An Unscientific Theory On Religion Forums

[Earthling]

On forums about religion in general? Yes, I think so.

I think that there's plenty of religious discussion online by religious people, but it tends to be on forums devoted to their own religion specifically.

IMO, most religious people aren't really interested in ecumenicalism, so the people most interested in discussing "religion in general" are people on the outside looking in.

An excellent point I have also found to be true at religious forums. The Christians, even, themselves, tend to be disassociated with any denomination. They are, like me, on the fringes. Independent for the most part, from any denomination.

 

[ecco]

A steel structure high rise doesn't free fall or very near it.

You are correct. But, WTC didn't. So what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Earthling]

I think you're pretty much right in your impression that atheists (or nontheists, more generally speaking) are more active on RF than theists. But I'd suggest for your consideration the primary reason might be that atheists often enough come better prepared to "do battle" in defense of their believes than theists. That is, they have spent more time than theists thinking in adversarial terms about their beliefs, and so are better prepared to jump right into debating people about them.

This I have found to be true as well.

I am sure that's no real reflection on how much time either side puts into simply thinking about their beliefs. Theists I've known are mostly just as active as atheists in that way. But theists are not usually as active or adept (at least at first) in defending their views, or sometimes even in attacking views they don't agree with.

True, but this has only been the case for the last 10 years or so. When I first got online, in 1996 that wasn't the case. It gradually happened, and then in about 2005, maybe or about then, all of these forums that had Christians on them were emptied. Or taken down. At some point Christians either figured out there was no point in continuing the debate with atheists.

Atheists have the advantage here of necessarily going against the majority opinion, even of those near and dear to them. Theists usually have the disadvantage of having mostly experienced being around people who agree with them to at least some substantial extent.

That, and the significant fact that on RF at least, most "in-the-know" theists are intimidated at first by the sheer magnitude of my manly beauty -- which can so understandably be quite overwhelming to anyone who realizes I'm a nontheist. I mean, it's obvious, right? True is beauty. QED: I win every debate I get into -- even those debates I merely seem to lose (which is admittedly nearly every debate I get into).

Exactly. I have the same experience except I'm on the theist side.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

An excellent point I have also found to be true at religious forums. The Christians, even, themselves, tend to be disassociated with any denomination. They are, like me, on the fringes. Independent for the most part, from any denomination.

I sense that you're trying to push an agenda here. Of course most (all?) Christians are associated with a denomination, even the ones in "non-denominational" denominations.

 

[Earthling]

You are correct. But, WTC didn't. So what is the point you are trying to make?

Several building at the WTC complex did. In fact, building 7, the most suspicious, fell 20 minu tes after a reporter from the BBC said it had. The building was right behind her when she announced it. Now there's a lot of confusion going on, so that sort of thing is not that unusual. But, the owner, Silverstien (sp?) was interviewed and he said the decision was to "pull it." It takes weeks to do. They had to have done it in advance. George Bush's cousin was the security company man in charge of the WTC. There were a lot of fishy stuff going on in the wee hours in those buildings. Including the security dogs for sniffing bombs that had been implemented since the first attack on the WTC being removed.

 

[Earthling]

I sense that you're trying to push an agenda here. Of course most (all?) Christians are associated with a denomination, even the ones in "non-denominational" denominations.

I came here for feedback. I work on my website for months on end, and I get to the point where I need engaging discourse, even if it is with those who disagree with me. My agenda is always to teach the Bible to those who will listen and learn about other's who think differently from me and try to learn from them as well.

 

[Subduction Zone]

You're 61 years old. You're set in your ways. You keep telling me that I don't like it when people disagree with me. You keep telling me it makes me look bad. At the same time you keep telling me David Berlinsky is an Idiot. You say that because he disagrees with you. He is most certainly not an idiot. Christopher Hitchens disagreed with me, and I'm not saying he's an idiot. He wasn't. I admired and respected him for his integrity and intellect. The difference between me an you is pretense. You look good, but I'm honest.

Age does not make one set in one's ways. I can still think rationally. And yes, Berlinsky is either a liar or an idiot. That has been proven. I am sorry that you are too afraid to learn how that is known by all rational people. You see, unlike you, I can support my claims. You run away from supporting yours. If you had an open mind and were willing to learn you could do the same.

