Let me begin by stating that it is not my intent to limit or prohibit anyone's privilege to

[Atticus]

(reposted from General Discussion )

post about their religious beliefs or lack thereof. I would simply ask that we, the readers, acknowledge proselytization when it takes place.

I think it would "clang" if a poster repeatedly argued that religions A, B and C were silly, but D was reasonable and worthy of respect.

Does it not "clang" when ALL religions are ridiculed and the "alternative belief system" of atheism is advocated as what intelligent people believe?

If proselytizing by atheists is somehow different than proselytizing by Jews or Catholics or Baptists, how?

[old as dirt]

1. As a mathematician and an atheist, ...

...my ignorance of Religion is only surpassed by my ignorance of Anthropology and History, so I tend to rely on the experts.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/123060022

Anthropology, Music and Religion: She Blinded Me With Science

Pope Francis: "There cannot and must not be any opposition between faith and science"

Thomas Dolby: "It's Poetry In Motion".

Pope Francis: “Science is a great resource for building peace!”

https://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/248240/pope-francis-there-cannot-and-must-not-be-any-opposition-between-faith-and-science

Here's a music video about Science and the Violin.

Thomas Dolby - She Blinded Me With Science

One way for us to try to understand the cultures here in America who have historically fought the Wars for Catholicism is through the use of Science.

When my wife tells me something about her religion, and I want to verify it, and learn more about it, I consult an expert in the subject. I consult science.

I'll check out what Dr. Paloma Muñoz has to say. She's an expert in my wife's religion. And she's helping to preserve it. This is what science looks like in the 21st century.

Trabajo de campo 2013 con la agrupación SON DEL TUNO del Patía Cauca, Colombia. Tesis doctoral LAS ALMAS DE LOS VIOLINES 'NEGROS'

[overleft]

2. My belief is that all have a right to express their faith whether in a diety or

whatever they believe .But in the same instance, respect the belief of others and not have ill will when they are different. Isn't that what liberalism encompasses? Live and let live with care and respect for your neighbor. Not I am right and you are wrong. Each has his or her own calling.

[shrike3]

40. I agree.

[ShazzieB]

3. I'm with you.

I never thought of it as proselytizing when atheists slam ALL religions and insist that only atheism is deserving of any respect, but when you put it that way, it makes a lot of sense. SOME (not all, some) atheists can be as disrespectful toward other people's belief systems as SOME religionists are.

[Jirel]

4. No, it does not "clang."

You are making the same error of reasoning that every religion wants to make - treating atheism as just another religion. It is not. It is an absence of belief, and yes, it is often a rejection of all beliefs.

Many people believe QAnon garbage as true. It is a deeply held belief. But that does not prevent people of all faiths from ridiculing the stupidity. Likewise, belief in gods and all that goes with it is not above criticism.

[Atticus]

6. And you make the same error other atheists have. Proselytization is the urging or encouraging

of others to adopt a religion OR a "belief system". Choosing non-belief is a belief system.

I agree that atheism is not a "religion", but it is an answer to a universally asked question.

No one is suggesting that religion can't be questioned or criticized and I would be the first to agree that there is much to criticize.

Was it your intent to equate religious faith with "Q-anon garbage"?

[Jirel]

22. Nice bait, LOL.

By the way, atheism is not an “answer to a universally asked question.” It is the lack of answer, because atheists don’t need to ask it. Religions are losing their “churched” faithful because there is no automatic desire to ask questions that form the basis of religion, in the modern age with advanced science to explain stuff. Being a practicing, “churched” member requires indoctrination, usually from birth, or it would not occur to young people to spend any mental energy on religion.

Non-belief is not a “system.” It is simply saying, “No thanks, I’ve never bothered reading Lord Of The Rings, I have no desire to, and what the hell makes you think Gandalf is our lord and savior anyway? What an absurd notion about a fictional character.”

[shrike3]

41. Except that I know anti-theists and non-religious who believe the most outrageous things.

Maybe because man is not a rational animal. Why else would casinos be full every day of the week?

[Jirel]

58. Quite true.

Being an atheist doesn't mean that a person can not believe something bizarre. It just means that they don't believe in a deity for which there is no evidence.

[shrike3]

61. Yes.

I know atheists who refuse to vaccinate. Maybe it's an attitude. "No one tells me what to do." Anyway, I've read the numbers: non-believers more likely to vaccinate than believers. I'm sure that's true, I just wonder what happened with a few of the people I know.

