Protestant Family and my search for truth.

[Mish]

Think about definitions of Atheism I posted OV. There is a reason why Atheism is defined this way.

[IndiReloaded]

Mish, from your very own link you posted:

Atheism, as a philosophical view, is the position that either affirms the nonexistence of gods[1] or rejects theism.[2] When defined more broadly, atheism is the absence of belief in deities,[3] alternatively called nontheism.[4] Although atheism is often equated with irreligion, some religious philosophies, such as secular theology and some varieties of Buddhism such as Theravada, either do not include belief in a personal god as a tenet of the religion, or actively teach nontheism.
Many self-described atheists are skeptical of all supernatural beings and cite a lack of empirical evidence for the existence of deities. Others argue for atheism on philosophical, social or historical grounds. Although many self-described atheists tend toward secular philosophies such as humanism[5] and naturalism,[6] there is no one ideology or set of behaviors to which all atheists adhere.[7]

This is nothing at all like blind belief in religion. Do you know what the difference is b/t Buddhist belief & atheism, btw? Why one is a religion & one isn't? Take a stab at it, even if you're not sure.

I found this portion particularly amusing:

The term atheism originated as a pejorative epithet applied to any person or belief in conflict with established religion.

[IndiReloaded]

Think about definitions of Atheism I posted OV. There is a reason why Atheism is defined this way.

You may be interested to know, Mish that the ppl who tend (and started) labelling atheism with the 'Capital' attached (i.e. Atheism) are Christians arguing against the 'evils' of atheism. Think about this yourself. The language you use is indicative of your biases.

[IndiReloaded]

I'm just stating the fact that there are and there were many others who happened to be atheists and who shared a need to eradicate those who don't share their point of view.

Mish you are like a broken record on this & I've already told you: this is like saying that Tall ppl who commit murder do so b/c of their Tallness. Not so. I have challenged you to explain the pathway whereby lack of belief in a god-system logically leads to violence. Explain the steps. I can do this, easily, for any organized religion (or non-organized, or cult for that matter).

Blind belief and rational thinking on a subject are simply incompatible. I said this earlier & explained the reasons why.

Truth is, I don't hate religious ppl at all. I actually feel sorry for them & what they have given up. As Gribble said, I honour their right to believe provided they don't try to force it down my (or anyone else's) throat. But I do pity the limitations on their thoughts & I think they have succumbed to the ultimate mental manipulation.

[Mish]

Mish, from your very own link you posted:

I support everything you highlighted in that link.

This is nothing at all like blind belief in religion.

Any blind belief is equevalent to blind belief to me.

Do you know what the difference is b/t Buddhist belief & atheism, btw? Why one is a religion & one isn't? Take a stab at it, even if you're not sure.

I know the difference Indi. I never said Atheism is a Religion. I remember describing it as phillosophical point of view, doctrine and ideology.

I found this portion particularly amusing:

Ironic, I know

[Mish]

You may be interested to know, Mish that the ppl who tend (and started) labelling atheism with the 'Capital' attached (i.e. Atheism) are Christians arguing against the 'evils' of atheism. Think about this yourself. The language you use is indicative of your biases.

Really? I didn't know

Will you now say I'm Christian based on whether or not I spell Atheism with Caps?

[IndiReloaded]

Really? I didn't know

Will you now say I'm Christian based on whether or not I spell Atheism with Caps?

Not at all. I'm just saying that a lot of ppl who are labelled atheist tend not to think of themselves as Atheist. In contrast to those who call themselves Christian/Buddhist/<insert Religious Group> of choice. It is members of the latter that tend to think of 'Atheists' in that regard. Anti-"their Religion", I suppose.

In other words, I have yet to apply for my Atheist's Club Card, lol.

[Mish]

Mish you are like a broken record on this & I've already told you: this is like saying that Tall ppl who commit murder do so b/c of their Tallness. Not so.

Indi, you are calling the kettle black. You are using exactly the same logic against Religion. You're saying Religion inherently, logically leads to violence unlike Atheism which doesn't, with logical conclusion being Religious people are inherently violent while Atheist are inherently not.

I'm not saying that all atheists inherently are violent or not, just pointing out examples where there were some who were. Simply because you requested those examples.

I have challenged you to explain the pathway whereby lack of belief in a god-system logically leads to violence. Explain the steps. I can do this, easily, for any organized religion (or non-organized, or cult for that matter).

Okay, just for you Indi, the steps of how Atheistic majority in a country can logically lead to violence against Religious people.

