The tyranny of religion and the freed...

The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism

There are 177 comments on the Examiner.com story from Jan 15, 2014, titled The tyranny of religion and the freedom of atheism. In it, Examiner.com reports that:

On occasion, the atheist podcast and radio show " Reasonable Doubts " will feature an interview with a high-profile atheist who was formerly a religious activist.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Examiner.com.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#82 Jan 23, 2014
swerty wrote:
http://www.seesharppress.com/2 0reasons.html#numbertwenty
On that point of number 20, that to which is about Christianity borrowing from other Pagan religions.. You might find the 7 chapter article I am writing of interest to which includes 2 follow up articles.:

7 Chapter Article:
And the two follow up articles:
Mountain God Worship: Yahweh, God Of The Mountains
http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/02...

Yahweh: The Rock Of Israel
http://thejackelscolumn.wordpress.com/2013/03...
The first followup article is however in the deep process of being edited and needs quite a bit of reformatting. The last followup article is in final check for errors, but I wont get to that till Monday.. Enjoy!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#83 Jan 23, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
The fact that you're disputing experiences of what I have experienced with atheist parent(s)as not being true as far as you're concerned, means little to me.
Second, this statement of your's is quite twisted in context. "Very few of us (atheists is your meaning here as children) avoided religious influences as children. Most of us (atheists since childhood years is your meaning here) were raised in one religion or another. I was raided catholic. Mass every Sunday. I was even an altar boy, so I pretty much went to mass every day of the week for several years." It's a bit twisted to state as a atheist in childhood you also believed in a God as a child. Seems you're a bit confused here.
And this blanket statement of theists only proves your prejudicial religious bigotry. "Atheists value thinking over blind acceptance of any idea," Well I got a clue for you, atheists in general that I have met don't value thinking any less or more than a theist. But the fact that you want to say/insinuate theists blindly accept what is taught with no questions prove you as I stated. By the way, most atheists I have met are angry atheists as I define them. Seldom if ever do I come across an atheist who isn't angry and holds theists in contempt as you do. Angry atheists as in this thread proves my point seem to have this need to put down theists in their quest to being a atheist. Just saying.
I thought that you might be interested in this at
http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... where I quoted your post above.

We had been discussing Christian homophobia and the Duck Dynasty guy Phil Robertson in particular. A Christian had written ten posts earlier at http://www.topix.com/forum/religion/atheism/T... that, "The only reason you think he's a homophobe is because he points out [that] homosexual sex is a sin." That poster had said earlier that Duckman wasn't homophobic because he sincerely believed what he was saying and said it without malice. I tried to make him see that that didn't matter for the reasons you can read there,

Then I found your post. If you can understand how you feel, then you might understand why much of the non-Christian community considers the church's position on homosexuality hate speech. The difference between what was said about Christians here - essentially that their faith is the uncritical acceptance of an extraordinary idea - and what is said about gays - that they are sinners and an abomination to the Christian god - is a significant difference to unbelievers. since one is pretty much true by definition and the other a faith held belief.

But the reaction is the same.

Since: Aug 12

Location hidden

#84 Jan 24, 2014
thank you just reading it now
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
On that point of number 20, that to which is about Christianity borrowing from other Pagan religions.. You might find the 7 chapter article I am writing of interest to which includes 2 follow up articles.:
7 Chapter Article:
<quoted text>
And the two follow up articles:
<quoted text>
The first followup article is however in the deep process of being edited and needs quite a bit of reformatting. The last followup article is in final check for errors, but I wont get to that till Monday.. Enjoy!

