AlterNet: Ammunition for Atheists

[marmar]

Ammunition for Atheists

By Jack Huberman, Nation Books. Posted February 8, 2007.



In his new book, The Quotable Atheist, author Jack Huberman has collected powerful quotations against organized religion and belief in God from figures such as Richard Dawkins, Phyllis Diller, Frederick Douglass, Michael Moore, Katha Pollitt, and yes, Jerry Falwell.

The following is an excerpt from Jack Huberman's new book, The Quotable Atheist: Ammunition for Nonbelievers, Political Junkies, Gadflies, and Those Generally Hell-Bound (Nation Books, 2007).

The world (not just America) is deeply divided.The main fault line is where the tectonic plates of religion and of reason/secularism/ modernity/science/Enlightenment meet and grind against each other,making an absolutely unbearable noise. It's sort of like ... forget it, I can't describe it.

My aim in compiling The Quotable Atheist was to heal our broken planet, essentially by eliminating the religious part. Not with nuclear weapons or lesser acts of mass murder, no -- that's the religious style, nowadays, in certain quarters -- but through argument, persuasion, and most of all (since I know perfectly well that argument is utterly useless against dumb, blind faith, and just wanted to pay it lip service), the steady application of powerfully abrasive ridicule which will slowly but surely erode away the offending continent. I'm serious. Do I really believe this book will convert believers and turn them from the path of self-righteousness to the path of righteousness? Yes. A few. Three, I estimate. Two for sure. But the point is this:

For years, millions of fine, upstanding American atheists and agnostics have watched and stewed as the religious right expanded its influence throughout public life, and as America closed its mind and opened its heart to angels, aliens, ghosts, psychics, Jesus, astrology, Kabbalah, Genesis, Revelation. ... As Sam Harris wrote in The End of Faith, "Unreason is now ascendant in the United States -- in our schools, in our courts, and in each branch of the federal government. Only 28 percent of Americans believe in evolution; 68 percent believe in Satan. Ignorance in this degree, concentrated in both the head and belly of a lumbering superpower, is now a problem for the entire world." ......(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.alternet.org/story/47765/

[papau]

1. heal by eliminating the religious part" - war by the 6% "A" on the 94% on "beliefs" - jihad anyone?

the belief in the unprovable construct that there is no God must surely deserve a good war of words against those that believe in other unprovable constructs.

Lets begin by getting in the face of everyone on DU - shall we?

Sounds like a plan to "heal" DU - right?

When do those of the atheist belief system start putting laws on the books to remove the teaching of Western Civ - since there is so much religion not of their belief system in that literature. Indeed the only response to that belief in God history is to replace those "other" beliefs with our belief that there is no god - and to "expanded its (our no god belief's) influence throughout public life" - those being the atheist author Jack Huberman's words that are indeed "quotable".

[RaleighNCDUer]

2. This is what we fight against.

Atheism is not a "belief system" as theists see it. For atheists, belief is based on evidence, not faith. Any atheist will agree that it is impossible to prove there is no god, just as it is impossible to prove there is a god. Lacking proof in either direction, atheism is a choice to let their decisions be based on logic and reason, rather than illogic and superstition. All we ask is that people be rational.

For a start, it is more like 11% to 75%, with a squishy 14% being non-believers who follow the forms of religion for their own purposes. And it doesn't have to stay that way - in parts of Europe, where they've suffered centuries of religious war, better than 20% hold to no religious belief. The US, in fact, has a higher rate of 'belief' than any other major industrial/technological nation - and among those same nations comes in last is quality of education. Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

As for the teaching of Western Civ, there can be no better argument against religion than the teaching of Western Civ - look at thousands of years of war and murder and oppression based on pitting one religious belief against another. The thing is, histories are written to suit the current power so we are fed a history of Christianity's triumphant march across the centuries which is actually a history of bloodshed, mayhem and depravity inflicted by the Roman Empire and its philosiphical descendents upon the in powerless who stood in their way.

[papau]

13. Interesting - I suspect you believe your numbers - even though they are wrong.

You say "For a start, it is more like 11%" - well no it isn't

http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=408
October 15, 2003
Table one:

Absolutely certain that there is no God 4% -

That is, four percent are "hard" atheists per DU approved vocabulary rules.

