HOORAY for atheism!!!

[oldschooldoc]

I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative.. so expect a visceral reaction

Karakara, how is it that atheist posting their message is provocative, but religious messages that appear EVERYWHERE aren't? I don't understand this argument from the religious. It seems to me that a message from a religious person or institution tells me directly (and I say this because I am a non-believer, and that is who the messages are aimed at) that I am going to "hell" for what I DON'T believe is rather provocative.

Do you disagree?

[McQ]

Thanks to all for getting this going back towards the original topic. I'll ask that we keep it going that way and save any other issues from here on for PMs or a different thread.

[karakara]

Keep? I can think of only one 'insult', and that not intentional, but an ill attempt at humour that didn't hit it's mark, but that fact that it was perceived as an insult.. .. what else did I do? If you ever choose to peruse through, say, a random sample of my posts, I think you'll see plenty of 'discourse'.. whether it's intelligent or not isn't for me to say ;-)

Well to me it's insulting, when someone disregards my half of the discourse , only to comment (humorous or not) on what I have to say to a completely different individual. And since you kept on disregarding my questions, even after your attempt at humor, I found this insulting as well. As I stated earlier, I think that when you actually do engage in discourse, it comes across as intelligent. My point was, that when one is not ready to substantiate ones claims, it is hardly considered a discourse. All I ask, is that when you assert something (or adress other people's assertions) - that you're willing to back it up by dialogue. I mean what else could be the point of a site like this? As you wrote yourself:

I read, fire off a response, and do it as fast as I can.. sometimes I don't even have time to edit..or rethink something..

Fair enough, that's the case for most of us. The problem was, that you didn't answer me, but dissed a remark that wasn't ment for you. I'd rather have a response to the posts that matter - even if it is not well thought through.  
I have to get back to work... I think this particular topic is a case of ' We'll see '. I have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Sat Nam, Waheguru!

- Zara

[karakara]

I say 'nonsense', because you're not promoting intelligent discourse, but simply being provocative.. so expect a visceral reaction

Karakara, how is it that atheist posting their message is provocative, but religious messages that appear EVERYWHERE aren't? I don't understand this argument from the religious. It seems to me that a message from a religious person or institution tells me directly (and I say this because I am a non-believer, and that is who the messages are aimed at) that I am going to "hell" for what I DON'T believe is rather provocative.

Do you disagree?

Yes, it can be called provocative.. but I think actually, it's more reactionary than provocative. It's a reaction that's fear-based. Sounds like a Fundamentalist Christian. As if they're any worse than any Fundamentalist of any religion. Zealots.. well, I've run into an Atheist zealot or two myself..  I understand where you're coming from. But to answer your first questions, no, religious messages appearing 'everywhere' are not provocative...  since as I've discussed in previous threads, something on the order of high 95+% of the Human Race, from as far back as we have any evidence, has professed belief in deities, religions...  so belief in God is the Human Norm by any objective measure. So of course you're seeing religious messages everywhere, it's the Human Norm. That's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows..   the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

[Zarathustra]

Now you're sounding like a crybaby ;-) .. << yes, a joke.. I bet it didn't go over too well for the millisecond it took to get to my disclaimer.

You're right... hope that you're not pursuing a career doing stand up comedy   Leaving aside that all cognitive research shows, that subsequent beliefs initially branches down from what we percieve. That's a different discussion all together.
But if I just accept your premise. Then tell me the following: My cognitive algorithm is - among other things - my philosophical education. Every day on my way to school, I passed this church. On the front - in HUGE golden letters - it said/says: "the Lord and Jesus is the truth!" This is not even a temporary campaign, but a permanent one. (And not the only one by far.)
Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth". So to me, the statement on the church is a frontal assault!
Thus I made the analogy! I abide religious messages 1000 times every day, that tells me my worldview is wrong!. Why can't the religious abide the atheist one?

