Not religious doesn't necessarily mean atheist

[Brian37]

Bottom line Alpha times change.  I no more like newer woo than I like old woo. 

It may surprise you as much of a hard time as I give you, I don't even like atheists attempts to create "Satanist" churches. They'd argue that it is not the same thing which is absurd to me knowing the word itself has long and ancient roots, and all they really are doing is simply looking at the bad behaviors of the past and creating a new moral code to compete with old ideas.

I've had pantheist and new age co workers, and while I do see attempts to reject the past in an attempt to be more inclusive now as a way to compete, I still have a problem with even this new trend.

They are ditching old religions because of the tribalism and bigotry. But in creating new beliefs, that also has the risk long term as becoming just as dogmatic and tribal centuries from now.

It should not even surprise anyone reading this, if in 500 years there is a Yoda religion or Star Trek religion or Harry Potter religion.

They are not looking for excuses to do bad things, they are rejecting the tribalism of the past, and while that is well intended, they are still suffering the same bad logic as antiquity. New or old, humans never consider that our morality isn't being handed to us, but already in us, and as secular as a new club may claim to be, it is still needlessly creating a moral list instead of valuing common law for everyone.

I attended a Unitarian Church in Lynchburg Va, we had liberal Christians, conservative Christians, Muslims and Buddhists, and atheists and even a lady who believed in the Egyptian God Isis. I am not kidding. They were all nice people, but no matter how much I liked them, it didn't mean they had evidence for their claims. 

Brian, I have observed an interesting contradiction about you. One constant theme in your posts has been the rejection of the idea of Utopia. Yet you seem eternally frusterated by the fact that human beings are not perfect, logical specimens.

Our brains don't work that way. It is pysiologicaly impossible for human beings to be like the Vulcans of Star Trek. You regularly deride fiction yet you chastice us for our failure to live up to a standard that (as far as we know) exists only in fiction.

You hate, "woo" but you are drowning in it yourself. You're pinining for human beings which cannot even exist without genetic engineering we are not yet capable of.

What contradiction? 

Of course bullshit claims frustrate me. But how does that mean I am chasing a utopia myself? If humans didn't challenge bullshit ever we'd never have left the caves.

Who is claiming we can turn the planet into nothing but Spocks? You don't get to project thoughts in my head that are not there. 

There were countless humans throughout our evolution, that questioned social norms, and those whom did that shaped the world we live in today, one with modern medicine, cell phones, modern science. 

None of my challenging religion is saying you can 100% end it. But when it comes to threats of global security, national security and education, damned right I care. 

You cherry pick what I post and only see what you want to see. I have ALSO said while I may not find someone's claims credible and while I do challenge them, I am not calling for that person's arrest. I am perfectly capable of liking and loving theists, that does not mean I have to blindly agree and remain in silence at everything they say or do.

Have any idea how many times i have told other atheists over 16 years of being online, when they say "we can end religion", I say, "good luck with that'?

I am not delusional one bit. But there is nothing wrong with challenging and even blaspheming religion to keep it on a leash and to prevent it from destroying education and backsliding into theocracy. Our nation isn't perfect by any stretch, but I am very concerned right now with or far right wing. I am concerned with Islam and Israel and between the three possibly getting us into a global nuclear war.

I've put it this way in other posts. I can value someone like Martin Luther King Jr, but not find his claim of a God credible. I can value the empathy of Ann Frank but not find the claim of Yahweh credible. I can value the likes of Malala but not find claims of Allah credible. Lots of people love the Dali Lama too, but sorry, I son't see Buddhism as anymore a requirement for living than any other religion. <------NONE of that paragraph is saying we can force any religion out of existence. 

I will still value any non violent peaceful human, I would still want that person as my neighbor. But that does not mean because they are empathetic and kind, that their morality is being magically handed to them. Nor does it mean, even with other liberals, that they are right about their beliefs. it merely means they have the right to believe it. I also have the right to question them.

So don't confuse bluntness and blasphemy as a chase for a utopia. It is more of insisting on a leash through the ability to question.  No contradiction on my part.