[Atticus]

43. "---atheists don't need to ask it." So, it never occurs to atheists to ask the "What is the

meaning of life?" type questions?

How did I get here?

Why am I here?

What is real besides me?

Will I really die?

What, if anything, exists beyond death.

How and why does everything work?


Would all self-respecting atheists agree with you?

[Jirel]

63. Some of those questions? Nope.

I don't get to speak for "all self-respecting atheists." I get to speak for myself and the atheists I know.

"How did I get here?" Covered by science. Can look it up in a science book.

"Why am I here?" Nope, usually not. This is a question that has never crossed my mind, nor the minds of many atheists I know. The question itself is something of an absurdity, and requires the assumption that there is some deity out there that has a reason for why a person is here.

"What is real besides me?" Also, generally nope. I'm here. I'm therefore real. The things I interact with are as real as I am. Any attempt to qualify "real" as something else is just fairly silly mental gymnastics to redefine "real."

"Will I really die?" Nope. The people I know without religious indoctrination pretty much remember that moment they were introduced to the concept of death. As soon as we got our heads around the definition and stopped panicking, the only thing we were thinking was "Oh, CRAP."

"What, if anything, exists beyond death?" Mostly, that question came up during the traumatic childhood incident of learning the concept of death, and trying to wrap the brain around the end of existence. Asking that question is just one of the stages of grief.

"How and why does everything work?" Absolutely all the time. Which is why we have SCIENCE.

[Atticus]

65. I would normally respond with "Bless your heart!" but, I assume you don't believe in

blessings so "Carry on. Have a good one!"

[old as dirt]

74. El cerro del Manzanillo

How did I get here?

When I first met my wife a quarter century ago, she told me two things about her religion (Roman Catholic).

One of them was an answer to this very question.

She told me how her ancestors first climbed el cerro del Manzanillo nearly 500 years ago, to see if they could find a way back to Africa.

When they couldn't see Africa, they cried and played their drums.

Over time, whenever their descendants were sad, they too would climb el cerro del Manzanillo, and look out to see if they could see Africa, and then they could not, like their ancestors they would cry and play their musical instruments.

Over time, all of those tears coalesced to form a lake.

El cerro del Manzanillo is a magical, mythical and geographical place.

When my wife was a little girl, there was a rumor going around Patía that la Virgen María had appeared at the top, so my wife and her friend climbed to the top to see if they could see Her.

That was more than 6 decades ago.

[LakeArenal]

5. I don't think its the same.

There’s nothing provable in religion.

The greatest mind of my life time says gods are not necessary for the creation of the universe.

I believe there is no such thing as divinity. Period.

[Atticus]

8. Can you prove God does not exist---or is that simply your belief? nt

[MineralMan]

9. No proof of a negative is necessary, nor is it possible.

Atheists simply do not believe that such things as deities exist. It is not a positive belief at all. It is simply disbelief.

I've never seen a single bit of evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, so I don't believe any such thing exists. I don't care a whit what you believe, frankly, as long as you do not insist that I believe as you do. I will not.

[Atticus]

10. However you choose to describe it, you choose to believe something which cannot be

proved. And, that is perfectly okay with me.

I will never insist that anyone share my beliefs as long as we can share the same facts.

[MineralMan]

12. No. You are incorrect.

I choose to believe things that are supported by actual evidence. All other statements, I simply disbelieve.

You continue to say that disbelief is some sort of belief. It is not. It is a simple lack of belief.

Your logic fails due to that.

[Atticus]

14. I await your "actual evidence" that God does not exist? nt

[Cartoonist]

16. It doesn't work that way.

Here is a FACT that is 100% true and cannot be denied. It is also the core of Atheism.

There exists NO proof of the existence of a GOD.

[Atticus]

17. Again, the other side of the coin: there exists no proof of the non-existence of God. nt

[Cartoonist]

21. You can't use a double negative.

I guess I have to put it more simply.

Consider knowledge as a piece of blank paper. As you discover and learn things, you enter the facts on that paper. All entries must be backed up by verifiable reality. You just can't put God on the page and say I have to prove him off. You are the one making a claim of fact. You have to prove it. Until then, that spot on the page remains blank.

[ShazzieB]

42. Who needs to prove anything?

Not me. I feel no need to convince anyone of anything where the existence or non-existence of a god is concerned.

Live and let live is my motto.

[Cartoonist]

76. That's great advice.

Tell that to the Evangelicals.