It's not nonsense.. and it is. Not nonsense to you, but nonsense to those who perceive it as such. Zar, I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

Exactly! I percieve "the Lord is the truth" to be nonsensical. Do you see my point now: - Why is it that I shall abide nonsense anytime, but they are "offended"?

I have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Do you still think so, after this post?

General view (not only adressing Kara): My peronal opinion on the subject above is this: I think that deep down, most religious people have a little voice. A voice of reason. This voice continuosly whispers to them: "This religious concept of mine is not coheering with everything else. New scientific discovery usually means that another part of my religion is wrong. I might be wrong in my thinking that there is a god!" - Now this little inner skeptic, scares the shit out of them. ("I'll end up in hell, because of these thoughts".) So they choose, not only to ignore this voice, but to stifle this voice of conscience/rationality. A campaign likes this, makes it VERY hard to stifle their inner voice. That's why they get so angry! If they were so sure of the truth, why would it bother them so much?
I even think that the louder your inner voice is, the louder you speak (or worse as in the case of this subject; act) to the contrary in public debate. It's the only way to avoid listening! - Now this is MY gut intuition! But then again, I'm European and hence in a very secular mode of thinking.

[oldschooldoc]

That's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows.. the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

Thank you for the quote. This is what has gone wrong exactly. At some point in the distant past (recent past if you use universal timescale as opposed to human perception of time) a small child living in a cave asked his/her large-browed parents where rain came from (insert any other seemingly 'miraculous' event, as it would have seemed at that point). Their answer? Well, they didn't have one, so they made up a nice bed time story about a 'rain god'. Well, this story, and many others originating from questions without answers, were perpetuated and changed as a result of a millions-of-years-long game of telephone. The version of the story being told now? There is an almighty, single being who not only created us, but controls every aspect of human life. Now, thanks to human complacency and lack of science in the past, religion is perceived as normal.

What atheism, in the name of science and reason, is trying to do is open peoples' minds and help them to shed superstition to make room for what is real. I know, I know, you were an atheist and I'm being biased in saying what is real. My point is that (yes after all this rambling, I finally have a point) just because our message is not the mainstream and a 'normal part of society and culture' does instantly make it provocative. Maybe if the message on the bus said 'If you believe in god, you are f*cking dimwit' then yes it would indeed be provocative. I agree with Zarathustra in his assertion that

This is not a campaign, against any organized religion. It's a campaign for the people, offering the chance to think things through!

Don't demean it as provocative because you don't agree. And, just to preempt any attack on my calling religious messages provocative, I would like to say THEY ARE. I don't tell religious people that bad things are going to happen to them because of their beliefs.

[karakara]

Now you're sounding like a crybaby ;-) .. << yes, a joke.. I bet it didn't go over too well for the millisecond it took to get to my disclaimer.

Zarathustra: You're right... hope that you're not pursuing a career doing stand up comedy   Leaving aside that all cognitive research shows, that subsequent beliefs initially branches down from what we percieve. That's a different discussion all together. karakara: yes it is, I think you're actually paraphrasing me, it was my point entirely...

But if I just accept your premise. Then tell me the following: My cognitive algorithm is - among other things - my philosophical education.
karakara: Indeed, among other things. In the grand totality of what makes you, you, your 'philosophical education' , I'd wager, is only a small percentage... the whole 'nature-nurture', and the belief of many psychologists that it's not one or the other, but both that make us what and who we are.. but this is your chosen label, as I choose 'Sikh'. I accept this much...

 Every day on my way to school, I passed this church. On the front - in HUGE golden letters - it said/says: "the Lord and Jesus is the truth!" This is not even a temporary campaign, but a permanent one. (And not the only one by far.)
karakara: I see them myself., they're everywhere.. whether the message is 'Truth', 'Saves', 'Loves', etc. Doesn't shake my own faith or lead to a crisis one bit, this is just 'Christians being Christians'.

Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth". So to me, the statement on the church is a frontal assault!
karakara: This is in fact a better analogy that some I've seen recently. But.. not a perfect analogy.. maybe there is no perfect analogy though. The bus banner is a shot at all people of faith.. this sign on the church is simply Christians boasting, making a claim about their 'Savior', which you can accept of just as easily dismiss..


Thus I made the analogy! I abide religious messages 1000 times every day, that tells me my worldview is wrong!. Why can't the religious abide the atheist one?
karakara: There's nothing new under the sun, as they say, about religions, cults, etc., making claims. In doing so, they're making some assertion, usually one of the things they're most proud of, or what they believe sets them apart, about their deity or faith, belief: They're making a statement about themselves and their faith. The bus banner was saying nothing about the Atheist philosophy or 'movement', such as 'Come join is for rational discussion and thought-provoking conversation at the Atheist Lodge... etc.,', but it was a targeted at all people of faith. There's the difference. You can abide assorted religious messages (in the context here.. public messages, signs, etc.) because for the most part they're just bombastic assertions of their own slogans.. it's not like you see churches putting up billboards saying Jews are damned to hell and the Muslim's Prophet was a Pedophile.. although you do see this and a lot more on the web..  and you've pretty much been conditioned to simply ignore them you're whole life, as they're part of the backdrop of any cityscape, etc. For the most part, their intent is not at provocation.

karakara wrote:
It's not nonsense.. and it is. Not nonsense to you, but nonsense to those who perceive it as such. Zar, I'm sure you can see where I'm going.

Exactly! I percieve "the Lord is the truth" to be nonsensical. Do you see my point now: - Why is it that I shall abide nonsense anytime, but they are "offended"?
karakara: I do see your point, but again, I think your analogy isn't exactly on target, if close. I think I made my point above.. I hope you're not hyper-sensitive-defensive about the sanctity of your 'analogy' as at least one other so-called 'Happy Atheist' is here.. I'm not dissing your analogy, I just think it still leaves room for debate.

karakara wrote:
I have no way of knowing if my gut intuition about the bus ads is correct, it remains to be seen.

Do you still think so, after this post?
karakara: Yes, I'll wait and see.. that's playing it safe.. and I'm not so cock-sure of myself as to say so.

General view (not only adressing Kara): My peronal opinion on the subject above is this: I think that deep down, most religious people have a little voice. A voice of reason. This voice continuosly whispers to them: "This religious concept of mine is not coheering with everything else. New scientific discovery usually means that another part of my religion is wrong. I might be wrong in my thinking that there is a god!" - Now this little inner skeptic, scares the shit out of them. ("I'll end up in hell, because of these thoughts".) So they choose, not only to ignore this voice, but to stifle this voice of conscience/rationality. A campaign likes this, makes it VERY hard to stifle their inner voice. That's why they get so angry! If they were so sure of the truth, why would it bother them so much?
I even think that the louder your inner voice is, the louder you speak (or worse as in the case of this subject; act) to the contrary in public debate. It's the only way to avoid listening! - Now this is MY gut intuition! But then again, I'm European and hence in a very secular mode of thinking.

Well, we all are entitled to our personal views, and we all have 'em.  I'll address this later, back to work.

Sat Nam, Waheguru!

karakara

[karakara]

Zarathustra wrote: Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth".[/b]