[Cyberman]

Specifically, you stated that you are aware of what I know about [you all] or what [you all] know. So you must know me pretty well, at least according to you.

No, he didn't say that specifically at all. He clearly inferred from your statement.

Atheists, like everyone else, believe in all sorts of things, for all sorts of reasons. Gods are not among those things. That is the minimum and maximum criterion for being an atheist. It's not at all that we are so desperate to believe anything that we automatically latch onto whatever the rest of the herd is believing, right or wrong. That would be theists. Atheism is merely a specialised subsection of scepticism, addressing solely the issue of god claims. Literally everything else is up for grabs.

And please learn to quote properly.

[Brian37]

TO ATTF47

Here is an example of a theist, I LIKE. I am not a fan of country music, but I love the message in this song. I dont like, I do not like the line in it, where she says we are all God's children. No more than I would like the claim we are all Allah's Children. WHAT I do like is her message of empathy and compassion for the working class and poor. THAT part I do like. That does not mean I am obligated to remain silent when religion is used by politicians to sell fear, or bigotry. It does not preclude me from finding value in my species CAPABILITY to have empathy. I see lots of good in my fellow humans, I just dont agree that is coming from a magic place. I LOVE THIS LADY's message. I don't think she needs a God either, but I do think she is a great lady. 

[Amarok]

Specifically, you stated that you are aware of what I know about [you all] or what [you all] know.  So you must know me pretty well, at least according to you.

No you did not and no i did not .

[Edwardo Piet]

Actually hammy, there is conclusive evidence that witches exist. Many practitioners of wicca and other religions are witches, the same way a follower of Christ is a Christian.

What there is no evidence for is witchcraft.

Well sure if you call a witch that doesn't do any real witchcraft a witch

There's plenty of people called Jesus in mexico too but I doubt they can cast miracles

[AFTT47]

TO ATTF47

Here is an example of a theist, I LIKE. I am not a fan of country music, but I love the message in this song. I dont like, I do not like the line in it, where she says we are all God's children. No more than I would like the claim we are all Allah's Children. WHAT I do like is her message of empathy and compassion for the working class and poor. THAT part I do like. That does not mean I am obligated to remain silent when religion is used by politicians to sell fear, or bigotry. It does not preclude me from finding value in my species CAPABILITY to have empathy. I see lots of good in my fellow humans, I just dont agree that is coming from a magic place. I LOVE THIS LADY's message. I don't think she needs a God either, but I do think she is a great lady. 

Okay Brian, message received. I respect you but you do come across as a bit of a nutter sometimes. I just felt the need to offer that feedback.

I agree about the singer. I have a thing about strong women. I don't have any use for weak-willed pretty things who want to fan me with a palm frond. The chicks who'll kick me in the balls if I piss them off are the ones who turn me on.

[Odoital77]

Specifically, you stated that you are aware of what I know about [you all] or what [you all] know.  So you must know me pretty well, at least according to you.

No you did not and no i did not .

Well, it's there in writing for everyone to see.  You cannot say "You don't know shit about us . Or what we know." without, at the same time, making a claim to know what I may know or not know about [you all] or what [you all] know.  It's that simple.

[Cyberman]

We can only go by what you choose to post here. You're not the first 'follower of Christ' we've ever encountered. By all means correct the assumption, if you have to, but merely complaining about it isn't helpful.

It's that simple.

[Mystic]

Everyone has a religion. You would have to redefine religion from their primary meaning in the past to escape this fact.

This century is trying to redefine every word from their original definitions. And what do atheists do, they just look up current dictionaries, and think they understood a long tradition and understanding of a word.

[Cyberman]

Dictionaries do not define words. They record word usage in society. They are the repositories of language, not its dictators. Definitions evolve. The word 'gay', for example, has a different meaning to its 'traditional' one. 'Wicked' now means the exact opposite, in common parlance. What's important is that we have a means to agree on an understanding of what words mean. If you want to water down the word 'religion' to its most basic definition something like 'common interest' or similar, then congratulations; you have successfully made your point. Stamp collectors, trainspotters, sports fans and god-squad preachers all have a religion. What you are trying to hide under the fold, however, is that not all such 'religions' are equal. That's dishonest.