Are you really an atheist?

[Tristan Jay]

Or option B would be to respect other people's beliefs, under an inclusive secular law and cohabitate peacefully.
Do you think that would be better than war?

No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life. I'm not suggesting we should exterminate Muslims, but neither should they mess with us. But even that's not realistic. Christians and Muslims will always fight. The attacked us. We attacked them. Maybe it will quiet for a while, but there will be more wars. I thank God for our advanced nuclear weapons and missle technology. The nuclear submarine is a blessing to our nation.

As bad as that may sound, it's better than atheism ruling the world. For if atheists keep gaining influence in the Western World, Islamic Fundamentalism will take over. It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.

Wow, that sounds...yeerg.  Honor and dignity gained through antagonism and war?  I've not heard of any wars that are honorable and dignified in this day and age; and this seems strongly reinforced by the fact that we are able to more fully document wars with all kinds of media.  I'm not opposed to having the biggest, scariest stick, but for the purpose of not using them (so that nobody ends up using their war-sticks) and living a peaceful life, knowing that the defenses are enough to discourage potential antagonists.  Isn't there honor and dignity is being clever enough to not needing to resort to violence, while also not needing to compromising?

As for atheists ruling the world, I don't get the impression that atheists are preoccupied with ruling the world.  It sounds like something that religious people who are interesting in gaining political influence are paranoid about because they're projecting their own mentality onto others.

Do you mind if I ask, Egor, have you seen the comments about de-humanizing in one of your other threads?  I was personally so troubled by it, that I started a topic in another area of the forum to explore the terminology.  Would you mind commenting on your own perspective; are you familiar with this concept of dehumanization and what it leads to?  Can you comment on this with regard to your statements above?  I'm wanting to get an understanding as to why you talk about violence, killing, and highly destructive weaponry in a seemingly casual way.

[Whitney]

The Muslims sure won't.

Radical Islam is concentrated in a very few portions of the world just as radical christianity has been concentrated in a few areas in the past.  The Muslim you meet on a daily basis in the US just wants to be left alone and quit being compared with the crazies that do bad stuff in the name of their god.  People need to be careful with this partial-truth propaganda against Islam or we're going to find ourselves suffering through another embarrassing holocaust.  Most of the current Republican candidates probably wouldn't think twice about it if they believed for a moment they had the backing of their fundamentalist base....that's how all this mess got blown way out of proportion after 9/11 in the first place.

Oh...and if you think going to war over who's god is better is "dignified" then you can keep your dignity and I'll be whatever is opposite of that.  Frankly, that's just creepy.

[DeterminedJuliet]

There are 1.5 billion Muslims. If they were all radical crazies, we'd all be dead already. I currently live in an area where there are quite a few Muslims around and I've never, ever felt threatened by any of them. I'm glad Canada is a relatively laid-back place when it comes to this kind of thing, and I know "mult-culturalism" efforts can backfire and create more social and racial tensions, but, for the most part, it works pretty well here. When it comes to my real life experience of who is "getting in my face" about converting to their religion, it's Christians, not Muslims. I've never had a Muslim knock on my door to ask me if I've met Allah. I've never seen hateful "pro-life, pro-family" posters spread across the city by Muslims.

The reason why most Muslims hate the West and hate Christianity so much, I think,  is because they feel like the second crusades are happening. They don't feel like a "live and let live" policy is possible because there has been so much neo-colonialism by Western powers. Honestly, I don't blame them, to a partial degree, for feeling defensive. Antagonism will only give them more fuel.

[xSilverPhinx]

To a Muslim perhaps. I guess we'll just have to go to war in the end and let God sort it out.

Like Christianity did? Or did it simply spread through peaceful acceptance because Jesus is the better revelation?

I never understood why a powerful god who has all his creation in his best interests would hide and depend on people who are by nature flawed and can very easily fool themselves.  

Edited to add: though wars do rely to an extent on chance and good luck, in many situations there are the predictable outcomes of strategic games. But I won't go into that...just thought I had to throw it in there.

[xSilverPhinx]

The reason why most Muslims hate the West and hate Christianity so much, I think,  is because they feel like the second crusades are happening. They don't feel like a "live and let live" policy is possible because there has been so much neo-colonialism by Western powers. Honestly, I don't blame them, to a partial degree, for feeling defensive. Antagonism will only give them more fuel.