And no, you appear to be far from honest. Honest people support their claims. The question is now that you know that you have not been honest can you be honest in the future?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Several building at the WTC complex did. In fact, building 7, the most suspicious, fell 20 minu tes after a reporter from the BBC said it had. The building was right behind her when she announced it. Now there's a lot of confusion going on, so that sort of thing is not that unusual. But, the owner, Silverstien (sp?) was interviewed and he said the decision was to "pull it." It takes weeks to do. They had to have done it in advance. George Bush's cousin was the security company man in charge of the WTC. There were a lot of fishy stuff going on in the wee hours in those buildings. Including the security dogs for sniffing bombs that had been implemented since the first attack on the WTC being removed.

How ironic. You claim to be honest and in your very next post show that it not so.

 

[Underhill]

Over the last 22 years or so I've been for the most part pretty active on forums like this, religious forums, and I've noticed something over the last decade. I see it here as well. The predominate participant in religious discussion are irreligious. Outspoken or militant skeptics of the Bible and spirituality. Now I understand that my message tends to alienate everyone, believer and unbeliever alike, and truth be told I prefer discussions with atheist because they are more practical than the average believer, who is idealistic IMO, so I'm not complaining, but I am of the opinion that the reason for this is that the believer is quite comfortable in America, but the atheist (in one form or another, I use the term skeptic) is a somewhat repressed minority, politically and socially.

Do you think there is any truth to that?

Sounds generally true, although obviously specific cases vary.

As I live in a rural, religious and white community, where such discussions are grounds for a fist fight in some circles, I tend to favor venting opinions in places like this...

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

You are quite correct. There is, however, something in MILITANT atheism that does, especially if that militant atheist gains the political power to enforce his ideas.

It is the same for militant islam, militant Christianity, and militant anything. It is the militant and authoritarian aspect that is at fault, not atheism. The corruption of power is what leads to these atrocities.

A couple of things: First, Genghis Kahn was not Chinese. He was Mongolian, and an enemy of China.
As well, even he didn't touch Mao's body count. The highest total of deaths anybody attributes to Genghis Kahn is 40 million...and Mao's death toll BEGINS at 40 million, and is probably closer to 80 million.

You said that people didn't start dying in China until Mao. That is obviously false.

If you can find an officially atheist (not 'officially secular, but officially atheist, as in...no religions allowed) government that has NOT been horrifically homo/democidal, I would love to hear about it. I really would.

You just pointed it out for everyone else to see. There are many countries that have secular governments and large numbers of atheists, and they are some of the most peaceful nations around.

 

[ecco]

I would also say that saying the WORDS "in the name of atheism" isn't required here. ...and actions that are aimed at getting rid of religion are done 'in the name of' atheism as surely as any theist has ever proclaimed "in the name of God."

Not at all. If I am trying to become ruler of my Country I have two options:

1. I can invoke "For God and Country" - "For God's Greater Glory" and use the power of those phrases and the people's beliefs to help me achieve my goals.
2. I can ignore the religious beliefs of my Countrymen and kill any and all who oppose me.

For those who chose #2, none ever, to my knowledge, rallied the people by saying, "For the Greater Good of Atheism" because that was not the driving factor.

Atheism is, then, a reaction in opposition to theism, as soon as the atheist starts thinking of himself in those terms. "I am an atheist" is defining himself in terms of belief in God...he doesn't have such a belief, but he wouldn't have to SAY so if that belief didn't exist somewhere and in someone. The topic simply wouldn't come up.

What's your point?

Somewhere back in the history of language a word was coined that described a belief in a god as "theism".

The root of theism is the Greek word theos, or "god." English philosopher Ralph Cudworth was the first to use the term theism, in the 1600s.​

People who believed in gods were called theists. The Latin prefix "a" means not or without. So people who do not believe in gods are termed atheists.

Again, what's your point?

So, any act by a leader that is all about getting rid of religion is 'in the name of' atheism, by its very nature. As well, if 'atheism' (or its subsets) could and would solve the world's ills, we wouldn't have this rather nasty history of atheistic governments being murderous, would we? Their brand of atheism would have prevented such things.

But it's not just about getting rid of religion. What you don't seem, or want, to understand is that it's about getting rid of all opposition: Religious leaders, intellectuals, the Press, labor unions, etc. The rallying cry "in the name of Atheism" is just a meaningless as would be "In the name of aPress" or "For the greater good of anti-intellectualism".