Throw in the not so certain but believing still there is no God and it rises to 9%o

(Americans Believe in God? By Richard Morin
Washington Post Polling Director Monday, April 24, 2000

Do Americans believe in miracles? Is Heaven a real place? What about Hell? Is God a He or a She?

The answers: Yes, Yes, Maybe and None of the Above, according to a fascinating compilation of recent national surveys on God, religion, religious beliefs. It appears in the forthcoming issue of Public Perspective magazine, which is published by the Roper Center for Public Opinion Research at the University of Connecticut.

The special section titled "Beliefs" touches on issues both weighty—one article by Michael Shermer is titled "Why People Believe in God"—and findings that are, well, merely interesting. For example, more than eight in 10 Americans agree that "even today, miracles are performed by the power of God," according to a survey conducted last October by the Princeton Survey Research Associates for the Pew Research Center. Slightly more than one in three adults—36 percent—say they personally "experienced or witnessed" what they considered a miracle, according to a CBS News poll last year.

Heaven isn't just in your mind: It's a real place, say 88 percent of a national sample of adults interviewed in 1997 by Opinion Dynamics for Fox News. A more telling commentary on our beliefs is the finding that far fewer Americans—71 percent—believe in hell.)

and so on and so on - it is boring correcting atheists - In attempts to sell their faith and convince themselves of their unprovable truth, our atheist friends do exaggerate a bit about how large their membership is - perhaps it is the atheist need for a self esteem boost that motivates - I do not know. Indeed most atheists I know do not do this - but on DU it seems common..


Then you say "For atheists, belief is based on evidence" -

OK - What is your evidence that there is no God? As those of us trained in science know, lack of evidence of a contrary assumption proves nothing about the given assumption. Where is your proof?

Then you say "All we ask is that people be rational." WOW - HARD TO ARGUE AGAINST THAT! But irrational claims - such as the unprovable claim that there is no God - does not prove that atheists are rational - now does it?

I do agree that atheism is modestly higher in Europe - but I am at a loss as to what that proves. Beyond folks assigning their spin to that fact - as you did with the religious wars somehow have shown this generation the light - oh wait - the large majority of the EU generation is still religious.

As an aside, I agree with the position of most atheists that popularity of a belief does not confer any special or greater likelihood that the popular belief is more true than an another less popular belief. But I do like the DU atheists claim that those becoming atheist have "shown growth" - in what is not stated, but implied of course, it is growth in wisdom and rational thought - proven by their new belief in an unprovable construct that there is no God.

And I also like the idea that people do not cause wars - it is religion. Indeed tribes do not cause wars against other tribes, and groups of tribes do not cause war against groups of other tribes - it is the differences in religion - I can not think of a better example of a lack of rational thinking that the thought process that concludes mankind's ills stem from religion.

[jgraz]

37. There's overwhelming proof that there is no god -- saying otherwise doesn't make it so

The problem is not that you believe in god, but that you don't believe in proof, at least in the way that most of the world defines it. In order to press your faith, you redefine simple words like "true" and "false" and "evidence" to accommodate your fantastical ideations.

Here's a thread on the Atheists forum that makes my point in detail.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=263&topic_id=24109&mesg_id=24109

The fact that you can invent (or be conditioned to believe in) a non-falsifiable fantasy does not give you license to change the basic tenets of logic and observational science. Everything we know about how the universe behaves shows that it does not allow for the existence of anything that meets the traditional definition of "god".

You are perfectly welcome to believe anything you wish. Just don't pervert basic concepts of science and reason to attack those who disagree with you.


Edit: Left out a

[bananas]

24. Wrong wrong wrong wrong wrong

Atheism is not a "belief system" as theists see it.
A "belief system" is just a system of beliefs - and when we categorize systems, we categorize them by what they include and what they don't include. For example, operating systems can be categorized as windowed or non-windowed, real-time or non-realtime. Also, not all "belief systems" are religious: there are political belief systems, economic belief systems, scientific belief systems, as well as religious belief systems. Atheism is called a religious belief system because it is a system of beliefs about religious subjects.

For atheists, belief is based on evidence, not faith.
Not true. Buddhism, paganism, etc, are all considered atheist belief systems. Sam Harris is a famous atheist, his belief system has been characterized as 'a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown"'.

