Warning ! Political Thread . What is (was) Bush Thinking ?

[Blain]

Dude. I'll pray for you.

[RobTheDrummer]

Dude, where do you get your facts?

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Dude. I'll pray for you.

Haha. Thanks.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Dude, where do you get your facts?

Was this directed at me? If it was than CNN/The New York Times/Things I've observed... I'm not attempting to point out objective truth or anything by my post. I just liked the conversation and wanted to add my opinions on it.

[RobTheDrummer]

Dude, where do you get your facts?

Was this directed at me? If it was than CNN/The New York Times/Things I've observed... I'm not attempting to point out objective truth or anything by my post. I just liked the conversation and wanted to add my opinions on it.

Ahh, I see, that explains it.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Dude, where do you get your facts?

Was this directed at me? If it was than CNN/The New York Times/Things I've observed... I'm not attempting to point out objective truth or anything by my post. I just liked the conversation and wanted to add my opinions on it.

Ahh, I see, that explains it.

Explains why I didn't cite sources for my post or that the information is from "liberal" sources? or both... I mean if there is something you want me to look up, i'd be happy to do that; however, I'm not really sure how much free time I have. What do you have problems with in the post?

[RobTheDrummer]

My point is this: if you are going to post a political post, you should have facts to back up what you say. Otherwise, your opinion will not matter one bit and people like myself will question where you get your basis of understanding.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

My point is this: if you are going to post a political post, you should have facts to back up what you say. Otherwise, your opinion will not matter one bit and people like myself will question where you get your basis of understanding.

That's fine, i'd be happy to do that. But, what are you questioning? The entire thing?

[Jason_of_soundrive]

So you can get the idea of where I'm coming from. If the sources are particularly good or not doesn't really matter to me; I don't mind being wrong (you'll see a lot of wiki entries because that's usually where I read things). However, a majority of the sources are scholarly.



The first part dealt with all the religious discussion that [occurred].

1.) The pledge of alliance didn't originally have the "under God part, (Cite 1)" but I don't find that to be a big deal even as an atheist. It's just not a major issue for me as long as I am allowed to leave out that part or say the pledge with the original words - free of being [persecuted] or judged by other people of religious faiths. I'm fine with their religious world-view as long as they can understand and respect my world-view. The reason is because I see religion like this.

Cite 1: This was already cited previously here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pledge_of_ ... der_God.22

Here’s another link about the words “in God we trust as well”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/In_God_We_Trust



a.) Criticism of religion (1):
Basically, if you are looking at forming a political stance over religious ideology you have to decide what the word "true" means. For a person of a religious backing this usually means what the Bible or Quran or the Bhagavad-Gita (or whatever holy text is [representative] of that religion) says. Now, what these texts say might not be wrong. I think most reasonably minded humans would be able to determine that killing and stealing are wrong for various reasons. However, what I will say that religion is completely [unjustifiable] (Cite 2). The justifiable position of the religious is "the bible says so," which in an [argument] that attempts to explain or alter the social becomes fallacious - it is "begging the question" because it is improvable to accurately determined that any of these texts are the correct one (Cite 3).

Cite 2: This is from the following source:

Pojman, Louis P. Introduction to Philosophy: Classical and Contemporary Readings. New York: Oxford University Press, 2004.

From the introduction to the chapter on epistemology. The book states that knowledge= justified, true, belief. The definition of truth that religions use is the coherent theory of truth, which is explained above. “Justification” can be either empirical or by deduction such as in math. Because religious positions are not justified, they cannot be considered “knowledge” they are “opinions.”

Cite 3: From the same source mentioned above, but from a different chapter. This was in the final chapter that discussed what a fallacy was. This particular example is mentioned there under the heading “begging the question.”


B) Criticism of religion (2): Okay, my second problem with people who attempt to use their religious ideology to form political worldview is that people have a tendency, no matter what, to form interpretations from what they read (cite 4).

Cite 4: This is based on literary criticism. The bible is a collection of stories. Stories usually contain metaphors. In the book Acts of Reading Patricia Harkins describes these as “gaps.” Furthermore, the subjectivity of literary criticism - the subjectivity of understanding meaning in literary works is also illustrated in the book Critical Theory Today: A User-Friendly Guide by Lois Tyson and in chapter eight of the book Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of art. When interpretations change, in this example, basically, a new religion is formed or different religious sect is formed.


While the old testament seems fairly clear that it is anti-homosexuality, those same people who are reading that line seem to be ignoring the extremely long passages of completely [irrelevant] information in the old testament. For example, in the King James version there are pages of [irrelevant] information about what to do in a case where a man steals an oxen, if an oxen (Cite 5)

Cite 5: Here they are from Exodus:
29. But if the ox were wont to push with his horn in time past, and it hath been testified to his owner, and he hath not kept him in, but that he hath killed a man or a woman, the ox shall be stoned, and his owner also shall be put to death.
30. If there be laid on him a sum of money, then he shall give for the ransom of his life whatsoever is laid upon him.
31. Whether he have gored a son, or have gored a daughter, according to his judgment shall it be done unto him.
32. If the ox shall push a manservant or a maid-servant; he shall give unto their master thirty shekels of silver, and the ox shall be stoned.
33. And if a man shall open a pit, or if a man shall dig a pit, and not cover it, and an ox or an ass fall therein;
34. The owner of the pit shall make it good, and give money unto the owner of them; and the dead beast shall be his.

