The saddest joke ever.

[CosmoKramer]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/from_our_own_correspondent/2850485.stm

Some of the hallmarks:
86% of Americans, we are told by the pollsters, believe in heaven.
76% or three out of four people you meet on any American street believe in hell and the existence of Satan. They believe that the devil is out to get you. That evil is a force in the world - a force to be engaged in battle. Much of that battle takes place in the form of prayer. Americans will talk of praying as if it were the most normal, rational thing to do.
It's not uncommon to see White House functionaries hurrying down corridors carrying bibles.
And nobody spends more time on his knees - I am back in metaphorical mode here - than George W Bush.
The Bush administration hums to the sound of prayer. Prayer meetings take place day and night.
So while there are plenty of rational people giving rational advice about policy matters in the Bush White House there is also a channel, an input, from on high.


No wonder americans think Europeans are snobby - given the enormous intellectual capacity displayed above how could we not be?

[kyleb]

the is all sorts of wild religious beliefs running around Washington that may people don't know about. it is amazing how much goes unnoticed too, like the petagram in the streets, the freemasons swear it is nothing of concern but i always found it rather troubling.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/washington_dc/washington_dc.html

[RussSchultz]

I hate to be combative, but there's nothing more annoying in my mind that a intellectual snob who looks down at people who have religious beliefs as mental midgets.

Live and let live. If you don't believe, then I don't see how other people believing affects you in the least.

[Joe DeFuria]

[quote="kyleb"]the is all sorts of wild religious beliefs running around Washington that may people don't know about. p/quote]

I hate to break it to you, but there are all sorts of wild religious beliefs around the United States.

The fact that they exist, just so happens to be one of the great things about this country.

[epicstruggle]

I hate to be combative, but there's nothing more annoying in my mind that a intellectual snob who looks down at people who have religious beliefs as mental midgets.

Live and let live. If you don't believe, then I don't see how other people believing affects you in the least.
Can someone who has been in the US and in Europe for extend peoriods of time tell me how religious views differ.

later,

[Heathen]

Can someone who has been in the US and in Europe for extend peoriods of time tell me how religious views differ.


Well I've never been to America for an extended period of time, but in Britain we seem to be somewhat more laid back when it comes to Religion. No idea about the rest of Europe though, every country is different.

PS: Please don't lump Britain in with the rest of Europe. :lol:

[epicstruggle]

Actualy I dont think of England as part of Europe. Europe to me is france all the way to the eastern bloc. I dont even count spain and portugal in europe, they just dont seem to fit in the mix.

later,

[Heathen]

Spain and Portugal are pretty much a special case for Europe as well with very good historical reasons why.

Actualy I dont think of England as part of Europe.

Cheers, quite a few people over this side of the pond think the same as well. :lol:

[kyleb]

I hate to break it to you, but there are all sorts of wild religious beliefs around the United States.

The fact that they exist, just so happens to be one of the great things about this country.

well trust me i have seen many an odd religion and i do think that freedom of religion is a wonderful thing. however, i do not think it is all great; it is rather hard to do that when you have seen things like a cross being burnt on your friends lawn because he happens to be a black man living in town of intolerant religious fanatics. also, i know there are many other such things, worse things, driven by the so called "religions" in our country all the time. freedom of religion is great but freedom to impose your religion on others is something the past has taught us well that we should restrict ourselves from.

btw, i am a theist and i agree with Cosmo, so bully to your snobery argument Russ! :wink:

[LittlePenny]

like the petagram in the streets, the freemasons swear it is nothing of concern but i always found it rather troubling.

Some of our greatest founding fathers were Free Masons. George Washington himself, a Free Mason, was quoted saying something to the manner "The United States is to be what the brotherhood is".

There is a good reason why they went back into hiding, but you should know there are good aspects to the Masons.
http://www.historychannel.com/cgi-bin/frameit.cgi?p=http%3A//www.historychannel.com/perl/print_book.pl%3FID%3D87716

[Joe DeFuria]

freedom of religion is great but freedom to impose your religion on others is something the past has taught us well that we should restrict ourselves from.