Any atheist will agree that it is impossible to prove there is no god, just as it is impossible to prove there is a god.
Nope, there are atheists who claim to have proved that there is no god.

Lacking proof in either direction, atheism is a choice to let their decisions be based on logic and reason, rather than illogic and superstition. All we ask is that people be rational.
So you think 'a mishmash of Buddhism and "Time-Life Mysteries of The Unknown"' is based on logic and reason? BWAAHAAHAAHAAHAAA!

[muriel_volestrangler]

54. I think you're wrong about this

"Atheism is called a religious belief system because it is a system of beliefs about religious subjects"

No. It is not a 'system'. It is a single thing - a lack of belief in gods. One thing on its own cannot be a 'system'. You seem to acknowledge this when you talk about "atheist belief systems" - it's a characteristic of a person, or a system. I'm atheist, right-handed, and so on. Put together my moral beliefs, and you could call them a 'system' - but they are peculiar to me, where 'atheism' isn't.

[Evoman]

5. ?

Why do you always intend to offend? You always come on here, say something like, "the belief in the unprovable construct that there is no God", when you know its not true, and you know people here find the mischaracterization offensive.

You used to participate in these discussions...now you just leave these snippy messages and leave. Whats going on papau?

[cosmik debris]

7. You have heard the old saying

If the only tool you have is a hammer, all your problems look like nails.

It is also true that if the only tool you have is an insult, you seek out opportunities to give offense.

I suspect the tool box is almost empty.

[papau]

15. I Learned my insults from folks like you Cosmik - so as long as you can toss out

your value added observations - no offense intended

Why I guess my supply of the same for the other side of the discussion will never end.

Us rational minds should act alike - don't you think?

[cosmik debris]

34. You flatter yourself with the implication that your "faith"

is rational. Believing things for which there is no evidence is not rational by any definition.

[papau]

14. Like "Jesus Freaks" and "religion causes all our woes does not offend"?

participate in these discussions when real truth, real history, real logic, is tossed and the other poster says you have offended rather than admitting that you spoke truth and were using logic? The religious forum today is for atheists to post notes to each other about how the religious poster is a fool - all the while they never deal with the point/correction being made.

If only I could see more "growth" in those atheists who want to be rational.

If "the belief in the unprovable construct that there is no God", is not true for you, then you are an agnostic - not an atheist - at least in terms of modern English usage.

Perhaps despite my admiration for many atheists that are progressives/liberals, I have become tired of the arrogance and lies of many of the DU atheists as they take over a religious forum that I was one of the founders of (back in the old days Skinner asked for guaranteed interest persons to sign up as interested would be contributors before a forum was established - and a dozen religious folks, my self included, made that commitment and promise).

There is rarely ever any religious discussion because the topic is always changed to there is no God - with the cut and paste from the thousands of atheist sites on the internet being shoved in your face, And when I have disproved those cut and past non-facts with a dozen cites, the same cut and paste non-facts are posted in another thread. Heck a believer's wife dies and he posts in the religious forum and there are "there is no God" posts in reply. I find that disgusting.

I still post here in threads that are civil - indeed there are atheists here that can carry on a conversation that is sympathetic, empathetic, ethical, and knowledgeable, and indeed better written that I can write.

But this thread started out as yet one more in your face proselytizing evangelical the atheist belief in no God is best and here are quotes from atheists - all posted in General Discussion. So while it was in general discussion I responded. And now I respond to the responses since it would be impolite to not do so - for at least one round. But as I said above - further posting is pointless in this thread. And I thank you for your feigned concern for my change in approach to this forum.

[More Than A Feeling]

30. Who were the other originals?

I didn't know this forum had "founders".

[muriel_volestrangler]

55. YOU accuse atheists of cutting and pasting from other sites?

You're one of the few DUers to attempt to pass off other people's work as your own, take the compliments some gave you on it, and then be shown to have comprehensively stolen it from others. And when we caught you, you tried to wriggle out of it, claimed you couldn't remember where you found it all, shrugged your shoulders and effectively said "who cares? I'll plagiarise who I want - they won't find out about it".