I can look up the other quotes as well, but honestly this one example is good enough to prove my point.

wounds someone (in which it i guess will be stoned to death in a pit [maybe it was the man? I should probably look this up, but I can do that if someone wants]) Or other lines that say it is a sin to eat shellfish or that children should be stoned to death for arguing with their parents. That's the problem with metaphors, which the bible is filled with, you can [interpret] them in a variety of ways, which might change has a people's culture changes over time and by the influence of location. I think it might be funny how historians looking backward might [interpret] the lines "It's raining cats and dogs," which literally doesn't equate to the meaning assigned to the words (Cite 6).

Cite 6: Also from the book Aesthetics: An Introduction to the Philosophy of Art

Or the place of religious television within our lives (Cite 7),

Cite 7: I believe this idea was mentioned in the article The Church of Baseball, the fetish of Coca-Cola, and the Potlatch of Rock ‘n’ Roll.


and why everyone has T.V.'s. [my point was that religious writings can be interpreted in a variety of ways.]

If we study religion we can see a trend that people are limited by their intellect, knowledge, how they [interpret], how they formulate their ideas. It's just something that comes with being human, but it also means that our religious in some way are social transcribed upon the sacred. Why [would] a Christian culture be anti-homosexuality and abortion? In my opinion, again in my opinion, it makes sense in the social context for those people - they were a minority that was [persecuted] by Roman. Just a few possible social reasons for those issues could be

1. The [Christians] in this time and culture wanted to distance themselves and define themselves against the [Romans]. It's interesting to me that Christianity developed one God, which is radically different from the [polytheistic] Hellenistic [religion]. It is equally interesting to me that they were anti-homosexuality, when homosexuality was the favored orientation in Roman culture (Cite 8 ).

Cite 8: The factual information about Roman comes from the article The Jews, The Roman Empire, and Christianity, A.D. 50-180

2. They were a minority; thus, if you are a minority you want to become the majority. What does this mean? First, it means that this culture had to increase their population, which is something that can't be done with a gay orientation nor can it be done if people are having [abortions] (Cite 9).

Cite 9: This idea comes from the book Creation of the Sacred: Tracks of Biology in Early Religions by Walter Burkert, though it was expressed as a possible hypothesis.

Now, whether or not there are also religious implications for all of these points, we can't deny that they were also done for social reasons as well. This paradigm equally works as well as today as it did back than (I'll post more on this later) (Cite 10).

Cite 10: The paradigm I mentioned was proposed by a sociologist Durkheim. My understanding of Durkheim’s model comes from this source:

Stirrat, R.L. “Sacred Models.” EBSCOhost (30 August 2005). 08 October 2006.


C. Criticism of Science: Okay, as an [atheist] I have a tendency to look towards science for answers of life. The great thing about science in my opinion - is it works (Cite 11). This is a lot different from the possible benefits that I see within spirituality. Spirituality provides an emotional and imaginative way for humans to look at the world. Art and literature are filled with great examples of this [occurring]. Where would literature be without writer's like Blake? How about Einstein's science- his scientific motivation arose from his pantheistic spiritual views (Cite 12). At the same time, however, the idealism/romanticism that usually occurs from religious beliefs have a dark side (Cite 13). While it was Einstein's belief in natural spirituality that motivated him to some of his most [brilliant] [scientific] discoveries -it also limited him. While he could have been formulating more brilliant ideas, the later half of his life he spent in a bed trying to undermine the theories of [quantum] physics that arose from his views (Cite 14). Why? The newer theories based from his own ideas countered his own sense of spirituality. Where would we be today if it didn't?

Cite 11: This idea was also expressed in the book Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer in his introduction on what science is. Furthermore, it is also discussed in An Introduction to Philosophy. The definition of truth for science is pragmatism - it doesn’t matter if what it proposes is true or not.

Cite 12: Check out this cite: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein#Religious_views

Cite 13: The dark side of romanticism is explained within the following source:
Thomas, Owen. “Spiritual but Not Religious: The Influence of the Current Romantic Movement.” EBSCOhost (Summer 2006). 08 October 2006

Cite 14: This was something I couldn’t find online. I watched it a few days ago on a documentary of Einstein’s life on the Science Channel. I’m sure I can find this. You can see part of this in the wiki entry with the famous quote “God does not role dice,” which shows his opposition to the newer theories of Quantum physics, which opposed his spirituality.



However, science, is also subjective. I think most atheists have a tendency to believe that science is an objective answer. Science is not an objective answer - it is a practical answer. We have to remember that creationism a hundred or so years ago was considered as a legit [scientific] world-view. The definition of science means that it must be [falsifiable] (Cite 15), which means that it will change. There will be new scientific paradigms and better scientific models. We can see this even within our own current understanding of science - we found out in quantum physics that it is impossible to calculate the position and speed of the smallest atomic particles (Cite 16). If we can't accurately determine the foundation of everything, what does this say?