Now, this is truly substantive and significant, one of the most substantive and revealing utterances I've seen posted by anyone on either side of the fence since I've joined the company of you 'Happy Atheists'......and at the risk of quoting you out of context (i.e., context of the bus banners and our respective analogies) I bring it up here because it can stand on it's own, regardless of context. This is the sign of a mind with which I must, if not agree on everything, then at least take seriously. This is a 'grounded mind', and a term I use as it was a favorite of my ....  Philosophy Professor(!, and how ironic...) in college.. grounded on many levels, but as we were speaking of cognitive algorithms as determining factors in 'world views', etc., then again, near the top and as one of the foundations for this algorithm is the concern for truth, what constitutes truth, absolute and relative truth, Reality, what constitutes 'knowledge' vs. 'belief', etc. For a mind which considers these issues as paramount to the validity of one's own outlook.. ever  seeking the nature of truth and reality, I believe this leads to an elevated sense of not only the ability to ascertain aspects of truth in everyday life, but also the ability to know oneself better, to 'evolve' on many levels. We associate the phrase 'Know Thyself' primarily with the Oracle of Delphi.. fascinating subject in and of itself, but significant that this mandate was purportedly inscribed above the door, or gate.. symbolic or factual, (now I segue), so it also is in the mystical traditions of the great Faiths, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and our Sufi friends... as prerequisite (or mandate)for achieving a higher knowledge.. when seeking 'Enlightenment' or taking the steps that bring one closer to God.. or penetrating the barrier (gate) of darkness and emerging into the light.. a prerequisite, as our Gurus will tell us, is to 'get our minds straight'.. and this has much to do with pondering the nature of Truth, Knowledge, Reality ... serious contemplation and reflection on these all-important concepts. Once the 'mind is right' and we have a solid understanding of Truth, Knowledge, and Reality.. and how it reflects Reality.. as Reality is, not as how we fantasize or desire it to be... are we finally ready at least in this respect to pass through a Gate .. now, 'Knowing Ourselves',  to be qualified to 'Know God'.

Sat Nam ("Truth is my Identity")  -- This is a Sikh name for God. Literally 'The True Name'
Waheguru! ("Wonderful Lord, Almightly God")

[karakara]

That's what humans do as a normal part of society and culture. So, being the contrary tiny minority... regardless of whether you're (collectively) right or wrong, raises eyebrows.. the subject is complex and cannot really be argued on this level..

Thank you for the quote. This is what has gone wrong exactly. At some point in the distant past (recent past if you use universal timescale as opposed to human perception of time) a small child living in a cave asked his/her large-browed parents where rain came from (insert any other seemingly 'miraculous' event, as it would have seemed at that point). Their answer? Well, they didn't have one, so they made up a nice bed time story about a 'rain god'. Well, this story, and many others originating from questions without answers, were perpetuated and changed as a result of a millions-of-years-long game of telephone. The version of the story being told now? There is an almighty, single being who not only created us, but controls every aspect of human life. Now, thanks to human complacency and lack of science in the past, religion is perceived as normal.

What atheism, in the name of science and reason, is trying to do is open peoples' minds and help them to shed superstition to make room for what is real. I know, I know, you were an atheist and I'm being biased in saying what is real. My point is that (yes after all this rambling, I finally have a point) just because our message is not the mainstream and a 'normal part of society and culture' does instantly make it provocative. Maybe if the message on the bus said 'If you believe in god, you are f*cking dimwit' then yes it would indeed be provocative. I agree with Zarathustra in his assertion that

This is not a campaign, against any organized religion. It's a campaign for the people, offering the chance to think things through!

Don't demean it as provocative because you don't agree. And, just to preempt any attack on my calling religious messages provocative, I would like to say THEY ARE. I don't tell religious people that bad things are going to happen to them because of their beliefs.

How remarkable, back to back synopses of the core concepts which formulate your respective ideas about religion.. well, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised, you guys are 'Happy Atheists' and it's your forum, so these confession do tend to come out. I'd like to get back to both.. if only time wasn't such a factor.. I must go.. but thanks both, this is both revealing and insightful, and that's what we're looking for in understanding, to gain insight.

Sat Nam, from a 'Happy Sikh!'

Waheguru!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3mleu2J7 ... re=related

[Zarathustra]

but this is your chosen label, as I choose 'Sikh'. I accept this much...

You're wrong! Unless your job is being a sikh!! - Since I have a formal education in philosophy, there is a distinct difference. So it's no more labelling myself than calling a plumber, a plumber.