[old as dirt]

45. Why not?

You can't use a double negative.

Are you using Classical Logic? If so, the double negatives just cancel.

Of course, if you are using Intuitionist Logic (such as the internal logic of a Topos, for example), putting a double negative in front of a proposition may indeed change its meaning. But you can still do it. I don't really see the problem, here.

There are infinitely many possible logics. Which one are you using, and why are double negatives not allowed in your logic?

[Cartoonist]

55. It's allowed in the sense that you can do it.

But by doing so, you cancel your argument.

I can't prove there is no poison in the air. The fact I am not dropping dead means it is unlikely, but there might be trace elements. If I do drop dead, then it is likely there is.

By saying there is a God, you have made a statement of fact that requires proof. When I say there is no proof of God, I have made a statement of fact proven by a lack of evidence.

[old as dirt]

60. You can prove it or not...your choice.

By saying there is a God, you have made a statement of fact that requires proof. When I say there is no proof of God, I have made a statement of fact proven by a lack of evidence.

But when you assert the nonexistence of a proof, you will convince more people of its nonexistence if you prove that it doesn't exist.

Ever heard the name Kurt Godel?

[Atticus]

69. I'm sure you believe that proves your point. nt

[Jirel]

25. That is again a false characterization.

A person who believes in a religion can never share the same facts with an atheist. To a believing member of a religion, there are a whole lot of things they accept as true, from their teachings, that are unprovable and in many cases fall apart entirely under scrutiny. Therefore, the “factual” world view of someone who believes in a particular religion will always be at odds with provable fact.

It’s not up to an atheist to disprove whatever wild things a person with religion believes. It’s simply an atheist’s prerogative to understand that this person is basing choices, values, and interaction with actual, provable facts on a fictional story usually going back hundreds or thousands of years, and rely on that person’s statements accordingly.

[old as dirt]

18. I disagree.

No proof of a negative is necessary, nor is it possible.

As a mathematician, I prove so-called “negatives” every day.

Your culture may be different.

[Hav]

23. How would you prove

the non-existence of Bigfoot?

[Cartoonist]

24. No, I think you are actually proving equilibrium.

Define a mathematical negative. I don't mean negative numbers. I mean something like prove 2+2=5.

[old as dirt]

29. Proving equilibrium?

No, I think you are actually proving equilibrium.

Define a mathematical negative. I don't mean negative numbers. I mean something like prove 2+2=5.

I'm not even sure what you mean by this.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-cannot-prove-a-negative-then-how-did-Andrew-Wiles-prove-Fermats-Last-Theorem-Isnt-the-statement-no-three-positive-integers-a-b-and-c-satisfy-the-equation-a-n-b-n-c-n-for-any-integer-value-of-n-greater-than-2

[Cartoonist]

48. I'm not sure what you mean by mathematical negative.

Please explain.

[old as dirt]

51. It's not a term that logicians use.

It's just a silly term that gets thrown around by folks seeking to justify their (ir)religious beliefs on the internet.

The best that a logician can make of it is the negation of a statement with a sequence of existential quantifiers followed by an atomic formula with no quantifiers.

You did click on the link and read a few answers, didn't you?

Here's an example.

It is not the case that there exists positive integers x, y, z, n such that ( n>2 and x^n + y^n = z^n ).

Ever heard of Andrew Wiles?

[Cartoonist]

56. What link?

No, I never heard of him.

I'm not saying I understand that bit about logical negatives, but it is clearly not the same negative meant by not being able to prove a negative.

[old as dirt]

59. The link in the post you were replying to above.

https://www.quora.com/If-you-cannot-prove-a-negative-then-how-did-Andrew-Wiles-prove-Fermats-Last-Theorem-Isnt-the-statement-no-three-positive-integers-a-b-and-c-satisfy-the-equation-a-n-b-n-c-n-for-any-integer-value-of-n-greater-than-2

[Cartoonist]

67. I missed it

I don't consider that a negative. I see the pretzel logic applied. The equation is a statement of fact. It has not been disproven.

[stopdiggin]

66. inability to 'disprove the negative'

is a useful construct in terms of logic and discourse. You might not find it strictly true in the most technical sense - but it is still valuable in explaining why we probably should not believe that RFK was cloned, or that the Mayan calendar has the end of the world calculated down to a millisecond.