Cite 15: This idea was also expressed in Why People Believe Weird Things by Michael Shermer on his chapter on Creationism/Intelligent design. In this section I believe he is quoting either Gould or Kuhn. I’m fairly sure it was the latter.

Cite 16: This is from the following source:

Miller, Kenneth R. Finding Darwin’s God: A Scientist’s Search for Common Ground Between God and Evolution. New York: Harper Collins Publishers Inc., 1999.


2. Christ in Christmas? Sure, that's great for you - you can have your religious world belief in Christmas. I'm an atheist, and I love Christmas. So do my Jewish friends. However, I say that if you are so anti every other religious worldview, I [recommend] that you give back all the pagan aspects of [Christianity] back to the pagans (basically all the fun parts, like having and decorating the Christmas tree). And let's not forget Easter as well, which most of which based from a pagan fertility rite. Give those back as well (again, all the fun parts). Christmas from Christian cultures, such as medieval England, were solemn and somber [occasions] focusing on guilt, not happiness, not gift giving. These occasions were much more formal, were strict, were much much different from the blending that has [occurred] to form the tradition that we celebrate here in America. (Cite 17)

Cite 17:
Check out this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christmas for some of the different between medieval customs compared to contemporary customs. Furthermore, note that it occurs on the winter solstice, which was routed in paganism. Father Christmas is a Germanic pagan figure, and the Christmas tree is from a Germanic pagan custom.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Father_Christmas

On Easter: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter
The debate on whether or not its routes are pagan is interesting. However, I personally don’t see how a giant bunny and hiding eggs has anything to do with Christianity. To me it seems that both rabbits and eggs are symbols of fertility, I tend to agree with those scholars.

I find these articles on wiki lacking, and I’ll find better sources for the influence and the cross over between pagan an Christian ideals.

My reading of the difference between the holidays is also backed by analyzing the literature from that time period. Take Sir Gawain and the Green Knight for example, the green knight is sent to the court partly to punish Arthur’s knight’s because they weren’t celebrating Christmas the respectable, solemn way that they should have been.


3.) Christians, please please please do not tell atheists that you are going to pray for us. Really, I get it, I appreciate the gesture. I'm glad that you are worried about me or feel that I am going to Hell or whatever. However, you have to understand that your world view just simply isn't an aspect of my worldview. Likewise, I promise that I won't think your religion is completely [childish], unprovable, and nonsensical. This is America, and one reason that America is a superpower that it is today is because we have been open to diverse ideas - we have been able to take the best ideas from a variety of cultures to come up with great answers. This is something we can take pride again. Again, Einstein who was [persecuted] by Hitler for being Jewish, came to America (Do I really need to cite this?). One can see how Hitler's extremist views really cost him. However, just because I'm an atheist [doesn’t] mean I cannot formulate my own views about your religion. I will say this, which if you really believe in your religion, you might consider as a kind [suggestion]. [Whenever] you state to an atheist, agnostic, ignostic, [Buddhist], etc. that you will pray from them what you are establishing is a very interesting [dichotomy].

One side:
1. Christian
2. Good
3. Superior
4. Happy

Other side
1. Atheist
2. Bad
3. Inferior
4. Sad

If you believe in the New Testament, wouldn't you think that just a condescending remark to someone is [judgmental]...and playing God. Can you really tell us matters of the soul? [Interpret] the absolute message of the Gods? Let the [judgment] of souls and individuals be in the hands of your God. I think this is something you should think about. I really don't think that Jesus would condemn a group of people who understand that human understanding is limited, who celebrate logic and rationality as a means to understand and help their world as evil and being condemned to hell. Did not God great the human brain as well? I'm sure that some people would argue with me, and I'm quite sure Paul's writings could be interpreted against this, but other aspects of the Bible I think would agree with my previous [statements].


[Commentary] on the political ideas discussed.

New World Powers?
a. I don't think that China is really what we have to worry about yet. While China has a lot of people, it lacks in technology. The United States military technology is much much more advanced than what the Chinese have. Still, China is a likely contender for power.

a. Russia. Yeah, their poor now, but they still have enough nuclear arms to blow up the world 200 times over compared to what the Americans have - about 100 times over.

b. The European Union. This seems to be to me the most likely contender for world power, if would turn out that they would ever want to. I don't seem them coming together any time soon because Germany and France both want to lead the army and they don't get along that well because of the World War. If they decided to do this, it would completely undermine the United Nations and how America dominants the world by the amount of military power that we have. (Cite 18 )

Cite 18 : Points a, b, and c, are based from the book Global Politics (seventh Edition) by James Lee Ray.