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#85 Jan 24, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Ahh, yet another ignorant dumbfuck. Do you really think children who have not been slathered in guilt bent to the whip, are just pining away wanting some pain and angst, for their very own?
SEE. I dislike idiots who swear because they have no argument.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#86 Jan 24, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
SEE. I dislike idiots who swear because they have no argument.
I see that you are not familiar with either Christain indoctrination practices or with the words of the holey buybull, with regard to children. Typical dumbfuck religitard.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#87 Jan 24, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
The letter "a" in atheist, as with several other words means not. And not being a theist one is by default an atheist.
A child being indoctrinated at an early age will be theist without ever having consider the question of belief, and whether it be rational or even belief worthy. The child who is not indoctrinated is atheist, and has always been.
BTW: I am just amazed that you'd think you know who I am, and it couldn't possibly matter what I know of myself and other atheist and non-believers. We don't fit into the mold that your backwoods uneducated pastor has poured, and claimed that we would all fit in. Your education needs some tweaking.
Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing and to apply that type thinking to oneself as a representation of what one comes to believe or disbelieve concerning a supreme intelligence. So long as an individual has not went through the above mentioned process to make such a decision, they remain categorized. Not a tough thing to comprehend though you seem to have issues understanding it.
BTW, I never declared I know who you are.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#88 Jan 24, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text> Learn to read you pitiful dumbfuck. You decided to put me in a situation where you would with (no input from myself) make me the agressor .... and I responded that while it's not me, there are instances where I would resort to violence.
Remember >>>" I do not sucker punch anyone. Violence is not second nature to me, and there is only one reason that I can imagine that I would hurt someone. >>>>You would have already proven <<<<< yourself to be a threat to my children ..."
It's the way you wrote the following that I misunderstood how you said it... "You would have already proven yourself to be a threat to my children,..." My bad :)

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#89 Jan 24, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
In another analogy you can look at this as a giant soccer field with two goals on each end of the field. These goals are the furthest extremes on either end of the field. On the far left you have Atheism (no gods), and the far right you have Pantheism (Existence and everything of is God). This has nothing to do with bias or prejudice, this is stating the far extremes to which by definition is all or nothing. It is both an opinion Paradox and an Existential Paradox. Thus all the rest of the players on the field are simply just kicking the ball around while ignoring the goals on either end of the field as if they don't exist. It's irrelevant if you believe there is some supreme intelligent being out there in and of existence because this doesn't even address that question . Hence it can even assume for argument sake there is, and it will still be subject to the Paradox noted.
And this argument of yours is an avoidance of having to address the questions presented to which directly show why the concept of God is at best moot. The only difference between an Atheist and a Pantheist is that an Atheist does not consider Existence "God".. And no offense, but the Pantheist GOD is higher on the totem-pole than any other concept of GOD..Just answering those questions is more than enough to demonstrate that.
The questions were presented by an atheist with an atheist conception of what doesn't/can't exist to their way of thinking. And the answers have the same exact lean. Thus my point the article was biased and prejudiced as if it had been an article written by a theist trying to show neutrality in considering if God doesn't exist.
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
A1: Non-existent, meaningless, pointless, irrelevant.
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?
A2: If existence is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of existence is GOD.
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?
A3: If Existence to which is the sum total and essence of everything is not “GOD”, then by definition there isn’t anything of existence to which is.
In theism existence is God. To an atheist they woulkd of course be two separate things. The writer of the article proves my point by trying to separate the words God and existence to prove his points. A theist would never do such a thing unless they wished to disprove their own belief that God and existence are one and the same to them. Understand?
The questions might as well have been written as follows as the two words are so relevant to each other in meaning....
Q1: What is GOD without life?
A1: Non-existent, meaningless, pointless, irrelevant.
Q2: If life is GOD, then what of life is not?
A2: If life is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of life is GOD.
Q3: If life is not GOD, then what of life is?
A3: If life to which is the sum total and essence of everything is not “GOD”, then by definition there isn’t anything of life to which is.
By the way, not all of the answers to the questions weren't actual relevant answers to the actual question.
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
A1: Non-existent, meaningless, pointless, irrelevant.(relevant answer)
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?
A2: If existence is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of existence is GOD.(This is a question to the question. The answer should have been 'nothing').
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is?
A3: If Existence to which is the sum total and essence of everything is not “GOD”, then by definition there isn’t anything of existence to which is.(The answer should have been 'nothing').