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

Scientist for 911 Truth

Architects & Engineers For 911 Truth

Firefighters For Truth And Unity

Pilots For 911

A person who distrusts scientists and therefore rejects the theory of evolution will accept the craziest conspiracy theories based on the say so of scientists. You can't make this stuff up.

 

[ecco]

Many witnesses on the ground at WTC said the planes weren't commercial airliners, they were military planes which appeared to be customized.

Think. Just think about what you wrote.

Any "witnesses on the ground" would have seen the planes for just seconds if they happened to be looking up before the impact. You believe that in those few seconds, people could differentiate between commercial airliners and customized military planes.

Professional pilots say that a plane couldn't have crashed into the Pentagon as presented by the government and media because the flight maneuvers to do so would be impossible even for an expert pilot.

What professional pilots?

 

[dianaiad]

You are indeed rambling.

The fact that people are atheists says nothing about the people who make this claim. They may be good, bad, tall, short, bald or full of hair. Atheism is NOT a way of life, it has no creed.

So people who do not believe in a god have done atrocious things, so have people who believe in a god. The difference is that very often the theists do bad things in the name of their god. Atheists usually do it in the name of power, control, oppression, etc.

If you go back to the original post it said "...Militant Sceptic…"; not militant atheist. You and other people have brought the word atheist into this discussion, I'm still talking about sceptics.

I went back to the original post. IT said 'atheist,' but that the writer preferred himself to use the word 'skeptic,' it was quite clear that 'atheist' is what he meant. His definition was that it meant anybody against the bible and spirituality...and that covers all religions and beliefs in deity or 'higher power,' organized or not.

Which of course leaves...what, precisely?

So the reason the readers here have just cut to the chase and said 'atheist' isn't us 'bringing the word atheist' into this conversation. The OP did that. It simply shows that we aren't stupid.

The truth is, just as 'atheist' is a term that is a reaction to 'theist,' then when an atheist does something for the purpose of harming, or getting rid of, theism, he's doing it FOR 'atheism,' whether he says so or not.

He may say he is getting rid of religion 'for the sake of reason,' or for 'the good of the people,' or whatever, but getting rid of religion and spirituality leaves....what, precisely, again?

As for the core REASONS, they are the same as the core reasons theistic leaders really do what they do. Power. Control. Those reasons, at the bottom of things, are always about power and control, whether we are talking about the Crusades or Mao's 'great leap forward."

The only difference I see is that theistic leaders have to take an existing religion and manipulate/twist it so that they can make their followers believe that God approves of whatever is happening.

Atheistic leaders don't have to do that, and so can skip a step in committing atrocities. As well, theistic leaders, if they are 'true believers' believe that they, too, are going to be judged by a 'higher power,' and have to convince THEMSELVES that they are 'righteous' as well as their followers. (shrug) Plenty of them have done that, of course, but it is one more step that they have to take, especially if the religion they are twisting around does not, in its basic teachings, allow the sort of atrocity they are planning.

Atheistic leaders, of course, are accountable to nobody 'higher' than they. There is no eternal punishment awaiting them, so...why not?

On the other hand, if a theistic leader doesn't believe in the religion he's using, then--that's a whole 'nuther problem for atheists, isn't it? Talk about a cold blooded misuse of power!

The very bottom line is this: there is NOTHING about atheism that would make the world better if religion were done away with. Absolutely nothing, as has been proven rather spectacularly. There MIGHT be something about some theistic beliefs that can, but only if the adherents actually, er, adhere.

The one thing I have noticed in my study of history is that the vast majority of atrocities committed 'in the Name of God' were done by people who weren't paying much attention to the teachings of the God Whose Name is being used.

And atheistic leaders don't even have to bother with that, except to blame religion for the woes of the country, and claim that getting rid of the religions (and the religious) would cure all ills. It never has, but hey, let's not let facts interfere with a good argument.

 

[dianaiad]

Just a couple of small examples...
Question: Why did English Protestants kill English Catholics?
Answer: Religion.

Actually....they wanted the property and riches that the Catholics had, which is why all the abbeys and monasteries were ransacked, confiscated, and turned over to accommodating nobles. Then it became circular revenge feuds.

Question: Why do Sunnis kill Shiites?
Answer: Religion.