1. An Atheist majority comes to power and forms a government (See example with Soviet Union)
2. An Atheist majority in Government creates a policy that "All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are organs of oppression and manufacturers of blind belief and violence in their subjects, used for the protection of the elite parasites which are destructive to a modern civilized society" (See example with Soviet Union)
3. An Atheist majority in Government decides to criminalize Religion and make worship punishable by law (See example with Soviet union)

This is not an example of what could be, this is an example of what already happened and will probably happen again.

Blind belief and rational thinking on a subject are simply incompatible. I said this earlier & explained the reasons why.

They may be incompabtible, but neither one is specifically evil or speciffically good. Either one can be used as a tool or a weapon.

Truth is, I don't hate religious ppl at all. I actually feel sorry for them & what they have given up. As Gribble said, I honour their right to believe provided they don't try to force it down my (or anyone else's) throat. But I do pity the limitations on their thoughts & I think they have succumbed to the ultimate mental manipulation.

I'm glad you are of this opinion Indi. And like I said as well, I have no quarrells with Atheists. I respect everyone's right to make best decisions for themselves.

[IndiReloaded]

Okay, just for you Indi, the steps of how Atheistic majority in a country can logically lead to violence against Religious people.

1. An Atheist majority comes to power and forms a government (See example with Soviet Union)
2. An Atheist majority in Government creates a policy that "All modern religions and churches, all and of every kind of religious organizations are organs of oppression and manufacturers of blind belief and violence in their subjects, used for the protection of the elite parasites which are destructive to a modern civilized society" (See example with Soviet Union)
3. An Atheist majority in Government decides to criminalize Religion and make worship punishable by law (See example with Soviet union)

This is not an example of what could be, this is an example of what already happened and will probably happen again.

LOL, you must be kidding Mish. Was there really an Atheist Party in the Soviet Union. Really?

Why don't you run the same statements, but now replace Atheist with "Communist" or "Fat, Balding White Men" or, just for fun, how about "Nazi"?

The fact that the Communists wanted to repress religious belief in the Soviet Union had to do with *wealth redistribution*. Its NOT that a bunch of fat, balding white men got together & said "Hey, I don't believe in God but there's a whole shitload of ppl that do. Let's repress them for their belief."

Its that the religious institutions had access to LARGE amount of wealth & the new government wanted an excuse to access it. So, make religion illegal & take the wealth. Its that simple Mish & nothing to do someone's belief in a personal God conflicting with someone else's disbelief in one, therefore they are evil, so lets trash their church b/c that makes sense.

Bad logic on this one, Mish. Sorry hun.

[IndiReloaded]

In this sense how could you test this scientists beliefs? How can you (using your own words) test him "behave a certain way in a given cricumstance, but then not behave in that way due to being overriden by his belief?"

Scientists don't BELIEVE blindly in black holes, tho, Mish. They just support the theory b/c of the available evidence. As soon as evidence to the contrary were made available, they would adjust their thinking accordingly.

Religion requires its believers to engage in behaviour or thinking *in spite of* contrary data. For example: "Murder is wrong". Except when murdering infidels. Then its a blessed act & God (whose existence is not proven) will send you to heaven (whose existance is not proven). That's what I meant by the congruency test, Mish. A mind that permits that kind of inconsistency is capable of 'rationalizing' almost anything. Religion, by virtue of the fact that it demands blind belief, permits this kind of illogic to occur & be exploited.

[Mish]

LOL, you must be kidding Mish. Was there really an Atheist Party in the Soviet Union. Really?

Yes there was. A Communist party which happened to be made entirely of Atheists. Yes, it's posible Indi. You can be both politically Communist and at the same time Atheist. Just like you can be both politically Democraticly oriented and at the same time Atheist.

The fact that the Communists wanted to repress religious belief in the Soviet Union had to do with *wealth redistribution*. Its NOT that a bunch of fat, balding white men got together & said "Hey, I don't believe in God but there's a whole shitload of ppl that do. Let's repress them for their belief."


Its that the religious institutions had access to LARGE amount of wealth & the new government wanted an excuse to access it. So, make religion illegal & take the wealth. Its that simple Mish & nothing to do someone's belief in a personal God conflicting with someone else's disbelief in one, therefore they are evil, so lets trash their church b/c that makes sense.

Redistribution of wealth was part of it in the beginning yes. But why did the oppression continue for the whole 70 years after all the wealth was redistributed Indi? Precisely because the majority party was Atheist and on the National level repressed people for their beliefs. The Atheists in government in the Soviet Union did not want some blind Religious followers in their mids, they wanted a modern society dedicated to progress and a modern society without what they called fairy tales.

[Mish]

Scientists don't BELIEVE blindly in black holes, tho, Mish. They just support the theory b/c of the available evidence. As soon as evidence to the contrary were made available, they would adjust their thinking accordingly.