This^ Quoted for truth

Add the fundie muslims with their propaganda machines showing how the West is targeting them don't help either...they have a very strong religious identity which the fundies know how to use.

Christianity does add more antagonism than most other religions or atheism. It's another religion that's intolerable of unbelievers, though they've slowly crept out of the Dark Age, while Islam is still there. They're more simliar than different, in fact    

Multiculturalism can backfire, or least put up a resistance at first because usually the local cultures in which they're immersed (West) will usually win out over theirs, adding fuel to the hysteria. Causes them to segregate themselves into their own communities which doesn't help. It'll take a few generations before the picture becomes a bit clearer.

And seriously Egor, your discription of what 'dignity' means to use is looking more and more like simply being the big dog on the block. Even if it takes violence to make others submit.

And the kind of violence that only the weak feel they need to resort to.

[xSilverPhinx]

And you do realise that religions are run by atheists don't you? Nobody bright enough to run a religion would ever believe in it.

That's an excellent point.

What was it Seneca said, again..?

Sig passing through...

[history_geek]

Sorry to jump into this a bit late (darn last day of school before Xmas holidays and slow hunk of scrap of a computer!), but I suppose I'll have to start from the beginning of this thread (I actaully read the first page, after which I had to calm down for a moment before returning to answer.....)

But anyway, let's get started. Now, I call my self a Gnostic Agnostic Atheist (though, I suppose I shold add Ingnostic in there as well...). To break that down, I'm a gnostic, because I know that all the religions and their "gods" are man-made fairytales that have little to do with actual reality, other then as alternative early historical/fantasy fiction. However, I'm also an agnostic becauce I won't compleatly write off the possibility that there might be beings that we might consiger "gods", but to determine that we really need a defention for what a "god" is suposed to be, hence ignostic. And lastly, I do not believe in the "gods" of man-made religions the same way I do not believe that the Three Little Pigs and the Big Bad Wolf are real, or that they ever were. And even if there were beings that would fit a propper defenition of "god", i still see no reason why I should be on my hands and knees kissing their boots (or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language), and worship them just for being "gods". They have to earn the respect and possible, yet un-likely, worship from me the same way everyone else can earn it.

Now, when I speak about "proper defenition of "god"", I mean that we need a defention that is both consitent and one most if not everyone can agree on. However, defenitions like these are just a tip of the iceberg:

Definition of GOD

1 capitalized: the supreme or ultimate reality: as
a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe
b: Christian Science: the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Mind

2: a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically: one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality

3: a person or thing of supreme value

4: a powerful ruler

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/god

(On another note, the defenition of athesim found on this page is "doctrine that there is no god(s)" or "a disbelief in the existence of deity", while athesit is "one who believes that there is no deity" ??? There were a number of comments that refuted these defenitions, but apparently they are yet to be properly adressed)

And then there are the "well MY 'god'"-arguments and defenitions that are differ from person to person. Even if there was a non-contradictory defention made, would it mean they would exist, or that I would believe in them? No. And even if I was given propper evidence or even better and audience with such creatures, would I worship them? Most likely not, unless they were the kinds of a-holes that like to make everything with a pulse to their slaves with mind-control....and no Asmo. No.


Also, "Seneca the Younger For The Win " vote from me as well

[Recusant]

. . .(or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language). . .

There is no rule at HAF about "foul language." The closest the rules come to dealing with this is the "Work Friendly" rule, which is specifically targeted toward images and videos (when the functionality to post videos is restored, which I think it probably will be at some point) that are "Not Safe For Work."

Most members here don't use foul language that often, but I think that's because they are articulate enough not to have to depend on it, and only use it sparingly when it seems appropriate, rather than debasing its effectiveness by overuse. So, I think that it would be well within the rules as they are currently written to say something like, ". . . kissing the fucking imaginary hairy ass of YHVH," if you felt that it was an effective description of your sentiment. 

What is definitely not acceptable here (as I understand the Civility Rule) is cursing fellow members, demeaning them or using abusive (or racist) language towards them.

[Jose AR]

Hello Egor,
I am not sure of your intentions in asking this question on this forum. Perhaps you have some kind of smug enjoyment knowing that you know something that is true while everyone else is wrong. Maybe you feel it is your duty to challenge the godless and wake them to your knowledge. It seems that you feel you have arrived at some strong logic able to defeat unarmed atheist.

