Q about arguments for God's existence.

[Cyberman]

Except atheism isn't a faith or a philosophy.

Okay. Whatever it is, it still applies.

No it doesn't, in the context you want to use. The lack of theism can't drive a person's actions in the way you're trying to assert, any more than neutral gear can't drive a car.

[Lek]

Okay. Whatever it is, it still applies.

No it doesn't, in the context you want to use. The lack of theism can't drive a person's actions in the way you're trying to assert, any more than neutral gear can't drive a car.

I can't agree with that. This forum is full of people who identify themselves as atheists maybe more than anything else. Their comments are highly influenced by their atheist orientation and they make decisions all the time that are influenced by that orientation. If you're "neutral" on the existence of God, why do you hang out on forums and ridicule theists among yourselves and in discussions with them? Stating that all religion should be wiped out doesn't sound neutral to me. I really see an agenda in many atheists to rid the world of all religions, which is motivated by their atheist persuasion.

[Natachan]

We gather here because we often seek a place where we're not ridiculed or harassed. See my post on this subject, I have been a victim of religiously motivated violence and hostility. I seek refuge here, to know that I'm not alone and I'm not crazy.

My atheism really does not motivate my day-to-day actions. Honestly I haven't changed much since I was a catholic, since I was a modern mainstream catholic and they generally have no issue with science. I just have up on the spiritual woo part of it. I still love religious art and music (I saw the painting of the Passion of St Francis today, a beautiful example of 17th century painting). I still have a great deal of respect for the history of the church. I just don't put up with the BS dogma. I don't allow people who claim religion to get away with stupid shit based in their religion.

[alexwenzel]

Here is a good start. Just got to be patient to watch til the end.

Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EE2_2vuDTao

[Cyberman]

I can't agree with that. This forum is full of people who identify themselves as atheists maybe more than anything else. Their comments are highly influenced by their atheist orientation and they make decisions all the time that are influenced by that orientation.

Please tell me what an "atheist orientation" is.

If you're "neutral" on the existence of God, why do you hang out on forums and ridicule theists among yourselves and in discussions with them?

Because the theists in question almost invariably present ridiculous arguments and justifications for what they profess to believe and why we have to believe the same; not to mention passive-aggressively hiding behind threatening references from their special books simply for our not agreeing with them, without even attempting to make a case for why the books should be regarded as worthy of serious consideration.

As for being neutral on the existence of your or any god, it's a matter of basic critical thinking which every rational person does automatically every day. I might make some claim to you, to which the rational response is for you to withhold belief until given reason not to - with the razor of ECREE ever at the ready, of course.

Stating that all religion should be wiped out doesn't sound neutral to me.

Please show where I said anything approaching that. Also, please note that I saw where you just palmed a card: from neutrality on the god issue to a question on the fate of religion.

I really see an agenda in many atheists to rid the world of all religions, which is motivated by their atheist persuasion.

Well, until you can even define an "atheist persuasion", what you see is irrelevant.

[Jenny A]

No it doesn't, in the context you want to use. The lack of theism can't drive a person's actions in the way you're trying to assert, any more than neutral gear can't drive a car.

I can't agree with that. This forum is full of people who identify themselves as atheists maybe more than anything else. Their comments are highly influenced by their atheist orientation and they make decisions all the time that are influenced by that orientation. If you're "neutral" on the existence of God, why do you hang out on forums and ridicule theists among yourselves and in discussions with them? Stating that all religion should be wiped out doesn't sound neutral to me. I really see an agenda in many atheists to rid the world of all religions, which is motivated by their atheist persuasion.

I've never met a person who defined themselves as an atheist more than anything else. But atheism is the purpose of this forum. It is why we are here, to get away from the assumption of god. You came here and you are welcome to be here. But don't expect to speak about god unchallenged.

Do you talk about god much in church? Would you suffer an atheist to preach a sermon about skepticism one Sunday or teach an adult Sunday school class in atheism? Would the congregation nod politely and say ah just another point of view? I think not. I'm not neutral on the issue of god. Why should I be? There's no evidence of him, and so much harm is done by believing in him. No not all believers do bad things, but many of them who wouldn't do bad things in the name of god.

But I wouldn't outlaw religion. You're free to believe what you want. I wouldn't try to take that right from you. But yes I get tired of nodding politely when my sister-in-law say "don't you think it's the end times." And I'm really tired of attending school board meetings just to see the evolution is not only legal to teach, but is taught. (My best ally in that fight is Christian, but the opposition is all fundies and Mormons.) This is the place I get to let my hair down and not be overly polite about the ludicrous.