See http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=214&topic_id=17952&mesg_id=17980 for details.

And then you have the nerve (and you've done this before) to claim atheist arguments are cut and pasted. When have you "disproved those cut and past non-facts with a dozen cites"? That's bollocks. I don't think I've seen such a case of projection of someone's own faults as you're doing now.

You give theists a bad name, papau. And your implication that you somehow have a special claim over this forum is idiotic.

[toddaa]

8. The answer is 19

How many braincells did you use to construct that post?

[papau]

16. :-)

:-)

I love it when someone proves my point!

:-)

[toddaa]

20. You're flamebait

You've been told numerous times that atheism is not the belief that there is no god, but the absence of belief in god. And no atheist I know wants to ban religion. That would be counterproductive.

[bananas]

25. You're flamebait

You've been told numerous times that atheism is the belief that there is no god. And there are lots of atheist who want to ban religion.

[papau]

27. whatever - as if being told what is truth by a DU atheist has credibility

Hi todd -

nice meeting you.

:-)

[Evoman]

32. So anytime any atheist says something, regardless of whether or not you know that person,

it is not credible?

Do you think there is something in the innate character of atheists that makes us all illogical and liars? A snarky response to an atheist you have never met is okay, because some other atheist down the road said something you construed as unpleasant or a lie?

Okay..message accepted.

[papau]

35. On DU, as in all of life, there are consequences to prior behavior - perhaps not

important consequences in some or most folks opinion - but there are consequences.

The behavior of the group gets noted and responded to and that response gets given to individuals that do not agree with the group behavior - not fair I agree - but that is the way the world works.

Indeed that is what many atheists do on DU, relative to all Christians, as they react to Fundi ideas that they do not like.

For me I have now seen enough years of DU atheist behavior on DU to form an opinion about it and that opinion - certainly unfairly - is how I also view individuals in the group. Until I have seen enough behavior from an individual to conclude that that particular individual does not fit that stereotype, I see that individual as simply part of the group stereotype.

It is not what I do with other groups, but after years of trying to change things in this area in the religious forum, it seems the only logical response to the stereotyping done by atheists.

You folks have overwhelmed the religious forum and now control where any thread goes in the religious forum, as you try to spread your message that your faith is best. Indeed of late you folks are not only in the religious forum, but also in General Discussion trying to obtain converts. Those attempts to obtain converts have some posts that include points that are easily proved wrong. But as I said, you own the religious forum and I no longer bother to point out the lies, since like many fundi believers in the unprovable, you have an irrational belief that anything said that might advance your cause is true. So have at it - but without me to point out errors - indeed that should make you happy as it appear that for the atheist any opposition to the coming enlightenment is really stupid and needing strong words. :-)

I wonder if any of you has ever worked an election campaign - I doubt it - but again that is a group judgment and unfair - I am sure some have. But on DU liberal/progressive issue posts from atheists are few and far between. There is only one issue for the atheist - and that is to get in someones face and demand they acknowledge that they should "grow" so as become a convert to the unprovable belief that there is no God.

[Orrex]

36. You're always good for a laugh

But on DU liberal/progressive issue posts from atheists are few and far between. There is only one issue for the atheist - and that is to get in someones face and demand they acknowledge that they should "grow" so as become a convert to the unprovable belief that there is no God.

It always give me a charge when a theist tells an atheist what atheism really is. Well, this atheist only gets "in someone's face" when that someone espouses a belief within a forum amenable to debate or when that person is a particularly aggressive evanglist.

You've been told repeatedly and yet still seem unable to grasp the notion that atheism doesn't automatically entail a belief that there is no god; more commonly atheism means simply a lack of belief, end of story. But that's a hard position for theists to attack so, predictably, they reframe atheism in a manner that facilitates the theist's argument.

And as for atheists demanding that theists "grow," I think that you must have mistaken us for every theistic evangelist on the planet. No rational atheist would require a theist to adopt an unprovable belief--that would be equivalent to perpetuating theism. Instead, the atheist says "you know, there's no real evidence whatsoever to support your belief, so I am unable to adopt it as my own." The atheist might further suggest that the theist reexamine his beliefs and perhaps question the drummed-in tenets of his faith, but the atheist would never demand that a theist abandon one not-fact-based belief system for another. What would be the point?