[old as dirt]

70. It is useful for some...

...to claim that what I do every day cannot be done.

inability to 'disprove the negative' is a useful construct in terms of logic and discourse

Even if it does come off sounding like an excuse.

I'm sure it has some utility in internet debates.

[stopdiggin]

72. So ... You would agree that

a challenge to "prove that there is no God" - is a reasonable and valid proposition? Or not?
--- ---

[old as dirt]

75. It's a challenge, ...

...but not a proposition.

a challenge to "prove that there is no God" - is a reasonable and valid proposition? Or not?

It's a challenge that I would decline, reasonable or not.

Somebody here wanted me to prove the nonexistence of the Lock Nes Monster somewhere in this thread.

I'll pass.

[old as dirt]

19. In the absense of evidence, ...

… the conclusions that we make are likely to be culturally based.

I've never seen a single bit of evidence for the existence of anything supernatural, so I don't believe any such thing exists.

Fortunately, science can help us understand the cultural implications of a lack of evidence.

[LakeArenal]

77. Science says god is superfluous for my existence.

I do believe in science.

Yes I don’t give any credulity to divinity. If you want to parse words. It really doesn’t matter to me if others believe don’t believe whatever…because at this point god or dieties have no affect on my existence.

What I hope is everone finds what they are hoping they find.

If it matters i want to believe in ghosts because Mr Lake has had that experience.

[WhiteTara]

20. No Mind, No Buddha

No Buddha, No Mind

It's all an inside job.

[MineralMan]

7. Atheism is NOT an "alternative belief system."

It is simply non-belief in supernatural entities and forces.

[Atticus]

11. It certainly is an alternative belief. Is your problem with the "system" part? nt

[MineralMan]

13. Again, it is merely a lack of belief.

You misunderstand.

[Atticus]

15. Do you not "believe" that God does not exist? nt

[Jirel]

28. No.

An atheist no more “believes” that a god does not exist, than they “believe” that the sky is not pink with orange and puce polka dots. The directly observable sky right now is blue. Should the directly observable sky ever actually turn pink with orange and puce polka dots, then an atheist would reevaluate and start examining how the sky could turn such a pattern despite it never having done so in recorded history, and against all scientific knowledge of how the sky appears to us as blue.

Same thing applies to gods. There has never been a single observable piece of evidence of any gods’ existence. Should there ever be one, such as an alleged young goddess arriving before a crowd and yelling, “Behold, I have stolen sacred knowledge from my father, which I bestow unto you, my people!” and suddenly everyone there has skills and knowledge previously unknown to any human, then atheists would get right on figuring that one out, too.

[old as dirt]

30. I believe that God does not exist.

An atheist no more “believes” that a god does not exist, than they “believe” that the sky is not pink with orange and puce polka dots.

Does my belief in the nonexistence of God mean that I'm not an atheist?

[Atticus]

33. As said before, you are certainly free to believe or "not believe" as you think best. At least,

that's what I believe.

[MineralMan]

49. I do NOT believe that any deities exist.

Non-belief is not equivalent to belief.

I am completely unable to believe that deities exist. I am equally unable to believe that any supernatural phenomena exist.

Where there is evidence, I can believe, based on that evidence. Where there is none, I cannot believe.

[Atticus]

57. Who said non-belief was the "equivalent" of belief? Are the terms not simply the

opposite sides of the same coin?

[sanatanadharma]

26. What scientific evidence exists to prove the existence of...

What scientific evidence exists to prove the existence of one's own consciousness?
What consciousness is, is a separate investigation.

Is there any possible scientific evidence of the non-existence of consciousness?
Is there any possible scientific evidence that can negate the existence of your own consciousness?
Is there any objective reason for me to assume that other individuals actually have consciousness as I know myself?
Is anything known in the universe that is not known to (in, by) consciousness?

I posit that it is impossible to remove consciousness from science and impossible for science to negate the existence of consciousness.

Trying to do so is circular, wherein conscious-being tries to prove to conscious-being that conscious-being dies not exist.
One knows the conscious-center of one's being without any evidence, because conscious-being is self-evident.
We are born with that knowledge; all other knowledge is learned.

[old as dirt]

32. I'm as skeptical of your existence as I am of my own.

And apparently I'm not alone.

snip-------------

Robert Kurzban shows us that the key to understanding our behavioral inconsistencies lies in understanding the mind's design. The human mind consists of many specialized units designed by the process of evolution by natural selection. While these modules sometimes work together seamlessly, they don't always, resulting in impossibly contradictory beliefs, vacillations between patience and impulsiveness, violations of our supposed moral principles, and overinflated views of ourselves.