So, please explain to us how "imposing religion on others" has anything at all to do with what started this topic. :roll:

[MfA]

I hate to be combative, but there's nothing more annoying in my mind that a intellectual snob who looks down at people who have religious beliefs as mental midgets.

There are some very smart schizophrenics, I just dont like them being in positions of power. We are talking about people who see the bible as literal truth here, ie. fundamentalists, not people who have a mystic approach to religion which is compatible with reason.

[kyleb]

Joe, my response was to your previous comment that the diversity of religions is a great thing in this country. i agree with you to an extent, but feel you are overlooking the bad side of it and letting such imbalance sway your opinion. but as to how that do directy with what started the topic of the thread; sense you are the one that suggested the possibility, why don't you tell us?

also LittlePenny, i do know that there are many good aspects to all people; that does not trouble me by any means. it is when we draw from something other than the good in us that i find disturbing. also i do not see how you can claim that freemasonry is underground as lodges exist all over this country and are listed in the phonebooks and on the net, our presidents swear their oath of office on a Masonic bible, and Masonic symbolism is used far and wide in this country. the best known symbol of masonry is even laid out on the streets of Washington itself, right next to the pentagram and incased with it by another of their more prominent symbols, the pyramid. please note that i am not saying that the Masonic arts which they refer to as their "craft" are a bad thing. i am simply pointing out that it is one a faith which most Americans do understand the workings; yet it still plays a large role actively shapeing our nation.

[horvendile]

If you don't believe, then I don't see how other people believing affects you in the least.

Not as long as they just quietly believe, no. But when religious belief starts guiding external actions, I see potential trouble. And if one really, hotly, believes in one's religion, it would be strange not to let it guide the rest of the life. As I said in another thread, who is one mortal to challenge the Word of God Almighty?

Not all actions motivated by religion are bad; far from it. But:

Large parts of Israel's politics are motivated by religion, and have so been since the beginning. The same could, to a lesser extent, be said about the Palestinians.
When the Christian right wing runs campaigns for creationism in school, that certainly affects other people. Likewise, when some members of it physically attack physicians practising abortion, there is trouble.
In most cases, promises of an advantageous afterlife is a required component in suicide attacks.
Praying instead of seeking medical help for serious conditions is definitely harmful, and often not possible to refer to one person's free choice.

Some argue that many of these actions do not represent true Christianity / Islam / Whatever. In some way, that may be true, but it is also largely irrelevant. The important thing is that someone believes in religion (/heaven / hell) enough to hurt other people, and whether the belief of the aggressor is exactly as the Confession of Augsburg or not is of no importance to the dead.

Another common counterargument is that there would be as much fighting without religion as with. I don't buy that. That would presuppose one of two possibilities:
a) That someone else would fight somewhere else, if the fighting over religion would stop. That is ridiculous, and probably not what is generally meant.
b) That the same people would fight even without religion. But there are numerous examples where religion is the only distinguishing feature between fighting parties. I find it hard to believe that they still should fight without religion.

Russ, I'm not saying that you argue as my examples above, much less advocate the examples before that.
I'm trying to show that it is not as simple as to stay quiet and count on not being affected by religious beliefs of others.

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe, my response was to your previous comment that the diversity of religions is a great thing in this country.

The fact that there is diversity of religions in this country is not great. The fact that we are free to "worship" (or not worship for that matter) in largely whichever way we choose, which LEADS to a diversity of religions, is a great thing.

i agree with you to an extent, but feel you are overlooking the bad side of it and letting such imbalance sway your opinion.

No, I am not overlooking any bad side of it. We have laws in this country based on moral principals of "right and wrong", the purpose of which is to keep "freedom" from being, for lack of a better term, "abused." (Such as "my religion is based on the fact that all people with blonde hair are inherently evil, and therefore are to be executed at first site.)