Indeed of late you folks are not only in the religious forum, but also in General Discussion trying to obtain converts. Those attempts to obtain converts have some posts that include points that are easily proved wrong. But as I said, you own the religious forum and I no longer bother to point out the lies, since like many fundi believers in the unprovable, you have an irrational belief that anything said that might advance your cause is true.

Ah, yes--the old "theists are persecuted" argument. Must be tough controlling the entire government, media, military, and banking system. However do you beleaguered theists cope?

You have a skewed and self-serving concept of atheism. If it entertains you to attack straw men, by all means let your rhetorical style persist. But if you have any interest in a serious discussion beyond "I no longer bother to point out the lies," then I suggest that you allow atheists to define themselves, rather than crafting a convenient definition of your own.

[papau]

43. When someone starts an attack on atheists? - thanks for the laugh :-) the threads are started by you

folks -

but don't let facts get in the way of defending your faith.

You are so rational - LOL - thanks for the smile.

[Orrex]

52. Could someone tell me why I bother reading/replying to papau's stuff?

I mean, I could save time and just read any one of his posts, selected at random, and thereby glean the entirety of his argument.

But no. Vainly I keep hoping that some worthwhile nugget will be offered up. Now that's a bit of irrational faith for you!

[cyborg_jim]

53. You know if you don't like debate

Get the fuck out of the debate forum.

Simple really.

[Evoman]

39. *jaw drops*

"I wonder if any of you has ever worked an election campaign - I doubt it - but again that is a group judgment and unfair - I am sure some have. But on DU liberal/progressive issue posts from atheists are few and far between. There is only one issue for the atheist - and that is to get in someones face and demand they acknowledge that they should "grow" so as become a convert to the unprovable belief that there is no God."

Wow...just wow. Atheists never post about liberal issues, huh? Could you give me an example of a "liberal issue" because most of the ones I've called "liberal issues" I have posted on....

1)Gay rights? Check. I speak only for myself...I don't know how other atheists feel....but then, maybe defending gay people isn't a liberal issue. And yes, it seems all the other atheist here hate the gays and want to take away their rights based on theology...oh wait..

2)Immigration? Well..I'm an immigrant, so I certainly have feelings about that, and have made many posts on that topic.

3)Anti-war? I was at the protests.

4)Election campaign...nope, never worked for the democratic party...but.oh yeah, I'm Canadian. I have worked, and voted for, progressive parties in Canada.

5)Environment? Well, I'm a scientist...and my project/research has a ecological component to it. So yeah, I have concerns there, and have posted as much.

Are there any issues I'm missing? Is there any other way that I'm not a true liberal? Do you think any of the other atheists here subscribe to right wing views? Do you think non of them care about liberal issues, because buddy...I'm not getting that impression at all.

I find how you look at the world mystifying. None of your post describes reality at all as I see it...neither in this forum, nor in the world at large. Converts? REALLY? You think we are trying to convert people?

Mystifying....

[papau]

42. Evoman - like I said - individuals in this shit throwing contest on DU do

stand out over time as actual activists in other things -

and you are one of the activists based on my observations.

But the crowd seems to get even you going when the let's convert DU posts get started.

Sorry - but that is an observation - just as others in that atheist crowd are free to observe my evil ways toward their faith, and make whatever comments, I claim the same freedom to comment on them.

Shit throwing is such fun, isn't it - :-) As long as all do mind getting a little dirty, we can really loudly and often tell others what we really think - right?

[jgraz]

40. Once again, bigoted bullshit about atheists that would not be tolerated against any other group

Apparently your ignorance goes far beyond your broken model of science and logic. Too bad you managed to learn how to operate a computer keyboard (it's the tool of the devil! run away! run away!).

You simply have no clue about the activities of any of the atheists on this board, nor do you know how many DU posters are atheists who simply choose not to subject themselves to the kind of medieval thinking that you so frequently supply on this forum. Once again, you engage in a common practice we atheists like to call "making shit up".

At least it's good that you recognize the mechanics of your bigotry. That must make it much easier for you to reproduce in real life. One piece of advice: you might want to lay off atheists and instead just go after black people. After all, they're much easier to spot AND there are plenty of ready-made organizations to help you perpetuate your ignorance and stereotyping.