Your question comes in two parts and so I will respond in two parts.

Is god impossible?
Nothing is impossible. your god is not impossible, there I said it. But neither is thor, or zeus.
The quality of being possible is not proof of god. it is only proof of the possible. These are not just words.
While anything is possible, far fewer things are probable, your god among them

Do you believe that god never/never will exist?
A being that intervenes in matters of the world, and created the world, has relationships with physical matter and is subject to physical reality. god is Material and subject to material reality. material reality is not subject to belief. I don't believe in trees or clould, they just are. removing god from material reality is fine with me, but you must admit that such things are just ideas. So while there has never been material proof in the physical existence of god, I am happy to grant that god is immaterial, and therefore not real. 

A question for you:

Is there a possibility that you are wrong? even the smallest chance?
If you close the door on ANY chance of this you show that your belief is not rational. You probably admit and are even proud of this fact. I have no problem with your choice to close your mind to all possibilities, just leave me out of it.

Jose AR 

[Ecurb Noselrub]

What exactly is speaking in tongues and how is it useful in today's world? o_o I am actually curious.

I speak in tongues on occasion. It's sort of like a short-cut to the sense of the presence of God, bypassing thought.  It can have some value for the individual, but publicly it's a distraction, so I keep it to myself. It is somewhat like chanting or saying "ohm" for eastern traditions.

[Sandra Craft]

No. There's no honor or dignity in that. And life without honor is a waste of life.

As opposed to wasting life by killing people?

It's either a Christian world or a Muslim world or no world. That's something you should get your head around. IMHO.

Taliban East vs. Taliban West?  If those are the only two options, no world sounds best.  However, I believe you're seriously mistaken about the world's fate as you're mistaken in all your religiously-based beliefs.

It's only Christian societies that tolerate atheism.

Actually, it's secular governments that tolerate religious and non-religious diversity and yes, I do bear that in mind every time a Xtian tries to violate the separation of church and state.

[Ecurb Noselrub]

It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.

For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders.  If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message.  Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.

[DeterminedJuliet]

It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.

For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders.  If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message.  Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.

So, you'd be a Christian who is not in the "nuke all of the Muslims" camp?

[Tank]

It's perfectly acceptably for theists to carry out mass murders if their particular god tells them to.

For the record, my God doesn't tell anyone to commit mass murders.  If anyone thinks that he has told him to do such a thing, he has misunderstood the message.  Jesus never told anyone to kill anyone, and chastised his disciples when they wanted to act like the OT prophet Elijah by calling down fire from heaven to destroy people.

But what would you do IF you were 100% sure that your God did want you to kill. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. Would you do what you felt your God wanted you to do? Would you, in the final analysis, with all other options and avenues explored kill because your God wanted you to?

[history_geek]

. . .(or the other thing that would get me a notice for foul language). . .

There is no rule at HAF about "foul language." The closest the rules come to dealing with this is the "Work Friendly" rule, which is specifically targeted toward images and videos (when the functionality to post videos is restored, which I think it probably will be at some point) that are "Not Safe For Work."

Most members here don't use foul language that often, but I think that's because they are articulate enough not to have to depend on it, and only use it sparingly when it seems appropriate, rather than debasing its effectiveness by overuse. So, I think that it would be well within the rules as they are currently written to say something like, ". . . kissing the fucking imaginary hairy ass of YHVH," if you felt that it was an effective description of your sentiment. 

What is definitely not acceptable here (as I understand the Civility Rule) is cursing fellow members, demeaning them or using abusive (or racist) language towards them.

Thanks for the clear up and heads up 

I usually try to stay away from foul language when I try to have a conversation or even a debate, just because there's the strong possibility that it will eventually boil over or my counter part will pay more attention to that then the argument (and let's not forget, Egor's blog describes atheists as people who are "extremely rude and vulgar", so I think it's better not to give him any excuses to see me as filling that stereotype ). So far it has worked, and I think I'll stick to it, though now I know that if I did "slip up" it wouldn't be that big of a deal

And yes, it was along those lines that I was thinking, though not nesseccarily kissing YHWH's hairy non-existant rear-end, but who ever shown to me as a being fulfilling the "proper defenition of 'god'"