So long as any religious practice isn't breaking the law, it's fine. The problem is with those who are intolerant of others views. The problem is with those who look at another religion, decide that it's wrong just because they don't agree with it, and then seek to have it labeled as "wacko" or only for those without some higher sense of being or intelligence.

but as to how that do directy with what started the topic of the thread; sense you are the one that suggested the possibility, why don't you tell us?

Huh? I suggest it (imposing religion on others) has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. (Which is essentially "Christianity running rampant in Washington! Oh My!") So I'm wondering why you brought it up.

Or do I have to ask directly: Do you think Bush is somehow "Imposing his religion" on others?

[kyleb]

The fact that there is diversity of religions in this country is not great. The fact that we are free to "worship" (or not worship for that matter) in largely whichever way we choose, which LEADS to a diversity of religions, is a great thing.

so you are saying that it is not great that it exists, only great that it is alowed to? i really do not understand your logic on this.

No, I am not overlooking any bad side of it. We have laws in this country based on moral principals of "right and wrong", the purpose of which is to keep "freedom" from being, for lack of a better term, "abused."

but those laws are abused all the time and people are abused under those laws and by bias of relgion; those are the issues which i am hopeing you might take into account.

Or do I have to ask directly: Do you think Bush is somehow "Imposing his religion" on others?

well he keeps telling us god is behind us on this, and i don't understand were he comes up with that.

as for how i was raised, i was baptized a protestant and my family always attainted protestant churches. but they were always very comfortable with me looking into other faiths and i starting going to mass with my Catholic friends and temple with my Jewish friends when i was around eight or nine. sense then i have studied those religions extensively and also investigated the theology of my native American ancestors, as well as many other religions both current and past. i have always very much enjoyed and respected religion it does much to relate humanities understanding of the divine; however i have never believed anyone who claimed their opinion is undoubtedly that of the divine.

[Heathen]

Or do I have to ask directly: Do you think Bush is somehow "Imposing his religion" on others?


Well it all depends really. If he is, i.e. Bible worship is compulsory etc etc, it's bad. If everyone wants to go, the more power to them.

Although being honest, aslong as it doesn't affect his ability to run the USA, who cares? I find it a bit odd, I find ALL religions a bit odd for that matter, but that's about it.

[RussSchultz]

I hate to be combative, but there's nothing more annoying in my mind that a intellectual snob who looks down at people who have religious beliefs as mental midgets.

There are some very smart schizophrenics, I just dont like them being in positions of power. We are talking about people who see the bible as literal truth here, ie. fundamentalists, not people who have a mystic approach to religion which is compatible with reason.

I think if you actually questioned George W. Bush on his religious beliefs, you'll find that he isn't a "fundamentalist", in the strict sense of the word.

He's a methodist, which is pretty darn close to a Catholic, which is about as far from "fundamentalist" as you can get. (According to the fundamentalists).

He does seem, devout, however. But that doesn't equate to fundamentalist.

[Basic]

Small OT info:
I had to check if "Freemason" is the same as Swedish "Frimurare" - it is, but with a twist called the "Swedish Rite". And on the quest for that fact I noticed that the Swedish Freemason Grand Master (= top title) is my old modern physics teatcher. :)

The Grand Master titel had been held by the king for ~200 years but our current king didn't want to be a Freemason.

[Fred]

I do actually find it slightly uncomfortable that the current white house is overwhelmingly active Christians.

The bible is riddled with passages that are mutually exclusive, for example just the other day there were pastors debating about whether war in Iraq was justified wrt to what the bible said. Both participants pulled out passages that clearly meant precisely the opposite (simplified... war is always bad.. war can be justified sometimes)

Not ot mention old laws that are clearly outdated in modern times (eg 2 camels can used as payment when a petty crime is committed).

THankfully the administration obviously doesn't pay too much attention to some of the absurdities in the Bible, but then again their stance on Creationism, gay rights, abortion etc, often makes us wonder if they aren't taking things a little too literally.