This modular, evolutionary psychological view of the mind undermines deeply held intuitions about ourselves, as well as a range of scientific theories that require a "self" with consistent beliefs and preferences. Modularity suggests that there is no "I." Instead, each of us is a contentious "we"--a collection of discrete but interacting systems whose constant conflicts shape our interactions with one another and our experience of the world.

snip-------------

http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9271.html

Or maybe I am alone. I mean, does Robert Kurzban actually exist?

[sanatanadharma]

73. Mind, brain, consciousness, self: are they all the same?

Mind, brain, consciousness, self: are they all the same?

I agree about the contentious "we" mentioned above in Robert Kurzban' words.
I say our identity as existent-consciousness is self-evident, a-priori, needing no proof.
However, if we investigate the mind-thoughts about what 'I am', apart from 'that I am', there are many confusions.
I am a baby, no I am a child, oops no a young adult, did I say young, I am dead, did I say that?

When the investigation is done, one sees that all 'identity' labels based upon body*, desires, actions, experiences, knowledge, etc. can be discarded or negated yet something is still left. Something that has never been known to be absent and doesn't change (in its nature) over time; unlike the body, the mind, desires, experiences, any of the stuff of our life.

*Trans-gender evidences the ephemeral nature of our most basic identity-factor, the body wrapper.

[old as dirt]

78. Trying to isolate and define the individual...

...is like trying to isolate and define an eddy in a stream. Writing down the Navier Stokes Equations is only a crude first step, grappling in the dark.

*Trans-gender evidences the ephemeral nature of our most basic identity-factor, the body wrapper.

Identity is interesting, from a historical point of view. It can involve everything from culture to music to religion to gold to cattle rustling to Funerales de Angelitos to el cerro del Manzanillo or even to the devil.

RELIGIOSIDAD AFROPATIANA
Funerales de Angelitos: Arrullos

https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10554/6623/tesis149.pdf

I am a baby, no I am a child, oops no a young adult, did I say young, I am dead, did I say that?

Apparently, when an infant or a small child (age 7 or younger) dies, their bodies are prepared differently than adults, and are considered as angels who go directly to heaven, as they have not been on this planet long enough to have sinned.

[Atticus]

34. I have seldom enjoyed reading and thinking about a post as much as I enjoyed yours.

Thank you.

[cilla4progress]

27. God may "exist"

in your mind.

Does not mean, much less prove, s/he exists in the world.

Who or what is god? How do you define it?

[Atticus]

31. Unlike some here, I have not stated my belief or lack of belief. That is a personal decision

and is no one else's business.

[cilla4progress]

36. How can one sensibly talk about the existence of a thing

if they are unwilling to define the very thing they are debating??

This exaclty is my problem with religion. Always speaking in tongues. Purposely vague.

[Atticus]

46. Ok. nt

[shrike3]

39. I agree.

[Chainfire]

35. If people who believe in some sort of deity choose to believe that the lack

of belief is a belief system, so be it. It is no skin off my teeth.

There is, however a difference in non-belief and non-belief as a form of belief system of its own. Absence of faith is more akin to a vacuum than a system of belief. There is noting there to "disbelieve." I can, however, understand how "believers" have a hard time with the concept. It is not a case of non-believers being an "anti-god cult." As a non-believer, I do not form groups to share and expand my lack of beliefs, nor do I attempt to convert others to my lack of belief. I don't attack religious people, in fact, I feel sorry for them all equally; I know that they don't appreciate it, but it is their problem, not mine.

Many years ago, I attended a lecture given my Dr. Carl Sagan. This was about the time of the release of the Cosmos series, and as I remember it, that was the subject matter. At the end of the lecture, there was a question and answer period. After several questions and answers on the theme of the lecture, a young man rose, and asked Dr. Sagan, "Do you believe in God?" Dr. Sagan replied with a question that completely dumbfounded the questioner, he asked, "Which God?" The questioner was taken off guard and could not articulate an answer. Dr. Sagan's question was a valid response. There must have been thousands of gods through our history. Which of those gods have more or less validity, more or less evidence than the current belief systems? Why is Loki less believable than the God of Abraham?

There have been thousands religions and gods, not thousands of sects of non-believers, we are one...

[cilla4progress]

37. Exactly!

Sagan is genius!

Feels like good company to be in...