U.S. and Iraq:
1. I've been wondering about how people see the issue between the left and the right. I don't really think these categories really exist [because] it seems like no one really understands him. The [libertarians] are on the same side with the communist, though they are [fundamentally] opposed groups. Most people seem to think that communism is opposed to [fascism] because that's how it seems learning about WWII in high school. [Fascism] isn't politically opposed to communism, it's opposed to anarchy. So, why left and right when groups that get dumped on the left are ideologically opposed towards each other? This never made sense to me. Other examples would be people like Arlen Specter who don't really vote with their party dispute the fact that they align themselves with them. (Cite 19)

Cite 19: This is personal observations and by how I am defining these groups. Anarchy = no government/ No state control. Fascism =Absolute state control. Libertarianism = No regulation of business. Communism = Controlled state regulated business. Interestingly, we can see that Nazi Fascism and Stalinist communism are similar, not opposites, as they both had authoritarian positions. I don’t think I need to cite that Arlen Specter is fairly controversial because of his tendency not to vote with his party, though I can if you really want.



2. I keep hearing the people on the so-called "right" calling the so-called "left" side, particularly, [democrats], idealists for their desire for [diplomacy]. I would like these people to explain their view of "idealism" because it is a realistic assessment that people can choose to be greedy or [altruistic] - humans can do both (Cite 20).

Cite 20: This idea was from the book “Ideas for Action”

This is a realistic assessment. Furthermore, I would argue, that it is actually the right side that are idealists. I see more people on the right with ideas that America is the best, is number one, is superior in every way to any other country or any other ideal. These people believe that they are never wrong and that those that oppose them are evil and corrupt instead of people who are offering interesting and intelligent positions. So why are the right idealists? I see no other word for people who have romanticized America into a Utopian society. The war than becomes against people who are against and threaten our Utopia. I personally can see many reasons why our current society isn't a Utopia such as health care and even [poverty] issues; however, this information doesn't even matter to them. It doesn't matter if we have these problems in the homeland or not, for them America will still be superior. I highly doubt that a utopian society can exist, and I think people who agree with this assessment are realists. Thus, I think the [democrats] have a more realistic view of our current [situation] here in America, and the fact that treating the issues is better than treating the symptoms.

3. I'm going to vote [democrat] until the current one party [dominance] in Washington is over. The right side so far have only been treating the [symptoms] and not the issues within all of these countries. We do not exist in a [vacuum]; the current issues have [arose] for various reasons, not because we are the hardest working people who ever existed. I would like to see the people who claim this trade their job with all its stress with the 12 year old in Iraqi who is barely able to [survive] by defusing and digging up mines to sell to warring groups. The reason America is a superpower was because we did not become involved in the second world war until much later than the other countries. (Cite 21)

Cite 21: Actually, according to Global Politics. Two reasons. The first is what I mentioned above. The wars were being fight in Europe, and, therefore, European countries suffered the most. The second reason was because of colonialism and possibly slavery, but I don‘t know about that. The third world is in the state it is in because western nations have exploited it.


The reason all these countries in the world hate us is because of our… push against socialism (Cite 23).

Cite 23: A good example would be McCarthyism.

The fact that all of these nations were divided over the issue of capitalism verses socialism: North Korea (socialist) verses South Korea, the division of East and West Germany, the division of North and South Vietnam. Why is China currently against us? They remember this, they think the U.S. is opposed to socialism, and a majority of these country is (Cite 24).


Cite 24: Well, obviously, how could China forget. Their current government was what threw over the puppet government the U.S. tried to place in power there. This information can also be found in the book, Global Politics.

These issues of hostility have to be addressed - we can torture and kill as many terrorists as we want, however, if we fail to overcome these issues there will be an endless supply of terrorists. IF we fail to address the poverty of the third world that has arisen because of the ignorance of the western powers there will be an endless supply of terrorists. (cite 25)

Cite 25: My person opinion on the matter. Not to mention that torture is simply ineffective because people will say anything to stop sever psychological stress. Furthermore, their “torture” is not just “playing loud music” though that was an example. Another example would be tying them in awkward positions and making them stand that way for hours upon hours. I mean really, do you think terrorists are that stupid and weak that they would break because of “loud music?” I think this is the image that the media has painted for them, they are humans and not below average intelligent. Their means of torture are more sever. Second, what’s the criterion for them being guilty? Them saying that they were tied to the instance under sever psychological or physical stress? Third, why are we even defining this? I’d like to see when we define “rape” as justifiable, but if it worked to yield an answer, hey, why not, right? How about torturing their wife too, that also might reveal some answers. The whole thing just doesn’t make sense to me, anyway you look at it.


It's the issues that are important, its the issues which are harder to overcome. And these [republicans] in office haven't addressed any of them, not to meant that the border to Mexico is wide open and we currently have 300,000 or so immigrants in America that seemed to be able to get in just fine (Cite 26). While they say our economy is going up, yes spending for the higher class has come up. The president didn't address the fact that 1 and 5 or so Americans have health care (Cite 27), that poverty levels have increased along with the gap between the rich and poor. Education is getting worse (Cite 28 ). Since bush was put in office education as far as what I'm seeing as a college student, has seemed to spike and loans are harder to get - they are becoming privatized (Cite 29). I'm working on getting a degree and I'm wondering how am even going to get a job. My brother has a 3.9 GPA, studied at Cambridge for a semester, and works had a job that is much much beneath him. These politicians are not focused on issues that are relevant to the middle-class in any way, and I'm sick of it.