But they have no way to test out their beliefs? What if in reality what they thought was wrong? They can't prove it.

By the way, this was in response to your "testing beliefs" quote. Non Religious people can also believe. What you quoted had nothing to do with Religion.

Religion requires its believers to engage in behaviour or thinking *in spite of* contrary data. For example: "Murder is wrong". Except when murdering infidels. Then its a blessed act & God (whose existence is not proven) will send you to heaven (whose existance is not proven). That's what I meant by the congruency test, Mish. A mind that permits that kind of inconsistency is capable of 'rationalizing' almost anything. Religion, by virtue of the fact that it demands blind belief, permits this kind of illogic to occur & be exploited.

Religion requires its believers to follow tenets (For example 10 Commandments). Everything else is subject to interprettation. Give it to an altruistic person and Religion will all be interpretted peacefully, give it to a chaotic person and Religion will be interpretted violently.

"Rationalizing" of any theory or ideology can be used by anyone to lead to anything. The most rational mind in the world, using the most rational principals in the world can rationally lead to complete chaos (I say this partly because I spent half of the day reading up on Chaos Theory hehe) Rationale or even logic are not the best litmus test of whether a philosophy or ideology can lead to acts of good or evil.

P.S. "Almost anything" can be rationalized by anyone with or without Religion. You can logically "Rationalize" Violence and make that rationalization dominant. I think the present and our modern history are a grim testament to that.

I think a much better litmus test of a phillosophy's lead is the amount of empathy and altruistic thought contained within its texts. It can be said that by virtue of the fact that most Religions are scattered with tenets of empathy and altruism they logically lead their followers in that direction.

[IndiReloaded]

Y
Redistribution of wealth was part of it in the beginning yes. But why did the oppression continue for the whole 70 years after all the wealth was redistributed Indi? Precisely because the majority party was Atheist and on the National level repressed people for their beliefs.

That is one interpretation. Another is that this is merely an example of social Darwinism. The men who came into power were not ignorant. They were probably aware of the very Machiavellan principles about maintaining power (if you haven't read The Prince you should--fascinating).

That is, once power was finally acquired (and as you know, Russia was very unstable for some time after the revolution) those in power wanted to ensure that their power wasn't destabilized thru (then) fairly powerful forces related to the displaced aristocrats/provisional government & the church that supported them. You don't let a power structure you have quashed regain power ever unless you want to spend your political effort fighting the same war over & over. Remember, 'atheist' is a term coined by religious ppl describing someone who doesn't support the idea of a personal god.

It is my belief (and only such w/o the ability to time travel) that if similar conditions existed & it was the atheists with power & money at that time, that the Communists would have alienated & repressed them just the same. Lots of atheist scientists fled Communist Russia, Mish, some in my family in fact. Their rational ideas weren't accepted either, not unless they were in agreement w/the party line.

I suppose I should ask: does repressing religion make one atheist? Careful how you answer this.

You can be both politically Communist and at the same time Atheist. Just like you can be both politically Democraticly oriented and at the same time Atheist.

I read this^ and couldn't help but think of the current US Bush admin & some of the caveats of that thought.

[IndiReloaded]

It can be said that by virtue of the fact that most Religions are scattered with tenets of empathy and altruism they logically lead their followers in that direction.

Its NOT logically, Mish. Its based on FAITH. Because The Lord God Says So. The 10 commandments came from God Himself via Moses after experiencing a hypoxia-induced delusional moment up on Mt Sinai (or whatever, its been a while since Sunday school, lol). There are ppl that BELIEVE this as fact.

And when The Lord God Says its okay to murder the infidels, then those sacred tenets go flying out the window.

The litmus is *congruence* in stated tenets and action. Atheists say 'show me the proof' & I will believe. No proof, not even reasonable doubt, so no believe. Religion just says 'believe'. Even when the tenets of the Holy Book CHANGE (lol, and there are several noted examples of this also in several religious books).

I could go on, Mish, but I think you don't really want to hear (and at some point I will have to compile all this into my own book if this keeps on). Read the books/authors I suggest. Almost everything we have touched upon is in there. You will find them interesting. Then decide for yourself what works for you.

PS - I think I've more than answered LW's original comment (which I was also addressing). That was: 'atheism is a religion'. I think I've explained why it is not. Enough said.

[Only-virgins]

You may be interested to know, Mish that the ppl who tend (and started) labelling atheism with the 'Capital' attached (i.e. Atheism) are Christians arguing against the 'evils' of atheism. Think about this yourself. The language you use is indicative of your biases.

Thank you. I have a hard time trying to explain that atheism is a default. I don't know how to explain it.