[Goragoth]

The bible is fundamentally broken and so is all religion. Give me one good reason that we need religion. Educated people with good morals should not need a religion and history is full of attrocities commited in the name of God. I don't think religious people are neccessarily bad people but I cannot understand how someone educated can believe anything religions say. I mean, the inquestion, the witch hunts, the crusades, just to name a few; how do people justify this? The twin-towers bombing would never have happened without religion. It isn't the root of all evil for sure but it is resonsible for a lot of deaths.

That said, I'm totally for religious tollerance and just because I don't get it doesn't mean I'm going to force my views on anyone. As long as it doesn't negatively affect me any religion is fine, its personal choice. It should never EVER influence politics however. A politician, especially a president/prime minister should not let personal believes influence his/her actions and should never mention religion in a speech to the public if for no other reason than that it is insulting to anybody how does not share his/her beliefs.

Religion on its own, when not taken to extremes, is generally fine but it should be kept away from politics. FAR away.

[Dave H]

well he [Bush] keeps telling us god is behind us on this [the war with Iraq], and i don't understand were he comes up with that.

This is a common misnomer, but it's simply not true. Please find a direct quotation (with link) in which Bush (or anyone else in the administration for that matter) has said or even implied that God is behind a war with Iraq or supports the American side against the rest of the world. Since he "keeps telling us" this, and every public utterance he makes is easily found on the Internet, it should be pretty easy. :lol:

I wish I could say that I don't understand where people like you come up with distortions like this, but I have a decent idea...

(BTW: I'm an atheist and am against most all of Bush's positions regarding church/state. But to suggest that Bush is invoking religion to justify the war is incorrect and smacks of anti-religious bigotry. Incidentally, our last two Democratic presidents were also born-again Christians, so if you think Bush is at all unusual in this regard you haven't been paying attention.)

[L233]

[quote="MfA"][quote=RussSchultz]I think if you actually questioned George W. Bush on his religious beliefs, you'll find that he isn't a "fundamentalist", in the strict sense of the word.

He's a methodist, which is pretty darn close to a Catholic, which is about as far from "fundamentalist" as you can get. (According to the fundamentalists).


Meeep. Wrong. Bush is a "born again" Christian. He might have been a methodist for the biggest part of his life but he didn't use to be a particularly religious person until Billy Graham helped him to overcome his alcoholism anyway.

Now he's your plain vanilla religious whacko on a mission and therefor the most dangerous man in the world - because other religious fanatics don't have the biggest military juggernaught and the biggest stockpile of WMD in the history of mankind at their disposal.

The German weekly Der Spiegel (the most influental publication in the German speaking world) actually published a cover story about Bush's beliefs a couple of weeks ago. It's available in English:
http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/english/0,1518,236692,00.html

[epicstruggle]

why dont we pass a law banning religion. And then tie any one associated with religious views and drop them in the middle of the ocean. :roll: Lets blame religion for just about every problem in history. Do you want the truth. Wars have traditionally started to gain power. Religions is usually used as an excuse, or an after thought.

As a hindu, Ill trust just about anybody elses religion before i trust an atheist. To me an atheist could change their morals on a whim, to suit their needs.

later,

[Joe DeFuria]

Now he's your plain vanilla religious whacko on a mission and therefor the most dangerous man in the world -

:roll:

The German weekly Der Spiegel (the most influental publication in the German speaking world) actually published a cover story about Bush's beliefs a couple of weeks ago.

Why would I not be surprised if this same publicaction or similar was the most influencial in Germany around, say 1930...

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

Joe,

Did you read the article? It's got nothing spectacularly new in terms of info but does bring a different perspective on what's going on in terms of religion. It was pretty well written IMO.

[RussSchultz]

I'm sorry L233, but being "born again" does not make you a fundamentalist. I grew up in Texas and attended an independant Baptist church as a teen. I know the difference.

That Der Speigal "article" (i.e. long op-ed piece) was pretty much nothing but hate filled rhetoric. It's frightening that its coming from the most influential publication in the german speaking world. Many of the "facts" presented are wrong and/or misleading and how could you not notice the overwhelming charged language used?