Cite 26: This something that I saw on CNN. I’m having trouble finding what I would consider to be an okay or good source for this; however, that’s not to say that I won’t when I get the time.

Cite 27: Wiki says that in 2004 about 15.7% of Americans were without health insurance. I don’t know if this is 1-5, though that’s what I was told in my health class; however, this is still a rather large percent of people.

Cite 28: My biology class. Most students are now confused about evolution and intelligent design/creationism. A number of students who believe earth is the center of the universe have also increased. Furthermore, the United States placement results in math and reading are lower than a lot of other countries in comparison to how wealthy of a nation we are.

Cite 29: This is from my personal experience. The FAFSA has changed its requirements for getting loans. The last loan that I got was 3,000 dollars short from what I usually get. Why? Because living expensive are no longer an accurate way to assess the actual income a person makes. For example, medical issues used to be a ligament reason for showing that you are living from less than what it seems. They don’t do this anymore, which is a huge squeeze on the middle-class and the reason my loan was short. Also the reason why I had to find a cheaper place to live.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Like I said, I don't particularly care if I'm right or wrong, but if you want to evaluate my post, now you can. Or if you are interested in this subject and have relevant information that counters what I posted, feel free to do so. In fact, i'd apprecaite it becuase its hard for me to find time for issues like this, though I try because its an interest of mine.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

I guess the statistic that 1 and 5 people are without health care would be accurate because that would be about 20 percent. Generally, large surveys have a margin of error of around 3 or 4, so it's probably something like 16-20 percent.

[RobTheDrummer]

See, now that clears things up.

[songsmith]

Ya gotta give the guy props for backing himself up. Any evangelical neocon I ever had to discuss with wanted hard facts on a page, and had plenty of Christian Science Monitor research to back himself up. Sure, Captain Grammar would have a field day, but I appreciated his stance, especially on atheism. Christians are actually offended that atheists don't believe in their deity. Offended. They take it as an insult to their sensibilities... if you don't believe me, go to any conservative forum, religious or not, and say,"There is no God." You will be, for lack of a better word, crucified. For some reason, Christians feel that not only is the only way to eternal salvation through Christ, but the only way to morality as well. If you are not Christian, you cannot be a good person.
I say bull.
Also, Christianity changes per accepted social norms, but Christians do not accept this as change, because change happens so slowly in an environment of conservative values, it's perceived as Christianity staying the same. Everybody knows it's wrong to smoke tobacco, take drugs, listen to "devil music," etc. Show me in the Bible where it mentions any of those things (oh, and the "body is a temple" defense, that won't work... otherwise we'd all be buying millet and mannah at the grocery store, because everything else is bad for you). You can point to metaphors and generalizations, but as a former Sunday school teacher, and current atheist, so could I. All Sabbath-day long. Fundamentalism is supposed to be the definition of Bible as truth, not Bible as viable metaphor.
I have a question for the anti-atheists:
If there is but one God, perfect and unchanging, undeniable and unstoppable, why are there so many denominations? Could it be that God exists in the hearts and minds of man, and so man's interpretations of Him define Him? Sure, it's a deep question, but religion's perhaps the deepest human avocation, and if people pass their worldview through a filter of God-based morality, I think it's a relevant question.
Go ahead and pray for me, and say, "Bless you," when I sneeze. I'm not offended at all.-------->JMS

[FretBored]

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Thanks a lot songsmith. I'll be the first to admit that my grammar in the post wasn't all that great, but like you implied, being anal-retentive about grammar really avoids the issues. I’d be happy to clarify anything in my previous posts if they are not readable, and if anyone is actually interested in the argument I proposed they should be willing to let me put its best face forward before they evaluate it.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't have a problem with people saying "bless you" to me, forming religious groups in school (as long as its not religion in a science class for a variety of reasons that I don't mind discussing with anyone who wants to know why), getting a religious oriented card from someone, the words “under God” in the pledge, people inviting me to religious clubs on campus, etc. Generally, I can tell if someone from a religious background is being friendly/wishing me well or not. My problem is what I outlined above - religious discrimination.

When an atheist tells someone their religious position and the response is "I'll pray for you," like I said, it forms a dichotomy of discrimination. It’s the equivalent of the person saying “you’re unintelligent,” “you’re just angry,” “my religion is better than yours.” And, at the same time, what’s possibly even worst, depending on how you look at it, is that they're hiding the sleazy comment under their religious belief, which provides justification for it. If they are seriously religious, and not just wanting to feel confident and self-satisfied by a false-sense of righteousness, they should avoid justifying their discrimination by their religion.