[shrike3]

44. No offense, but I remember attending a meeting of progressives.

And the atheists in the room spent most of the time arguing. It was a little like watching monks argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

As a believer, all I had to say was, "I'm religious, but respect your right not to be." And that was that.

Most of these atheists came from a fundie background. Maybe it's something genetic, or just socialized behaviors, because they all engaged in black and white thinking.

[Atticus]

50. Dr. Sagan, who I admire greatly, criticized not the existence of God, but the popular concept of

God. He believed in a larger greater God --- a God for the universe, not just our "tiny blue dot", earth.

[shrike3]

38. My only problem is with people who say I should think/believe as they do.

I've met a few atheists who did the ridicule, "how can you be so stupid?" sort of thing. Although I would say I've had far more difficulty with the born again types.

Whatever people choose to believe or not to believe is fine with me. So long as they don't insist I share their POV. (A better word for it? POV?

[Chainfire]

47. I have never run into an atheist missionary.

Nor have I ever been asked to donate money or time to spread the non-gospel to the believers. Atheism is far more passive than the current big name religions. I have never seen an atheist threaten a child with an eternity of the worst possible torture if they dared to believe in some sort of deity. Of course there will be some anecdote about an aggressive non-believer, but they will be the exception, not the norm.

For example, and I am not picking on Mormons but : The Church of Latter Day Saints, As of 2019, has 67,000 full time proselytizing young missionaries all over the world with many more elder missionaries serving in similar circumstances. Look for yourself for other numbers, they are not hard to find. Now I will ask, who is pushing their belief systems on others?

[shrike3]

54. Who said it was about proselytizing?

Unless you consider telling religious people how stupid they are -- and how much smarter and more tolerant atheists are --- which I don't. Which is annoying when it happens. Especially when I go out of my way not to do the same.

btw, I'm religious and I get proselytized all the time. I also get told I'm stupid. Sometimes I think this is a "my group's better than your group" situation than anything else.

I think in the end I am asking for the same thing you are. To be left alone.

btw, I've actually read the book "It Can't Happen Here." I know it gets quoted a lot. Lewis was an atheist. Had no use for religion. But his atheist character (one of the heroes of the book) said he didn't publicly identify with other atheists because too many of them were no better than people out on the street corners handing out, "You Can Be Saved" pamphlets. Given who Lewis was (I've read most of his books, including Elmer Gantry) I thought that was an interesting passage.

[Chainfire]

68. I mentioned that there would be ancectodal arguments.

I am sorry that someone told you that you were stupid. Personally, I have never told a religious person that I thought they were stupid, even though I have talked to some very stupid people who were also very religious. In all fairness, I know some dumb-assed atheists too.

Again, it is not an issue of my group is better than your group, if you followed my argument I tried to make the point that atheists are not a "group" at all, or is it a belief system. If you want to argue that, please refute me with something tangible. My point was that one of the two groups that we are discussing pushes their point more then the other; thus pointing out the number of people who's full time job was spreading the gospel in one of the smaller religious sects. If you want to argue that, please back your arguments with numbers. Find me a group of 67,000 atheists who are spreading their "gospel."

I am not saying, and did not say that there are not atheists who are not assholes, I am just talking stats. Pleas, tell me that last time that a couple of folks rang your doorbell and disturbed your dinner to talk to you about nothing.

As far as I am concerned, I am all about being left alone too. A good start would be removing tax breaks for religions and religious symbolism from my government organizations. Don't make my taxes pay to put your Christian symbolism on my light polls every December. Just a thought...

I will, speaking for myself only, will give you some satisfaction. Yes, I freely admit it, I do feel somewhat superior to religious people. I hope that that helps.

[shrike3]

80. Funny, I don't feel superior to you at all.

Just regard you as another human being, no better, no worse than I. Your an attitude is indeed one many atheists share, or at least that is so in my experience. AND, that's a "my group is better than your group" example if I ever saw one.

If I remember China's history, there was a time when atheists did indeed push their POV, and violently. I remember mentioning this to an atheist, and her response was, "Yes, mistakes were made, but belief in a god is always wrong." I bit my lip to keep from laughing. How many times have religious leaders said something similar ("mistakes were made, but --" only to be met with scorn from non-believers.

Believe it or not, I do think government and religion should be wholly separated, but probably not for the same reason you do. The United States has become so polygot, not only with other religions but with the nones, who are not only non-believers but people who may believe in a supreme being but do not claim membership in a religion, that the only fair way to do things is to make religion a wholly private matter and not present in government at all.