It is a good example of propaganda, though. Lets stir up fear of those "whackos". I'm suprised the author didn't slip and start referring to die Juden and their Purim pastries filled with baby's blood.

[Joe DeFuria]

Joe,

Did you read the article? It's got nothing spectacularly new in terms of info but does bring a different perspective on what's going on in terms of religion. It was pretty well written IMO.

It gives a frightenting perspective on intolerance for differing religious views. Well written piece of propaganda perhaps.

[Snyder]

As a hindu, Ill trust just about anybody elses religion before i trust an atheist. To me an atheist could change their morals on a whim, to suit their needs.

I understand your argument (in fact, it is one I've often discussed with some friends of mine), but be assured, Atheism isn't a must to suit one's morals to one's needs - History proved that countless times.

From a different (admittedly cynical) viewpoint: An atheist or agnostic (which I am seeing myself as) doesn't have a bunch of rules as an excuse for his actions. He has to carry the full weight of the effects of his actions, he has to constantly ask himself: Am I doing things right?
No religion doesn't mean no ethics.

To be "a good person" has not very much to do with the religious beliefs (or lack thereof) of said person, IMO.

Oh, and sorry for my English - I haven't had much ethical/religious discussions in English yet... ;)

[CosmoKramer]

Grown up people thinking that the only alternative to be so weak/dumb to be needing a psychologial Santa Claus is to be an atheist need to use their brainscell(s?). Perhaps there are other ways to view the world? :roll:

Same goes for grown up people thinking that you need religion to have morals.

[arjan de lumens]

As a hindu, Ill trust just about anybody elses religion before i trust an atheist. To me an atheist could change their morals on a whim, to suit their needs.

:roll: (Just had to, speaking as an atheist)

My impression is very much the opposite: atheists, not having any holy scriptures/rule-books/leaders' words to blindly fall back on, tend to be much more consciously aware of morals and the distinction between right and wrong than other people. Most atheists as such end up as Secular Humanists, with morals that tend to be extremely resistant to change.

Conversely, a Christian (or any religious person) is free to change his morals immediately if he or his leaders decide that the Bible (or other Holy text) can/must be interpreted in a new and different way than before - the many ambiguities in the Bible and the existence of ~20 000 denominations of Christianity indicates to me that there is lots of room for people to reinterpret the Bible in whichever manner might suit their needs best. I'd be surprised if this doesn't apply to other religions as well.

Here (http://www.netmeg.org/~hoagy/myths.html) is a list of some of the most common ways to misrepresent and malign atheists, and debunkings thereof. Worth a read.

And, to conclude, a random statistic for you:
About 10% of the US population are atheists.
About 1% of the US prison population are atheists.
If that proves that atheists can change their morals on a whim, then be my guest.

[RussSchultz]

Arjun, do you have any proof/statistics to back up your opinions that religious and/or atheists are more/less resistant to changing their mores? I personally don't think there's any correlation.

[arjan de lumens]

Primarily personal experience, which is why I put it forth as "impression" rather than "absolute fact".

[kyleb]

tend to agree, i have to say that it is based on the simple fact that god is all around us. while atheists do not subscribe to the notion of god, they still learn from god though out their lives. however, such understanding is not swayed by popular condense so the atheist is more likely to give credit to the truths of creation such as those discovered by Galileo, while those who held to popular opinion oppressed him as a heretic. granted i am a theist, and atheists would probably disagree with the basis for my argument; but i just call it how i see it. :)

[Sabastian]

Well I can honestly say that to assume that atheist in general are more astute in terms of morals *cough* is an absolutely rediculous suggestion. I have met some rather unsavoury atheist in my time while my grandparents (mothers side) are very Christian and are likely some of the absolutely best sort of people you could ever meet. BTW they don't change their religion or their morals regularly or anything of the sort. Also the hypocrisy with humanist is that they want to turn their movement into a religion, funny that. Just read their manifesto and you can see where their demands are quite religious. Pure hypocracy.

http://www.americanhumanist.org/about/manifesto1.html

I dislike humanism.