[Hawk]

Thanks a lot songsmith. I'll be the first to admit that my grammar in the post wasn't all that great, but like you implied, being anal-retentive about grammar really avoids the issues. I’d be happy to clarify anything in my previous posts if they are not readable, and if anyone is actually interested in the argument I proposed they should be willing to let me put its best face forward before they evaluate it.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't have a problem with people saying "bless you" to me, forming religious groups in school (as long as its not religion in a science class for a variety of reasons that I don't mind discussing with anyone who wants to know why), getting a religious oriented card from someone, the words “under God” in the pledge, people inviting me to religious clubs on campus, etc. Generally, I can tell if someone from a religious background is being friendly/wishing me well or not. My problem is what I outlined above - religious discrimination.

When an atheist tells someone their religious position and the response is "I'll pray for you," like I said, it forms a dichotomy of discrimination. It’s the equivalent of the person saying “you’re unintelligent,” “you’re just angry,” “my religion is better than yours.” And, at the same time, what’s possibly even worst, depending on how you look at it, is that they're hiding the sleazy comment under their religious belief, which provides justification for it. If they are seriously religious, and not just wanting to feel confident and self-satisfied by a false-sense of righteousness, they should avoid justifying their discrimination by their religion.

To be honest, I dont understand you. Or more precisely, your ideas. I pray for everyone, including you. But this is in no way an expression of righteousness (real or false). Nor is it for satisfaction. The fact is I am humbled, not by religion, but by God.

You cannot judge God by the men who teach about God. And remember, all religions are controlled by men, not by God. And no man is perfect, or even close to perfect. So many men get it wrong sometimes. Therefore, no religion can be perfect.

God seems to be a mystery by his own design. There have always been self righteous men who think they have God figured out, and that gives them the right to judge others. God is the only judge. I don't judge those men, I just don't agree with what they are trying to do.

I am not a religious fanatic who thinks he has all the answers. I am humbled by both the simplicity and the complexity of the Bible. No man expects himself to be perfect. So I expect no one else to be perfect. I accept people for what they are, quietly praying that they are doing the best they can with the hand they were dealt. And since I do believe in heaven, that they all get to heaven.

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

not to hi-jack the thread.. but i quote dane cook..

"I was raised Catholic.. and I'm standing here in this elevator, and this man beside me sneezes, and doesn't even cover his mouth.. he just cocks his head to the side and phew!! cock and phew!!, and trying to be as pleasant as I can be, I tell him "God Bless You".. I never say just "Bless You".. I'm not god, I cant bless him, so I kindly say "God Bless You".. but in a tone of mouth that could imply.. "cover your fucking mouth.." he looks at me and says "I don't believe in God"..

He then asked me if I were a christian.. and I tell him 'catholic', he begins laughing and asks me what I believe happens upon death.. I tell him "I don't know, but I hope that I go to Heaven, and all my ancestors are there... " "Hey Hey.. look who's dead now!!!!".. he begins to laugh and I ask him what he is, and he says he is an athiest.. What do I say to that? I didn't want to come out front and say "hahaha NOTHING HAPPENS WHEN YOU DIE!!!!" he continues to laugh at me and I ask him "Well what do you believe in?" he begins to laugh.. and says "Oh, I know what happens when I die.." and he starts to laugh again as if he's going to school me.. he says "When I die, I will become one with the earth, and contribute to the continuation of earth, as a tree.."

I'm completely baffled here, I don't know what to say.. I don't know all that much about trees.. I mean, what do trees do? I know they do a lot of work with breezes.. but what I really wanted to say to him is.. "Yeah, well I hope that when you die.. you become a big billowing tree in the middle of the woods.. you're sitting there one day, doing your thing.. and all the sudden BAM! a fucking lumberjack with a giant axe begins whailing on you.. BAM, BAM, BAM! he cuts you down, grabs a big chain, drags you through the woods, puts you into a plainer, planes you down, turns you into paper.. and they print bibles on you!"

- Dane Cook
(thats not entirely accurate in syntax.. but pretty damned close)

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Jason: Thanks a lot songsmith. I'll be the first to admit that my grammar in the post wasn't all that great, but like you implied, being anal-retentive about grammar really avoids the issues. I’d be happy to clarify anything in my previous posts if they are not readable, and if anyone is actually interested in the argument I proposed they should be willing to let me put its best face forward before they evaluate it.

Anyway, I agree with a lot of what you said. I don't have a problem with people saying "bless you" to me, forming religious groups in school (as long as its not religion in a science class for a variety of reasons that I don't mind discussing with anyone who wants to know why), getting a religious oriented card from someone, the words “under God” in the pledge, people inviting me to religious clubs on campus, etc. Generally, I can tell if someone from a religious background is being friendly/wishing me well or not. My problem is what I outlined above - religious discrimination.

When an atheist tells someone their religious position and the response is "I'll pray for you," like I said, it forms a dichotomy of discrimination. It’s the equivalent of the person saying “you’re unintelligent,” “you’re just angry,” “my religion is better than yours.” And, at the same time, what’s possibly even worst, depending on how you look at it, is that they're hiding the sleazy comment under their religious belief, which provides justification for it. If they are seriously religious, and not just wanting to feel confident and self-satisfied by a false-sense of righteousness, they should avoid justifying their discrimination by their religion.

