No, Mujus, I just find it all a bit silly, thats all.

You know whats really messed up? After a 12 pack of brews and a handful of joints, I STILL CANT FALL ASLEEP,

Pffft Mujus, that is the most patronizing thing I've ever heard. Atheists don't believe in god because we're too cynical to believe in a wholly benevolent altruistic being? I'm insulted, and I'm rolling my eyes at your Hollywood-esque interpretation of atheism.

"Pffft Mujus, that is the most patronizing thing I've ever heard. Atheists don't believe in god because we're too cynical to believe in a wholly benevolent altruistic being? I'm insulted, and I'm rolling my eyes at your Hollywood-esque interpretation of atheism."

Much better than the "Religious believe in god because they are weak mindless cattle" thesis put forward in this thread.

just to point out, *you* said "weak mindless cattle", no one else. interesting

I approach this problem from a philosophical and a practical sense and both lead me to be an atheist.

From a philosophical view, I've chosen to live my life to not believe in something unless I am able to test it myself. This does not mean I *do* test everything myself (some things I do), but having the option makes me comfortable. Can I test Quantum Mechanics? Well, yes. I've personally derived many of the expressions and I've seen results in clean rooms. Can I test that jesus rose from the grave? No, nor are there reliable sources that says he did.

From a practical view, there are two problems. First, I have no idea *which* religion to believe. There are an infinite number that could be right. Statistically, my chance of picking the correct one is 0. So, to me, it seems better to live my life as if there is no God. If I'm right, I didn't waste every Sunday morning. If I'm wrong, I can beg for forgiveness at the entrance to Valhalla, or on the shore of the River Styx. Also, I simply *cannot* believe in a god that would damn me to hell for not using the brain he gave me, so I'm actually incapable of sincerely believing in a god.

Either way you look at it, atheism makes more sense.

I never advocated the mindless cattle theory of religiosity SantaClausowitz and even though other people have I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump down MY throat about it.

There is a God.

http://www.evilmilk.com/pictures/Fun_Game.jpg

I'll stop denigrating the religious when they stop denigrating science and siding with the powerful over the powerless. Anyway, why can't you Abrahamics acknowledge the existence of other gods? The Abrahamics instituted religious bigotry and religion has been a source of fanaticism and unreason ever since. It used to simply be a matter of public ritual or celebrating holidays. Now it has to consume every single damn thing you do.

What can be said which hasn't been said already on this topic? Well I now begin to appreciate militant atheism/religious fundementalism as limited forces for good. At least they enable useful conversation between atheists, agnostics and theists to occur after this premise has been mutually established between the parties: ''I am not one of those, now lets talk.......''.

I was raised in a lukewarm Lutheran family. I was encouraged to read different mythologies, Greek, Roman, and Egyptian. I realized Christianity was just a variation on these same themes.
Pre-science, they answered questions about the world around them and provided behavioral guidelines to create a better society. Scientific experiments have disproven the more incredulous claims and provided a more perfect framework of understanding the Universe around us. Not saying science can replace the moral framework provided by religion.

I act in an upright manner not because I have to be bribed with Heaven or punished with Hell, but because my family believed treating people with respect and helping others, was in itself a rewarding endeavor.

Man made God, not the other way. Also never take religion away from someone. If it takes them believing in an invisible boogeyman to treat others with respect, don't take that crutch away.

I am a Christian.

To yellow's inevitable question: I don't know why God doesn't heal amputees, or why He doesn't heal the ones He doesn't, anyway. (I don't know if He might choose to heal some without my knowing of it). He hasn't chosen to tell me everything. He's God.

''Why God doesn't heal amputees?'' or a variant ''why do bad things happen to good people?''

I am an agnostic, but lets assume for the sake of this argument that I take a theist stand. I might say something along the lines of - the argument of why God created/allows a world full of pain and suffering is indeed a difficult one for the theist to respond to, without appearing callous. Lets, however, consider the alternative and imagine a kind of nivana where we all live in iddylic innocence. What a boring creation this ''theme park world'' would be. How much more interesting to have a world where our input matters and makes a difference? How much more interesting to be truly ''made in the image of God?'' How much more interesting to be capable of being engaged with the divne in a mission of perfecting his creation? How much more interesting to have a world where there is birth and the cry of the newborn, for given the finite capacity of the Earth, this would be impossible without death.

@ Dwezilwoffa
''I act in an upright manner not because I have to be bribed with Heaven or punished with Hell, but because my family believed treating people with respect and helping others, was in itself a rewarding endeavor.''

I agree. A sizeable proportion of theists would agree with this too. To suggest that ALL theists' behaviour is only constrained by fear/reward in the context of the afterlife is a strawman argument.

(strawman = putting words into someone's mouth which they have not actually uttered)

I wouldn't suggest all theists believe in that. I would suggest most Protestant Americans, like the ones I do interact with 90% of the time believe this. I was bemused when one night after a bottle of wine, a conversation like this happened between I and my brothers Texan wife and her family. She couldn't wrap her head around that I had no need of Heaven. She felt sad that she wouldn't see me in Heaven.

Humans aren't special, we delude ourselves into believing we have a privileged position on this Earth, allowing us to rape the planet and despoil it as we see fit.

The Earth will go on, for Humanity the clock is ticking.

@ Dez
''I wouldn't suggest all theists believe in that.'' Good a point of agreement, thank you.

''for Humanity the clock is ticking.''