[Esquilax]

I can't agree with that. This forum is full of people who identify themselves as atheists maybe more than anything else. Their comments are highly influenced by their atheist orientation and they make decisions all the time that are influenced by that orientation.

Yeah, you know why that might be? Because we're on an atheist forum. This doesn't dominate our entire lives, you know; outside of this forum I rarely discuss religion at all. Please take the context into account: if I only ever saw you in a kitchen, would it be fair for me to say that all you ever do is cook?

If you're "neutral" on the existence of God, why do you hang out on forums and ridicule theists among yourselves and in discussions with them?

Disbelief isn't neutrality, it's disbelief. Lack of belief. It also doesn't mean that, say, we're bound to be completely silent in the face of fallacious arguments, or the damaging aspects of a religion we don't share. See, I come here firstly because I enjoy the discussions I have, but also because poor argumentation irritates me, and I want to correct that. It has nothing to do with my atheism, and everything to do with this topic being an enjoyable way for me to debate in a target rich environment.

Stating that all religion should be wiped out doesn't sound neutral to me. I really see an agenda in many atheists to rid the world of all religions, which is motivated by their atheist persuasion.

Agenda implies we'd actually do something about it. Personally, I stated my preference that I'd like to live in a world without religion, but that in no way entails that I'd actually act to rid the world of religion. Beyond, say, having a dissenting opinion and arguing that in a public space.

[Mr Greene]

You guys always go back to that argument, but when I bring up the same argument for Hitler and others, you attempt to tear it down. Who cares what reason people use to accomplish their means? Nationalism has been used as an excuse for imperialism forever. Does that mean that we should abolish all all nations or that all nations are evil?

I take it, it never occurred to you that the Nazi party was a member of the Fascist Movement, ie; the political wing of the Vatican?
Adolf et al. were acting out a fantasy of being crusaders of the Teutonic Order, which ultimately resulted in their ritualized suicides.
To claim it wasn't based on christianity is utterly absurd.

[The Grand Nudger]

[Bibliofagus]

First of all: Thank you for your answer Lek.

Then how can it not be the governments business defining what marriage is?
Do you propose that decisions about taxes should be made elsewhere? And if so where??

Well, the whole idea of giving a married person a tax advantage over a single person seems unfair to me. Why because you're married should you have a tax advantage?

I mostly agree with this.

When the government started doing this people had to start getting a legal document issued by the government, stating that they married. Before that people didn't need to have the government sanction their marriage. My wife and I are not married because the government says so, but because we committed ourselves and our lives to each other.

I've never considered this, but I guess a case can be made for the argument that religious marriage outdates state marriage. Or for the idea that monogamous relationships predate marriage.

On the other hand theft and ownership outdate criminal law as well. In this context the question would be: Do I own my stuff because the government says so, or because that's the reality of the situation?

My answer is: both. Laws on ownership serve to settle disputes. As they do in marriage.

I envision replacing the government's version of marriage with a civil union. If two individuals want to share their lives and resources and have children they can establish a legal contract which formalizes the agreement and protects the children and each other. This contract would be recognized by the government and, if they want to apply certain tax advantages, they would be based on that contract.

So... Basically you are saying that the government shouldn't use the word marriage anymore in laws or something?

Let's say I would want quick results on equal legal rights for gay people (which I do), I think renaming legal marriage would actually help laws helping gays get the same rights get through easier. So I'm all for that. There's a problem however. There are more issues than legal issues.

If the individuals don't want to be married, they don't have to.

In this context you should say: If the individuals don't want to have a marriage sanctioned by some institution they care about, they don't have to.

And I agree.

But there is a problem. You seem to want to take the power to sanction a 'marriage' away from the government.

This takes away the possibility for secular people to have an 'official' 'marriage'. I'm a secular person. I'm married to my wife. Marry is the word I've used all my life. It's the word I like to use to describe my relationship to my wife. I don't want an arrangement called anything else. I don't want to go to church to earn the 'right' to call my relationship a marriage. And I want the government to act accordingly.

It's not the role of the government to determine whether or not they are married.

Nope. People choose to marry themselves. It's up to the government to sanction it to whomever legally applies for recognition.

As a witness to my faith, I want to clarify that I don't believe in homosexual sexual relations, in any case, or heterosexual sexual relations outside of marriage.

It's not the role of Lek to determine whether or not people are married. Neither is it the church's role.
I think the government is best suited. You can't tell a church they have to marry everyone who is legally elegible, but you can tell that to a government.

I do acknowledge that I live in a world where everybody doesn't share my beliefs and we all should be treated equally and fairly under the law and by each other..

I'm all for that as well.