Hawk: To be honest, I dont understand you. Or more precisely, your ideas. I pray for everyone, including you.

Jason: That's fine. You can pray for me or for anyone, this isn't what I'm talking about. I'm talking about people who feel that they are superior to others because they have a different religious view.

Hawk: But this is in no way an expression of righteousness (real or false). Nor is it for satisfaction. The fact is I am humbled, not by religion, but by God.

Jason: Okay, the paricular example that I am talking about is people who get a sense of satisfaction from persenting their religion like it is better than another persons.


Hawk: You cannot judge God by the men who teach about God.

Jason: I'm not judging God. I happen to not believe in God, it wouldn't makse sense for me to judge him or whatever.

Hawk: And remember, all religions are controlled by men, not by God. And no man is perfect, or even close to perfect. So many men get it wrong sometimes. Therefore, no religion can be perfect.

Jason: I completely agree. For my own worldview, I also think a scientific mindset isn't exactly perfect either because it has to be falsifable.

HawK: God seems to be a mystery by his own design. There have always been self righteous men who think they have God figured out, and that gives them the right to judge others. God is the only judge. I don't judge those men, I just don't agree with what they are trying to do.

Jason: We're in complete agreement than. I previously stated this:

"If you believe in the New Testament, wouldn't you think that [such] a condescending remark to someone is [judgmental]...and playing God. Can you really tell us matters of the soul? [Interpret] the absolute message of the Gods? Let the [judgment] of souls and individuals be in the hands of your God."


Hawk: I am not a religious fanatic who thinks he has all the answers. I am humbled by both the simplicity and the complexity of the Bible. No man expects himself to be perfect. So I expect no one else to be perfect. I accept people for what they are, quietly praying that they are doing the best they can with the hand they were dealt. And since I do believe in heaven, that they all get to heaven.

Jason: This is the form of religion that I appreciate and have absolutely no problem with. The problem that I am addressing in my post is religious discrimination, not praying, I'm fine with that. Like I said, you can usually tell the difference between someone who's being nice to you and when someone says it out of spite. I'm trying to address the difference in attitude between the two, though maybe not clearly enough.

[Hawk]

Jason, I'm not sure how to clearly ask this question, but I'll try. Do you see a parallel atheist (or secular) mind set where some atheists have the mentality that , for example, they are smarter then me, because they know there is no God ? Enabling them to feel superior to the religious ?

[AtoMikEnRtiA]

Jason, I'm not sure how to clearly ask this question, but I'll try. Do you see a parallel atheist (or secular) mind set where some atheists have the mentality that , for example, they are smarter then me, because they know there is no God ? Enabling them to feel superior to the religious ?

Ill answer that with my own opinion.. as somebody with my own beliefs.. and Ive documented it for quite some time that I feel Religion is a disease, some have called it a "neurological psychosis" and I agree.. I do not feel more intellegent or humanly superior to the religious because of their choice to worship God.. however I do think of myself as more mentally enlightened, and in my personal belief, enlightenment = superiority..

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Jason, I'm not sure how to clearly ask this question, but I'll try. Do you see a parallel atheist (or secular) mind set where some atheists have the mentality that , for example, they are smarter then me, because they know there is no God ? Enabling them to feel superior to the religious ?

Yes, I could see this. I think it occurs when people think that they've found some form of objective truth. I also define the word "atheist" differently from "someone who knows that there is no God." I define it as a "lack of believe in God." By my definition most Buddhists are atheists, but atheists are not buddhists. So technically I would be an atheist-agnostic.

I divide the terms because I think that you can either be

A.) An athiest
B.) A theist

And than you have a separate believe about the degree of knowledge that you can have. You are either a

A.) Agnostic (there is no truth)
B.) Gnostic (there is truth).

So, I can definiately see how gnostic-atheists would think that they are supierior to Christians, and see how Christians who believe they are objectivly right would judge atheists. I think this occurs for a lot of reasons. Here are a few that I've witnessed.

1.) They have just changed from their religion to atheism. Usually, they are somewhat sick of religion because they are constantly exposed to it. Furthermore, they might see a tendency for the religious to be hypocritical especially when politics are concerned. For example, over half of all the illgeal acitivity cited by the I.R.S. in 2004 were commited by churches supporting conservative politicians. They think that religion has aligned itself with neoconservtism (which isn't true, of course), and most atheists are left leaning or Libertarians.

2.) The issue of religion in America is growing increasingly more controversial since the September 11 attacks. The attacks for some Atheists have become justification that extreme religion is dangerous, and that moderate religion provides a shield for fundmentalism. As long as there are religious moderates, they cannot attack the fundmentalist (I'm not saying that these views are sound). An example of one atheist who's done this has been Sam Harris in his book The End of Faith.

3.) There has been an increase in religious ideology effecting science. A few examples would be science education, stem cell research, aborition, and reasons for sexual orientation. Most athiests understanding of the world comes from scientifiic thought. Most scientists are atheists or agnostics. There resposne to this religious ideology has been to form groups... so now we have groups of scientists that are forming political organizations that will vote for science friendly canidates. This isn't their fault; they can't do their job under the current situations.