[Pete]

I just wanted to say that that Der Spiegel article was an ill-disguised, spiteful, colossally-biased polemic disguised as a "cover story." A more shameful example of "journalism" I have trouble recalling.

[kyleb]

well there are all sorts of humanists, if you want to see some really wild "humanist" ideology, check out this:

http://www.radioliberty.com/stones.htm

[MrsSkywalker]

In my opinion, if all this snobby elitist can find to harp on the US about is our collective belief in God (or higher power), that's fine by me!

[MrsSkywalker]

Athiesm (sp?) confuses me greatly. I have always believed in God, having a Catholic father and a Presbyterian mother. I was exposed to many different religions as a child (my mother's decision, and one I am eternally greatful for), but was baptized, raised and then confirmed in the Catholic religion. As a young adult, there were some extremely difficult situations I went through that made me question my religion, and denounce my confirmation. Not even in the harshest of times did I even consider that there was no God...not once, not even for a second.

I was driving on a very icy road late at night during a powerful snowstorm. I had two of my kids with me at the time, and, needless to say, I was driving with the utmost caution. As we were starting to go down a hill, I slammed on my brakes. I had no idea why, I just put my foot to the floor. I sat there for a second, saying to myself, "What the hell do you think you're doing?" and went to step on the gas, when a car shot out of a side street right in front of me. Apparently he couldn't stop, because his brake lights were on, so I know he was trying to. The car passed so close in front of my that it made my car shake. If I hadn't slammed on the brakes when I did, the car most certainly would have hit me. Anyone who has ever driven on an icy road can tell you that you don't slam the brakes on, especially going downhill.

So, athiests, agnostics, and humanists: What made me stop if not God?

As far as the rest of the world seeing us as a nation that believes in God, well, that can only be a good thing in my opinion. I take no offense whatsoever, and it kind of irks me that others do. Even if you are an athiest, agnostic, or humanist, what's the problem with living in a country with a strong base in faith? It's what built this country, and what has sustained us as a society for so long.

Isn't it odd that we are seen as a country with a strong belief in God when actually in this country the Pledge of Allegiance my be outlawed in schools because God is mentioned?

[arjan de lumens]

As an atheist, I will try to answer: People tend to be subconsciously aware of a lot more than they are consciously aware of, which under certain circumstances will cause you to react reflexively faster than you get aware of what you are reacting to. That, at least, is my first guess as to what happened.

The Pledge of Allegiance didn't contain any references to God until sometime in the 1950's - IIRC, the words "under God", which were recently judged illegal, were added in 1952. Also, the available documentation on the religious beliefs of the Founding Fathers indicate that they were mostly Deists (believing that a God indeed created the world, but then essentially left it alone ever after) - take a look here (http://www.nofaith.org/a_founders.shtml) for a load of quotes indicating that they were rather critical of traditional Christianity.

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

[MrsSkywalker]

arjan de lumens: The quotes you linked were interesting. However they were mostly from Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin and John Adams. While these men had large roles in founding the country, they were not alone. They all believed in God, and they all believed in the freedom to believe what you will. I don't know how you surmised they were deists from these few quotes, but it doesn't matter at all. This country was founded on God, and that was my point. I doubt God has a demonination.

[Gubbi]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

[kyleb]

In my opinion, if all this snobby elitist can find to harp on the US about is our collective belief in God (or higher power), that's fine by me!


but what about when sobby elitist think that there are many levels of gods and they are closer to that level that the rest of us? what about when they think that they have the power over good and evil to shape the world into their own graven image?

Deut. 27:15; Ps. 97:7 (Hebrew: pesel), refers to the household gods of idolaters

"Every nation and city had its own gods...Yet every family had its separate household or tutelary god."

we don't just have these stroies around for no reason you know. ;)

[Heathen]

So, athiests, agnostics, and humanists: What made me stop if not God?

The laws of Physics.

[MrsSkywalker]

but what about when sobby elitist think that there are many levels of gods and they are closer to that level that the rest of us?

