realize that should weigh heavily on my conscience, but luckily my conscience knows when it's being bullied and manipulated so it doesn't care either.
"My conscience knows that there's no earthly reason for anybody on this planet to respect religion in any way. Indeed, purely on the evidence religion itself provides in such regular abundance, there's every reason to actively disrespect it to the point of outright abuse. And quite frankly, the fact that religion gets so little abuse compared to what it really deserves, I can only attribute to the unbelievable tolerance, restraint, and plain good manners of atheists and secularists everywhere.
"So, if you are a religious person, and if you're thinking of demanding more respect for your beliefs, please try to bear in mind that you and your religion are already getting way more respect than you’ve have ever deserved. Your faith is a joke. Your god is a joke. He's so absurd he's an embarrassment even to people who don't believe in him. And he, and you, still have it all to prove."
 "I give your religion as much respect as your religion gives me. There’s nothing complicated about it, and I have every right to insult a religion that goes out of its way to insult, to judge, and to condemn me as an inadequate human being, which your religion does with self righteous gusto. When it comes to insults your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut so would I. But given that it doesn’t, and given the enormous harm that your religion has done in this world. I’d say that not only do I have a right, but a duty to insult it, as does every rationale thinking person on this planet.
You're kidding me with this, right? You asked for data that had just provided in an earlier post. I linked you to that.
My sources there were PEW and ARIS, as I indicated. You would have had to click on the provided link to see that, assuming that you had not just seen it a few minutes earlier while browsing through posts in sequence.
You asked for the data, which I spoon fed you,and which it seems you still missed. You make it difficult to educate you.
<quoted text> Erm it's obvious by this site... Some athiests call people who believe in god "stupid" that's I'd a way of forcing them to not believe.
LOL! Seriously?? If calling someone 'stupid' would be enough to get them to give up their beliefs, I'd say those beliefs didn't have that big of a hold on them in the first place. BTW... pointing out the hypocrisy of the overly religious isn't "forcing" them to do anything other than being an attempt to make them see their hypocrisy!
you are projecting on to me something that isn't there.
Sorry. It's the nature of the medium.
William Tyndale wrote:
But the word "awe" applies to the mystical experience had by scientists, philosophers, and ordinary people. If it is a valid mystical experience it is consistent with the definition of mysticism being conscious awareness of the reality of what is without the blinders of religion.
This is something that can not be labeled in linear language. The mystical experience is a form of experiential knowledge and perhaps the only word that comes close to expressing it is "awe". True mysticism has nothing to do with the occult and is simply an expanded awareness of what is.
I'm good with that.
William Tyndale wrote:
The word "god" is problematic. But the consciousness that is the foundation of all that exists is real whatever you chose to call it. To most people the only word that seems to fit is "god".
Almost any word would fit. How about Ugaboo-boo-ugga, since it doesn't carry all of the baggage of the word "god"?
William Tyndale wrote:
And in discussing spirituality the best we can do is to point out what it isn't.
Disagree. I believe that I made several positive statements about spirituality. As I recall, so did you.
William Tyndale wrote:
True spirituality can not be expressed in any linear language. But I would be interested in hearing your thoughts on spirituallity.