“In God we trust”

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#90 Jan 24, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>I see that you are not familiar with either Christain indoctrination practices or with the words of the holey buybull, with regard to children. Typical dumbfuck religitard.
At least i don't swear.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#91 Jan 24, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
In another analogy you can look at this as a giant soccer field with two goals on each end of the field. These goals are the furthest extremes on either end of the field. On the far left you have Atheism (no gods), and the far right you have Pantheism (Existence and everything of is God)... This has nothing to do with bias or prejudice, this is stating the far extremes to which by definition is all or nothing. It is both an opinion Paradox and an Existential Paradox. Thus all the rest of the players on the field are simply just kicking the ball around while ignoring the goals on either end of the field as if they don't exist.
By the way, of the players just kicking around a ball and choosing to not take a position and chose to ignore either position to have any belief or disbelief, though you can state it as you have they have inadvertently sided with the atheists who with purpose chose not to also have no belief.
Amused

Lowell, MA

#92 Jan 24, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
At least i don't swear.
That's like saying you don't sweat much for a fat guy.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#93 Jan 24, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
The article I presented and the arguments I presented do not address whether or not there was intelligence involved in lets say in the instant of the Big Bang..There is no evidence for it, but there is no assertion to say it's impossible.. My argument has nothing to do with this unless you attempt to suggest some being is the origin of everything when in fact that would actually be Existence itself. However, as you noted, intelligence can be and is a part of causality even when itself is a product of causality. All things with cause are emergent properties of existence itself, or product of evolution on a grand scale.. This to which clearly includes both intelligent and non-intelligent influences and processes. You can believe whatever which you think makes a solar system and it wouldn't really have any bearing on the argument I presented.. And I simply would not worship another part of existence as a GOD because it is nonsensical for existence to worship another part of itself as such. Hence, it is essentially pointless..And any being that thinks itself as a GOD has severe delusions of Grandeur, and a severe case of Narcissism... Again just answering those 3 simple questions puts that all into perspective.
Concerning theism God and existence are one and the same things no matter how you define them. You can split them apart in your endeavor to show existence and God are two different things to prove the non-existence of God and that's fine from an atheist point of view.

I understand the discrepancies that can't be answered with the human mind of both God and non-God theories concerning existence and when did it begin. It is an unknown factor. Both theories wish to explain that something can essentially come from nothing, nothing as having always been something in one form or another. Which takes us back to when did the first nothing that's actually something become existence as we know it. That takes us to the question is existence what we know it or is it something so extremely different that we will never comprehend it because of our limited thinking?
We assume because of how our brains comprehend things that everything has a beginning. What if that isn't true. We want it to be true. We have evidences from our comprehension that it's true. But what if it isn't true. We use to peer into space with telescopes on mountain tops and claim in certain areas all that existed was empty space bereft of stars, galaxies, etc. We mow know that from time lapse telescopes like the Hubble that those areas of 'empty space' aren't empty but actually contain stars, galaxies, etc. In our endeavor to prove what's correct, much of the time we really are proving what isn't correct at a later point.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#94 Jan 24, 2014
Amused wrote:
<quoted text>
That's like saying you don't sweat much for a fat guy.
Ahhh....humor is good...lol

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#95 Jan 24, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing and to apply that type thinking to oneself as a representation of what one comes to believe or disbelieve concerning a supreme intelligence. So long as an individual has not went through the above mentioned process to make such a decision, they remain categorized. Not a tough thing to comprehend though you seem to have issues understanding it.
BTW, I never declared I know who you are.
Wrong, you did too. Does this ring a bell? You said >>> "Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing"<< . Well guess what, no decision is required for either one. "A" means not as in not theist. That is all. If I am not you, I haven't had to make a decision to not be you, I simply am not you.