Well, have fun feeling superior to me.

[Chainfire]

82. Thank you for that.

And, please don't take it personally. I feel that facts trump faith, and as I said, I speak for no one but myself.

[shrike3]

83. It's more irritation than me taking things personally.

I always imagined live and let live would be enough for anybody, but it seems not always. I had an atheist co-worker who would nag and nag me about the fact I went to church. Time came for Secret Santa, and I helped his "Santa" pick out a gift. When she told him I helped, he said, right in front of me, "Then it's something religious." It was not, and in fact was something he'd been talking about for months. The next day he asked if he could buy me lunch, and we were friends from then on.

I also got to appreciate his POV. He'd been proselytized by so many religious people, he felt he had to be on the offensive whenever dealing with one. I said, "You could worship Great Horned Owls and I wouldn't care." He said, "To me, worshipping Great Horned Owls would make more sense." We both had a laugh over that.

[old as dirt]

53. Weird claims about the intelligence of other cultures...

...is an ugly practice that goes back centuries.

I've met a few atheists who did the ridicule, "how can you be so stupid?" sort of thing. Although I would say I've had far more difficulty with the born again types.

[stopdiggin]

52. Isn't there a certain amount of 'disrespect' built in

to difference of opinion and belief? Is it truly honest to claim that I have equal respect or value for a belief that I in no way share? Isn't the best that we can really ask for in terms of such stark disagreement - is civility? And even that ... Assumes a moral or ethical neutrality, that quite clearly does not always exist.

I'm not particularly comfortable with some of the condescendation and snark put forward by (some) atheists. But I think it is more a matter of good manners - than any kind of respect or acknowledgement between competing beliefs, which I find to be a mostly hollow tenet.
----- -----

[shrike3]

62. Civility, yes.

Thanks for your response.

[old as dirt]

79. Just out of curiosity.

Do you feel that your attitude towards Black Catholic cultures is civil?

It didn't seem civil to me.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/122111009

Your civility is indistinguishable from white supremacy.

[old as dirt]

64. Differences in culture is the price we pay...

...for living in a multicultural world.

[Atticus]

71. THANKS TO ALL FOR THEIR CIVIL RESPONSES AND SOME VERY GOOD

POINTS MADE ON EACH SIDE---IMHO.

[shrike3]

81. Stephen Colbert once said religion is based on emotion.

I think he was on to something. Why discussion of it can be so difficult.

[old as dirt]

86. What would it take...

...for you to accept the cultures who fought the Wars for Catholicism?

Stephen Colbert once said religion is based on emotion.

I think he was on to something. Why discussion of it can be so difficult.

Would science help?

I can find Historians. I can find Anthropologists.

All that's left is for you to open your eyes and open your mind and open your heart.

RELIGIOSIDAD AFROPATIANA
Funerales de Angelitos: Arrullos

https://repository.javeriana.edu.co/bitstream/handle/10554/6623/tesis149.pdf;sequence=1

From page 44:

El Palenque del El Castigo

"Stolen from Africa, brought to America,
Fighting on arrival, fighting for survival"

Doy el primer paso - Canción de bienvenida al papa Francisco

[sanatanadharma]

84. Neither atheist nor theist am I

Until there is a "definition" of God, all is useless prattle.

Can God have attributes, definitional qualities, that distinguish a god from not-god or other-god?
What need we be looking for in order to 'know' God?

If one says God exists, is existence separable from God? Is existence not more like the nature of God?
Can God exist without consciousness also being God's inherent nature, or is consciousness also an add-on?

If Divinity is equivalent to Existent-Consciousness, can I negate that Divinity without negating my own self?

If the 'real' is only that which our five senses can reveal, where (what) is that reality? Ocean, water, H2O, molecules, hydrogen, oxygen, atoms, electrons? Where does this 'quarky' reality lie?

What is the reality of a rainbow or mirage? Neither exist without conscious presence to cognize, and later recognize, them.

[old as dirt]

85. Rainbow River In Colombia Is The Most Beautiful In The World

What is the reality of a rainbow or mirage?

This is Colombia's stunning rainbow river, Cano Crystals. The stunning footage captured by TravelDrone4K, shows the colorful river which is filled with macarenia clavigera plant. This plant changes color depending on the light and water conditions. The plants within the river have been seen in green, orange, red, yellow, and even blue.