Then God will smite them! Bwahahaa! :twisted:

what about when they think that they have the power over good and evil to shape the world into their own graven image?

Watched the news lately?

[Heathen]

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists.

Thanks, it probably just means we're better equipped to live in the real world. :lol:

A serious question for you though. Mayans, good or evil?

[Sabastian]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

If indeed there is no truth then relativism itself becomes an absolute dissolving itself as an absolute truth. The truth is good and lies may very well be precieved as something other then good even evil. I might add that absolutes are a necessary part of science. Also it is the belief that people can behave poorly or good that creates the natural hiarchy of moral values. This is something that relativist quite despise and need to discredit. This tendency of atheist to discredit this hiarchy of moral behavior is based on the Jewish/Christian philosophy that if one behaves poorly they have sinned(or what have you.) and one whom behaves good is trying to do the best they can and this is appreciated by god. Who was it ... someone say that atheists carry a greater moral agency then Christians? .. Sounds like hypocricy to me. The idea to level all human acts to something that are equal as a result of socialization (theories) and that matters of morality and what is good and bad behavior is atheist/humanist in nature because they need to destroy the ideas of good and bad and replace them with egalitarian mentalities of what is good and bad. The whole thing is so hypocritical it really isn't funny. An atheist is almost fanatical in their belief that there is not a god when even some of the greatest minds of of our century can't say for certain that indeed there is no god. I think the most legitimate scientific finding was about 50/50 either way. In other words no one knows and so I find the atheist belief that there is no god ..... religious like in their dogmatic approach on the matter..

[JF_Aidan_Pryde]

I guess that's where the distinction between aetheists and agnostics come into play. Aetheism is now so jaded in definition that it pretty much means belief in 'no god' while agnostic is the "I don't know" , which is the best response IMO as it leaves room for change and rethinking.

[kyleb]

i am pretty sure that is not jaded but rather the way the words have been. atheist being the antonym of theist, one who claims to know of the existence of god; and agnostic as the opposite of gnostic, one who claims to have knowledge of the divine. unlike the theism discussed in this article i am actually an agnostic-theist; because while i do belive in god i also accept that my knowledge is only mortal.

[Gubbi]

What does religious affiliation have to do with ethical standards? A man who is evil is evil whether he is aetheist, Christian or Muslim. Talking about the general statistics of which group is more "moral" makes as much sense as debating which race is more "superior".

The concept of Good and Evil, Right and Wrong are absolutes in religion (christianity anyway). Not so for atheists. And hardly ever so in politics (the craft of pragmatism).

Cheers
Gubbi

If indeed there is no truth then relativism itself becomes an absolute dissolving itself as an absolute truth. The truth is good and lies may very well be precieved as something other then good even evil. I might add that absolutes are a necessary part of science. Also it is the belief that people can behave poorly or good that creates the natural hiarchy of moral values.

Please dont draw parallels between moral concepts (meta physical phenomena) and natural constants (physical phenomena), it only discredits you.

I never mentioned that atheists doesn't have a notion of what is good or bad (evil) only that their value system is not formulated anywhere with ultimate authority (like the Bible for jews/christians), but instead formed by pragmatic thinking.

Cheers
Gubbi

[kyleb]

exactly, i challenge anyone to name one just one religion that has not been though variation in their theology. sure many parts of the various religions also remain the same, but that is also an element of pragmatism.

[Heathen]

an element of pragmatism.

That's the Crux, the core theology and thinking remains static with only a minor amount of evolution. Athethists generally do it alone and is almost completely pragmatic in approach, whereby Religion is in bulk Dogmatic.

As I said, it leaves most Agnostics/Atheists better equipped to deal with the real world.

[overclocked]

I must ask you how live in US what you think had been the difference(if any big) betwen the politics if Al Gore had been the big man instead?

[Nagorak]

This topic is a waste of time. The reason people are religious is simple: they don't want to die.

I don't either, but unfortunately, I'm not naive to think that by just believing otherwise will make it so.