[papau]

41. Always trying for the victim status are we? Dumping shit on Christians, then crying over the

response.

Gays, women, minorities, short, fat, bald, old, young have bias problems.

DU Atheists try pretend they are "hurt" and "biased against" as they crap on the religious.

Why the UU atheists are so civil and pleasant and fun, while DU atheists show such ignorance and stereotyping of the religious is for someone else to study - not me.

Enjoy your many forums on DU - as your constant attempts to convert others to your belief in the unprovable claim that there is no God is so appreciated by others at DU.

Is there even one political thought in the group tonight - beyond the claim that you are victims?

Are any of the group active Dems - or heck - just activists for something other than atheism?

[Silent3]

49. Since you've decided it's a "shit throwing contest"...

...shall I take that you've decided you're going to "win" by being the king of throwing shit?

"...your constant attempts to convert others to your belief in the unprovable claim that there is no God..."

I'm going to give you the credit of not being this stupid. Giving you that credit, however, leaves me having to conclude that you say things like the above (in fact, you seem to go out of your way to put some variation of "unprovable claim that there is no God" into lots of posts) for no other reason that to be annoying, to try to push people's buttons.

I say things that I'm sure annoy and sometimes insult too. But I try to have a point, I don't make annoyance and insult my primary purpose. Are you sure you can say the same?

[jgraz]

50. My guess is this is mostly a reaction to post #37

Which, you'll notice, has not been graced with a response from our dear papau. Substantive debates really aren't his forte.

[cosmik debris]

46. Remember who you are dealing with

I grew up in the racist south where people sincerely believed that if they repeated their hateful stereotypes long enough, loud enough, and often enough, that they would be accepted as truth. No amount of reason or fact would dissuade them. Bigotry is not something you defeat with reason or fact.

So remember, when dealing with some people, your only hope is that they will eventually learn shame. Even George Wallace gave up his hateful ways eventually.

[jgraz]

47. Well if I forget, there's always papau to remind me

Isn't it odd that he only responds to substantive posts with "lol" or meta-arguments? It's almost as if he has nothing intelligent to add to the conversation.

[cosmik debris]

48. If you've ever known a Klan member

Then you should recognize that strategy. It is the same with John Birchers, Freepers, and others who can't defend their hateful stereotypes.

[varkam]

51. !

For me I have now seen enough years of DU atheist behavior on DU to form an opinion about it and that opinion - certainly unfairly - is how I also view individuals in the group. Until I have seen enough behavior from an individual to conclude that that particular individual does not fit that stereotype, I see that individual as simply part of the group stereotype.

Guilty until proven innocent, huh?

[Evoman]

31. Attack ideas, not people.

I don't think that was called for. He is wrong, but he is not stupid.

[zbdent]

3. Last night, the news was talking about possible UFO sightings, and my Mother-in-law

asked me if I believed in UFOs.

I said, "Of course! By definition, UFO means unidentified flying objects. So seeing something flying by and not being able to tell what it is makes it a UFO."

Then, I said "Now, if you're talking about little green men, then I hope there is. Because, if we have this infinite universe, and all the stars and planets, and we're the only life there, it seems rather sad." She agreed.

Then I went into my "joke". "I also believe that, if we are the ultimate creation of God, then maybe God isn't as powerful as we make him out to be."

There were other statements (no, she didn't freak out about that last part) ...

Well, it is sweeps month ...

[Ron Green]

4. Although this thread will surely be moved

to the R/T Forum, I'd like to say that the idea of eliminating religion is at least naive and at most zealous in religious fervor in itself.

A belief system that incorporates an ethics and a cosmology is as much a part of social fabric as a government and a market. The goal ought to be encouraging such a belief system to be the most tolerant and scholarly it can be, not to ridicule it out of existence.

[cosmik debris]

6. That makes me wonder

If a belief system pursues scholarship long enough, wouldn't it dissolve into a disbelief system where blind faith is inadequate to sustain the belief?

Doesn't scholarship require that the scholar discredit ideas for which there is no scholarly foundation?

So aren't you prescribing the end of religion by peaceful means?

[Ron Green]

10. "Scholarly" does not necessarily equal "scientific."