It works exactly that way, to be either one. Many, many children are raised from infancy in a lifestyle where that everything in thier lives is all about a religion, those children will never have to consider their theism's merits to actually be theist do they? They would flat out tell you, they are theist.

“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”

Since: May 09

Earth,TX

#96 Jan 24, 2014
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
At least i don't swear.
That is basically saying nothing, but you get brownie points from the mighty god-myth El, right?

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#97 Jan 24, 2014
In theism existence is God. To an atheist they woulkd of course be two separate things.[QUOTE]
Incorrect. As an Atheist, I do not deny the existence of the Pantheist GOD.. Existence clearly exists.. The problem with it is that when you reach that point, it becomes moot. That by definition would make everything GOD to which would include myself. You didn't even seem to comprehend the context of the questions and the consequences of.. And that becomes quite clear when you tried to write your own questions to which have nothing to do with context of the questions I asked you..
[QUOTE] The writer of the article proves my point by trying to separate the words God and existence to prove his points.
No such argument was made.. This is an argument you made up to which is incoherent to what you are addressing.
A theist would never do such a thing unless they wished to disprove their own belief that God and existence are one and the same to them. Understand?
That is essentially what that article did by the realization that the concept becomes moot once the goal post is moved to Existence itself.. What part of that do you not understand? Do you even know what the definition of Existence is? It is the essence and totality of all that exists.. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why at that point the concept becomes moot!
The questions might as well have been written as follows as the two words are so relevant to each other in meaning....[QUOTE]
Uhh NO! It's not even the same context.. Life is not defined as the totality of all that exist. You're swapping out two different words with entirely different meanings... Life is a part of existence, and so is non-life.. Neither can represent a Universal Set Of All Sets. Hence I don't even think you grasp that we are dealing with set theory. So I will go over your questions and answers here for giggles:
[Quote]
Q1: What is GOD without life?
A1: Non-existent, meaningless, pointless, irrelevant.
Incorrect. Pantheism states existence itself is GOD, and that includes life and non-life.. Life is not a requirement for this concept. Existence exists regardless if life exists or not. The object of their worship still exists. The only problem with Pantheism is that it makes everything GOD. All life and non-life..
Q2: If life is GOD, then what of life is not?
A2: If life is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of life is GOD.
That in regards to life would make the concept moot.. However, life is not an object in itself as existence is.. Life is a description for living organism, or a category of thing separate from non-life as a subset of existence.. Hence life and non-life are both a part of existence itself. Worse still, all life comes from non-life.. Life doesn't answer the question of origins either, only existence itself can represent actual origins as all living things are emergent properties of existence itself.
Q3: If life is not GOD, then what of life is?
A3: If life to which is the sum total and essence of everything is not “GOD”, then by definition there isn’t anything of life to which is.
Life is not the sum total essence of everything.. You clearly don't know what the definition of Life is.. The second half your Answer is incoherent to the first half.

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#98 Jan 24, 2014
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not?
A2: If existence is GOD, then by definition everything and everyone of existence is GOD.(This is a question to the question. The answer should have been 'nothing').
Wrong.. Nothing doesn't exist and can not be of existence. You obviously don't know the definition of "Existence" to understand the answer. Existence is literally defined as the totality of all that exists. Look it up.. Thus by definition, if Existence is GOD, everything of existence would by definition be GOD. Here is the definition of Existence:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/existence
1. The fact or state of existing
2. The fact or state of continued being
3.
a. All that exists
b. A thing that exists; an entity.
Existence is a single entity of all that exists. If you exist, you are a part of existence as a subset of existence itself. And if call Existence itself GOD, Everything by definition becomes GOD.. And likewise if you state Existence is not GOD, there is then nothing of Existence to which is by consequence of definition.. The term "Nothing" to which you are using here has no play in the subject.. We are not addressing "Nothing".