 

I do see your point, but again, I think your analogy isn't exactly on target, if close. I think I made my point above.. I hope you're not hyper-sensitive-defensive about the sanctity of your 'analogy' as at least one other so-called 'Happy Atheist' is here.. I'm not dissing your analogy, I just think it still leaves room for debate.

It might. I'd just like you to make clear how the analogy is off point? I'm still not sure? Freedom of speech is a two-way street you know...

The bus banner is a shot at all people of faith.. this sign on the church is simply Christians boasting, making a claim about their 'Savior', which you can accept of just as easily dismiss..

I strongly disagree. They also define the word "truth" in a very wrong sense! And I restate my assertion: It is not an attack against people of faith. Your refusal of that was based on a strawman: You implied that I ment that in a condescending manner... I didn't! So back to work    We all do

[Zarathustra]

Kara please don't twist the meaning, without validation:

Zarathustra wrote: Now my problem is this: As a philosopher I concern myself a lot about the theory of knowledge. I'm very interested in understanding and researching, how we define concepts such as "knowledge" and "truth".[/b]

Now, this is truly substantive and significant, one of the most substantive and revealing utterances I've seen posted by anyone on either side of the fence since I've joined the company of you 'Happy Atheists'......and at the risk of quoting you out of context (i.e., context of the bus banners and our respective analogies) I bring it up here because it can stand on it's own, regardless of context. This is the sign of a mind with which I must, if not agree on everything, then at least take seriously.

Now here comes your flawed assumption, that will lead to an irrational jump:

This is a 'grounded mind', and a term I use as it was a favorite of my ....  Philosophy Professor(!, and how ironic...) in college.. grounded on many levels, but as we were speaking of cognitive algorithms as determining factors in 'world views', etc., then again, near the top and as one of the foundations for this algorithm is the concern for truth, what constitutes truth, absolute and relative truth, Reality, what constitutes 'knowledge' vs. 'belief', etc. For a mind which considers these issues as paramount to the validity of one's own outlook.. ever  seeking the nature of truth and reality,

BEWARE KAR, THIS IS WHERE YOU SUDDENLY MAKE THE STEP FROM THE RATIONAL TO THE IRRATIONAL (i.e. your own personal faith or belief) -->

I believe this leads to an elevated sense of not only the ability to ascertain aspects of truth in everyday life, but also the ability to know oneself better, to 'evolve' on many levels. We associate the phrase 'Know Thyself' primarily with the Oracle of Delphi.. fascinating subject in and of itself, but significant that this mandate was purportedly inscribed above the door, or gate.. symbolic or factual, (now I segue), so it also is in the mystical traditions of the great Faiths, such as Hinduism, Sikhism, and our Sufi friends... as prerequisite (or mandate)for achieving a higher knowledge.. when seeking 'Enlightenment' or taking the steps that bring one closer to God.. or penetrating the barrier (gate) of darkness and emerging into the light.. a prerequisite, as our Gurus will tell us, is to 'get our minds straight'.. and this has much to do with pondering the nature of Truth, Knowledge, Reality ... serious contemplation and reflection on these all-important concepts. Once the 'mind is right' and we have a solid understanding of Truth, Knowledge, and Reality.. and how it reflects Reality.. as Reality is, not as how we fantasize or desire it to be... are we finally ready at least in this respect to pass through a Gate .. now, 'Knowing Ourselves',  to be qualified to 'Know God'.

Was it a one term philosophy course? Covering all the history of philosophy perhaps? Did you even go near any theory of knowledge? You haven't reffered to any existing defintion of "truth" or "belief" that I have encountered in my six years at university.
Maybe this is why you think a jump to the mystical is coherent with those concepts. If this is not the case.... Then please explain how you get them working together.
I think you should start another thread though, since it is WAY of topic!

[Akwo]

I know I'm a bit late to jump into this, but I find this despicable. How could anyone support such an outright buffoonish censorship of an opinion. I know it's just buses, but that's completely unfair. It just twists my stomach up when I see things like this.