In the realm of things we can never understand, humans on earth have ways of talking about them and expressing them. Art is one way, and religions and other spiritual systems are others.

I think there will be study and scholarship (maybe a bit more broadly defined than how you've used it) about these unknowable things as long as there are mortals.

[papau]

17. By that logic Cosmic - all atheists will end up agnostic n/t

n/t

[bananas]

26. Or gnostics. nt

[papau]

28. true - and not a bad fit. n/t

n/t

[cosmik debris]

33. But it would be the end of superstition and other religious beliefs

If it is true, that is.

[papau]

45. True :-)

:-)

[toddaa]

9. Active elimination will never happen

But religion will dissipate on its own as science and enlightenment advances. And a belief system that incorporates ethics and cosmology without the notion of God already exists and has been a part of Chinese social fabric for longer than Christianity. So yes, it is possible for society to be quite healthy without the need for God.

[Ron Green]

11. I think it depends on definitions of "God" and "enlightenment."

For example, my idea of "God" is broad enough that it is very much the same as "enlightenment," just as my definition of "church" includes scientific foundations and educational organizations as well as religions. In my model, the "church" part of society is as essential to life as the "superego" of Freud or Thomas Harris' "nurturing parent" in a Transactional Analysis framework.

My response to the OP was that rather than banish religion by ridicule, we would better improve it by study, love and understanding.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

12. Atheists and agnostics need to socialize too.

On Sunday morning they get together at Unitarian churches and worship the coffee pot -- the giver of life, at least in the morning.

They can't throw you out of a U-U church because they have no creedal test. I've known atheists, agnostics, pagans and other assorted refugees from other religions there.

And as a musician, I love the fact that you can do any kind of music you want. It doesn't have to be pigeonholed as "sacred" music.

Good music of any kind is "sacred" in my view.

[papau]

19. We agree - UU is a great place for civil conversations - with about 40% - more in

some locations, that are atheist.

Indeed the coffee is good and the music excellent and the ethics and other lessons well taught.

[toddaa]

22. Enlightenment in the classic sense

You know, Locke, Hume, and Voltaire. Spinoza's God fits very well within the confines of enlightenment. Top down dogmatic religion will dissipate as people become more educated, but personal spiritualism will probably never completely vanish.

[Ron Green]

23. Right. And not only personal spiritualism, but shared spiritualism is vital

in my opinion. The problem with top-down religion is the same as with top-down markets (corporatism) and top-down government (totalitarianism): They're about fear and control, rather than life and love.

[papau]

18. Christians in China have grown 3X in 10 years to 300 million - guess China is going irrational?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/6337627.stm
Survey finds 300m China believers

The survey found a large rise in Christians in China The number of religious believers in China could be three times higher than official estimates, according to a survey reported by state media. A poll of 4,500 people by Shanghai university professors found 31.4% of people above the age of 16 considered themselves as religious.

This suggests 300 million people nationwide could be religious, compared to the official figure of 100 million.

[toddaa]

21. Religious != Christian

Or is Buddhism not a religion in your book.

[papau]

29. 26% of the bible if you include Muslims - that must hurt -eh? read the article re

which religion it is talking about.

6% of China's population are Muslims

20% of the Chinese population are Christians (some estimates are as low as 16%), 12% of which are Roman Catholic (some estimates are as low as 10%).

[muriel_volestrangler]

56. So you purposely gave false information again

You said 'Christians in China have grown ... to 300 million', when you already knew the article said 40 million.

And what does "26% of the bible if you include Muslims" even mean? Muslims don't follow the Bible.

[jgraz]

38. Agreed -- and it can't happen quickly enough

As use of the internet increases, children will have more and more access to ideas that contradict the religious indoctrination imposed on them by their parents. The only way to "protect" children from this enlightenment will be to isolate them so completely that they end up socially crippled. Few parents are fanatical or cruel enough to do that to their kids.

I believe (hope) that this whole fundie/dominionist resurgence is the societal extinction burst for a pattern of behavior that has long since lost any claim to social benefit or relevance. Fifty years from now, people will look on our religious beliefs the way we view the racial and gender attitudes of the 1800's.

[papau]

44. LOL - thanks for the laugh n/t

n/t