Since: Nov 12

Salem, MA

#99 Jan 24, 2014
No Surprise wrote:
<quoted text>
By the way, of the players just kicking around a ball and choosing to not take a position and chose to ignore either position to have any belief or disbelief, though you can state it as you have they have inadvertently sided with the atheists who with purpose chose not to also have no belief.
Sort of, I would say the players kicking the ball are practicing with their own goals in which the setup on the field in between the two far Goals on either end of the field. Agreeably agnostics are just kicking the ball around somewhere in the middle of the field without a goal, and perhaps undecided if they want to play on the left or right side of the field. Regardless, when you take it to the furthest extremes it's all or none at all.. The funny part is when you ask a Christian if they are monotheistic. Most will say yes...But when you ask them if they believe Existence exists, they will of course say yes.. Well that is the Pantheist GOD isn't it.. It gets worse when you ask them why their GOD is slave to require the Pantheist GOD to even exist as an idea much-less exist at all. So how many Christians do you think will convert to Pantheism? How many will say the Pantheist GOD doesn't exist? It becomes an amusing thing to watch.. Then I had a Christian tell me that God is Existence lol.. I then replied to them with a thank you for calling me god.. Now get on your hands and knees an pray to me..err yourself..or that rock over there!.. You then realize how stupid the concept is because it's self-refuting and moot.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#100 Jan 25, 2014
Reason Personified wrote:
<quoted text>Wrong, you did too. Does this ring a bell? You said >>> "Being a theist or an atheist comes by way of making a decision to be that thing"<< . Well guess what, no decision is required for either one. "A" means not as in not theist. That is all. If I am not you, I haven't had to make a decision to not be you, I simply am not you.
It works exactly that way, to be either one. Many, many children are raised from infancy in a lifestyle where that everything in thier lives is all about a religion, those children will never have to consider their theism's merits to actually be theist do they? They would flat out tell you, they are theist.
By the way, I never said "I KNEW" as in having foreknowledge of who your are prior to our first speaking to each other.
Next, I "KNOW" of you only from what you reveal as in your nick name and short description....
Reason Personified
“Citizen_Patriot_ Voter_Atheist!”
I know you a atheist because you declared it in your description. Understand?
Next. Being a theist or an atheist for most people on this planet comes by way of a decision they make at some point in their mental growth of accepting or rejecting what is taught/indoctrinated to them that parental figures structure them to become or not to become.

“Good day to you!”

Since: Oct 08

Earth

#101 Jan 25, 2014
TheJackelantern wrote:
<quoted text>
No such argument was made.. This is an argument you made up to which is incoherent to what you are addressing.
Bull crap...lol. The writer of the article separated God from existence to make a point from his disbelief in a supreme intelligence. If he would have addressed the matter from a perspective as a theist he would never have separated God from existence.
He did state in separating the two to make a point......(parenthesis mine) with added comment.
..........
Q1: What is GOD without existence?
A1. Nothing. The non-existence of God equals nothing.
..........
Q2: If Existence is GOD, then what of existence is not(God)?
A2. Again nothing. If existence is predicated on God's existence, than God's non-existence
means nothing else exists.
..........
Q3: If Existence is not GOD, then what of existence is(God)?
A3. Again nothing. If existence is not predicated on God's existence, that rationally
God doesn't exist.
..........
The writer was clearly separating God and existence to prove the non-existence of God. And as I stated before, "In theism existence is God. To an atheist they would of course be two separate things."

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) 10 min Chimney1 48,485
Athetists' best bet is that there is a God. 1 hr JustASkeptic 6
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 4 hr Into The Night 23,491
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) Sat ChristineM 21,863
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) Sat Eagle 12 258,039
News The war on Christmas (Dec '10) Sat Eagle 12 4,907
Why you need to make sure you are saved before ... Fri Scaritual 14
More from around the web