Of course drawing strictly on the tenets of Natural Selection you are absolutely correct. Speciation out of homo sapiens is inevitable at some point in time. Moreover, this speciation will be founded on sufficient genetic difference to preclude the production of succesful offspring. Some might define this genetic differnce to be eseentially a matter of race:

''At some future point, not distant as measured by centuries, the civilised races of man will almost certainly exterminate and replace the savage races throughout the world. At the same time the anthropomorphous apes, as Professor Schaaffhausen has remarked, will no doubt be exterminated. The break will then be rendered wider, for it will intervene between man in a more civilised state, as we may hope, than the Caucasian, and some ape as low as a baboon, instead of as at present between the negro or Australian and the gorilla''

Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

The leaps Humankind has made over the last 1000 years pales in comparison to the leaps Mankind has made in the last 100. The next 2 generations are going to be faced with questions ranging from Cybernization to Designer programmed offspring. We may very well have a split in our species. The conscious willful change in human evolution may bring us together as truly one people, or splinter into more asinine fighting over the meanings of words.

@Dwez. Do you disagree that taken is isolation the tenets of Natural Selection will result in speciation, whatever homo sapiens might or might not do. In those terms, to think otherwise would surely be anthropocentrically niave in the extreme.

No I fully back the ideas behind Natural Selection, speciation, and all that as far as I have read. Not a specialty of mine.
As far as your other part if I am comprehending it correctly, it would be naive, just as believing the Sun was a god named Helios who drove his chariot across the sky each day.
But it is immaterial, Faith is not disproved by reality. Faith is an individual's right to meditate, seek spiritual or emotional healing or answers, in any manner as they see fit. As long as their manner of worship doesn't rely on denigrating others, cool.

@Dwez. Absolutely agree about faith and worship except the bit about reality. To those who believe God is a reality and who are we to say otherwise?

I am happy that you concur with my view that Natural Selection dictates that homo sapiens must necassarily be a temporary species, out of which future species will evolve on the basis of genetic difference/race. It seems like we agree much more than we differ.

I have been up all night, tired. Not sure I fully support my little definition of faith. Faith good, beliefs bad. Faith is hope and a longing for a completeness with something or someone greater than us. Beliefs tell you who are pure and who are to be gassed.

Faith = Imagination Belief = stop thinking

@ Dwez, no problem get some sleep. Maybe we will catch up tomorrow (your time).

I'm agnostic, but I have no problem with religion or religious people. Most world religions are excellent philosophies to live by. There are glaring exceptions, like the cults in Christianity and the murderous Islamic Sects like the Saudi Wahhadis.
Religion is a plus for mankind, but the separation of church and state is another of the brilliant ideas generated during our colonial period and enshrined in the Constitution.

"I never advocated the mindless cattle theory of religiosity SantaClausowitz and even though other people have I'd appreciate it if you didn't jump down MY throat about it."

Did I do that? I believe I said in this thread? I don't believe you were mentioned.

"I'll stop denigrating the religious when they stop denigrating science and siding with the powerful over the powerless. Anyway, why can't you Abrahamics acknowledge the existence of other gods? The Abrahamics instituted religious bigotry and religion has been a source of fanaticism and unreason ever since. It used to simply be a matter of public ritual or celebrating holidays. Now it has to consume every single damn thing you do."

When was that? Jewish Religion consumed everything you did since at least since the Talmud, I'll be glad to hear Putin's view on when Jews invented the Talmud which describes how you have to live with god every moment of the day and in everything you do.

"I'll stop denigrating the religious when they stop denigrating science and siding with the powerful over the powerless."

Religion always sides with the powerful over the powerless. Got it. Will you start denigrating Communist governments for doing the exact same thing? Oh, let me guess, its completely different.

"The Abrahamics instituted religious bigotry and religion has been a source of fanaticism and unreason ever since"

Oh yes because there was no religious bigotry before hand. Give up. Waiting for the wikipedia storm to defend these indefensible statements.

Santa, who said all of this?

Mafia and Putin

Ah I see now. I thought Mafia to have more sence, maybe he was being provoked?

@ Santa/aka S.E. Cupp

I see Santa takes his cues from maple. Figures. I love how the people who always demand sources then dismiss any source providing as "wikipedia". Just because you're too lazy to ever back up your arguments with anything other than your kneejerk commentary doesn't mean I am.

Anyway the Abrahamics introduced religious exclusivity. Notice the Hindus acknowledge and accept Jesus Christ and other deities foreign to Hinduism as legitimate Hindu deities. But Christians go into Hindu temples in India and tell them their gods are "false" (when they're not trying to bribe poor people into converting). The ancient pagans all accepted and acknowledged each other's gods. Romans were famous for worshipping various Egyptian deities like Isus. The ancient mediterranean civilizations were remarkable for their religious tolerance.

"Religion always sides with the powerful over the powerless. Got it. Will you start denigrating Communist governments for doing the exact same thing? Oh, let me guess, its completely different."

Uh yes, the whole point of communist governments was to put workers and peasants in charge, and that's exactly what happened. Which is why the opposition to them always came from the rich and the big landowners, whereas the poor today as they did in the cold war express support for the old regimes. Why is it that every communist government engaged in land reform to redistribute land from landowners to landless peasants?

But when all else fails, engage in redbaiting. Because that beats having religion be held accountable for always siding with capital and big landowners over the peasants and workers.

Santa started lashing out at atheists as he normally does and Mafia simply said not to paint him with the same brush he always paints atheists. Don't worry, Fulham, most of Santa's quotes are from me.