4.) They were told that religious beliefs were objective, and when they found out there were other ways to approach the issue, they felt betrayed. They responded by propelling themselves in the completely oppisite direction.

5.) Debate with an atheist would be hard beause debate is centered around logic and scientfic examples. They feel that this makes them more intelligent because, for most of them, this is the requirements for their beliefs. This does not mean that their viewpoints are "true," it just means that they work... becuase they can readily apply their views and because their ideas yield practical results, they feel more intelligent. However, you can't study religion by this criterion because it attempts to explain fundmentally different questions than what science attempts to tell us. Science tries to tell us how the world works.

6.) Many atheists think that religion is idealism... and to some extent it can be. They are confused how people can believe, through faith, which they consider to be opinion, that the world was actually created in six days or whatever. They think idealism isn't particularly intelligent. I guess I would have to agree that idealism is possibly dangerous, and I obviously agree that faith is opinion because it's unjustifiable, but I don't think this makes them stuipid - it's not an issue of intelligence. The religious aren't attempting to show someone that these beliefs are logical - they have faith that this is true.

7.) They read the lines in the Bible that basically state that once you become an athiest you are condemned to hell permeantly even if you later change your mind... plus all the perscutation against "heathens" back in those days.

8.) They met Christians who actually bought into those lines.

9.) Their sick of fundmentalists trying to convert them.


Usually, it seems that fundemntalists have given religion a bad name... and ususally the atheists think that all religious people are fundmentalist neoconservatives. :shrugs: I would say that's a pretty bad sterotype.

[Jason_of_soundrive]

Let me give you another example. I know a Christian that I would consider a terrible person. All he does is attempt to convert people to Christianity, acts completely condencending to people of other faiths, and, generally speaking, harasses everyone he comes into contact with. What's interesting is that he was a Satanist before he was a Christian, and he harassed people just as much. Though his world view changed, his personality hasn't at all.

[bassist_25]

I think the true idea behind the agnostic position comes from the simple fact that a null hypothesis cannot be proven nor disproven. It is simply rejected if evidence disconfirms it or suggests an alternate outcome. I think that's what Jason was getting at by comparing athiests and agnostics. An athiest states that there is no higher being just because there isn't any evidence to support it, which would be accepting the null hypothesis as a fact, which of course would be faulty logic. That's like saying that OJ didn't commit the murders simply because no evidence suggested so. He very well may have commited the murders.

I think that agnostics take more of an objective approach and realize the fact that there is no evidence to confirm nor disconfirm the null hypothesis (i.e. God doesn't exist). Just because there's no immediate empirical proof of God's existence doesn't mean that the existence of God is null. Of course, when taking the empirical view of whether God exists, then one is also gambling on the consequence of not having faith in God. I suppose that's when Pascal's Wager comes into play, but that's a tangent for when it isn't five till one in the morning and I'm hopped up on cappuccino.

[songsmith]

If that person was a Satanist, and is now a Fundamentalist Evangelical, there may be a good chance that his religious beliefs are based simply in his psychosis(es). He may be using religion as a prod to annoyingly seek attention. Religiosity (as opposed to religion) is symptom of mental illness (I think Bassist25 could comment on that).

My own personal arrival at atheism stems from my Pentecostal upbringing. I saw the rituals, such as speaking in tongues and the "Gifts of the Holy Spirit," and to me it was like watching a magician at a child's birthday party... I immediately saw through everything... even as a kid, I could tell it was forced and fake. Messages supposedly from God himself were nothing more than judgemental diatribes spoken in the dialect of Central PA. Okay, if these people are whacked, I thought, then I have to delve into my own raison d'etre, and really give my spirituality some deep thought. What I came up with after many years was an appreciation for scientific thought, and an acceptance of my own mortality.
I don't judge people for being religious, even though they judge me for not being religious. I do judge them for being stupid, or mean, or irresponsible, but that's just me.

To get the thread back on course, however, the rhetoric's just popping like popcorn now. Santorum's making moves in the polls, but the GOP-ers are really hurting for support, and are distancing themselves (however temporarily) from the Bush administration. Hannity's stretched tighter than a drum and he gets more agitated every day. Even ol' Rushy's tripping on his d*ck more, and calling some incumbents "Cut and Run Republicans." The Dems offer no real solutions, but at least right now... they don't need to. They just need to sit there, shut up, and let the other guys implode. Fox News is a nonstop comedy show, and reports on anything BUT Iraq and Foley. I just freakin' love this sh*t. Who'd have thought a bluegrass-pickin' hillbilly could be so political.------->JMS

[Hawk]

Personally, I feel anyone can come back to God. I also see a science proving many things in the Bible to be true.

For example, I dont believe in evolution. Science can prove that species mutate or change, but it can't prove that one species evolved from another.

Science has , so far, proven by DNA that all people have seven common ancestors. I believe they will eventually find it will be one.

Back on track.

Bush still wants to "Stay the course". He has become a dictator in the truest sence of the word. He USES God to push his agenda. I hope we can elect a balance of power in congress.