I'm not as familiar with the history there as I should be, but I'll bet you anything that the base is...political. Someone thought they should be the ruler and someone else thought he should. oops.

No it didn't. Likewise it wasn't his atheism that was the driving factor in his killings.

It was when the targets were picked BECAUSE they were religious, and as I have pointed out, atheism didn't stop him from killing anybody else.

It would be one less reason to kill - so, yes.

You have not been paying attention. It does NOT give 'one less reason to kill.' Whether you kill because you think your religion tells you to, or you kill because you don't like religion, at base those two motives cancel themselves out.

.........and then one is left with all the OTHER reasons people kill. Atheistic dictators have nothing to stop them from freely exercising his freedom to do so, and history has shown that every leader of an officially atheistic (anti-theist) government has exercised that freedom. With great abandon and verve.

The final solution, actually, is to have strictly secular governments...governments that stay out of religion altogether so that such atrocities cannot be committed 'in the Name of God," OR for the purpose of eliminating religion.

Considering history, however, I'll admit to getting the collywobbles whenever I see someone advocating how much better the world would be if we could only get rid of religion. I have to wonder if those people have ever actually paid attention in History class.

 

[ecco]

Several building at the WTC complex did.

You presented no corroborating evidence. Do you expect anyone to just accept your assertions?

In fact, building 7, the most suspicious, fell 20 minu tes after a reporter from the BBC said it had.

The reporters are talking about the collapse of the Salomon Brothers building. The producers of the video draw an arrow to the still standing Salomon Brothers building. The reporters see that building standing but pay it no attention because they don't realize that it's the Salomon Brothers building. Their attention is on a collapsed building to the left which they think is called the Salomon Brothers building. Two Brits, one in NY and one in London, misidentify a building. That's it. That's all there is to it.

I really have to wonder about the mindset of anyone who could take this to be evidence for a conspiracy. I'm trying really hard to comprehend the thought process...

Oh, look - those reporters knew the building was going to collapse 20 minutes before it actually collapsed. The Shadow Government must have told them beforehand that the building was going to collapse - the dumb reporters got the timing wrong and exposed the whole evil plot.
​

RothschildSaxeCoburgGotha,
It's that how you see it?

If not, please explain why you believe this video, that you posted, is meaningful.

 

[Altfish]

I went back to the original post. IT said 'atheist,' but that the writer preferred himself to use the word 'skeptic,' it was quite clear that 'atheist' is what he meant. His definition was that it meant anybody against the bible and spirituality...and that covers all religions and beliefs in deity or 'higher power,' organized or not.

.

So let us be clear.
The word that the poster used was 'Sceptic'. I, in my post, was assuming he meant sceptic and not atheist. Which was why I asked "What is a militant sceptic?"

The fact that you are talking about atheists is irrelevant, I'm talking and was talking about sceptics.

 

[ecco]

but getting rid of religion and spirituality leaves....what, precisely, again?

Rationality.

 

[Audie]

A person who distrusts scientists and therefore rejects the theory of evolution will accept the craziest conspiracy theories based on the say so of scientists. You can't make this stuff up.

That is so exactly true!

There was this guy, he just could not accept ToE, but
he was utterly convinced by Ron Wyatt!

He had no doubt that RW had out done Indiana Jones and
Tomb Raider lady by a hundred to one. Found gold crusted
Pharoah-chariots by diving the red sea, some rock that split open and water gushed forth, Noahs ark, and the ark of the covenant.

Woo woo has magical attraction for these folks.
I guess once you've accepted the talking snake book and
seen how that satanic secular mainstream science
does not, well, soon you realize that its the woo woo
that must be the real stuff!

 

[Thermos aquaticus]

There has never been a steel high rise structure fall due to fire.

There has never been a steel high rise structure that was impacted by a 737 and doused in jet fuel.

It doesn't happen. You look at some of the worst high rise structures that burned with far more intensity than the WTC 1 and 2 building for far longer. They don't fall. Jet fuel at it's maximum heat doesn't get hot enough to melt steel.

1. Ask any blacksmith if they have to melt steel in order to bend it. Guess what? They don't.

2. The impact of the jet stripped the fireproofing off of the steel superstructure.

3. It wasn't just jet fuel that was burning.

Now I feel guilty for feeding the troll.