atheism is a (religious position)

[DNB]

Can you actually tell any of that, or have you just doubled down on the assumption that what you were taught as a child is true?

Ok, so I guess for you then, the answer is no - you can't tell.

 

[Starise]

As do so many other religious beliefs. I suppose one can only live what one believes to be best for us all. Personally, as someone who has seen the changes within the UK (where homosexuality once was illegal), life is better for all now and much more open. And basing one's morality upon a religious text, in my view, is one of the things holding back societies - given one can't go back in time and rewrite the texts, even when they are wrong. Not much one can do as to debating this given neither side is likely to budge.

Imagine if homosexuality wasn't even on the table at all. In other words neutral. Why is it in government discussons at all? Societies have grown very well without an induced interest in these things. I don't dislike gay people, but neither do I want it smeared in my face if it isn't my thing. I don't think it should be legal or illegal IMO

Far too much of a naive generalization good and bad.

Very good. Please expand on it for us then. Just rememeber uncovered stones can be uncovered by anyone.

Take off the rose colored glasses concerning Israel. Immigration into Israel is JEWS ONLY by law. The Declaration of Independence declares it is a Jewish State. I will provide references concerning Jewish ethnic cleansing of Muslims from Israel to follow.

I said I wasn't privy to that entire dynamic which told you I don't claim to know everything about it. How you see my admission of that as having 'rose colored glasses' is most interesting.

Humanism is most definitely NOT atheism. It is best to describe the USA government as secular. I hope the Christian Nationalists do not manage to change our government to a Theonomy.

I mostly agree they are different terms for good reason, HOWEVER they hold hands and if you disagree with that then maybe look at what humanism is.

So?? Atheism is atheism, Theism is Theism, and agnosticism is agnosticism. I believe you have generalized in the negative concerning atheism.

Despotic cruel dictators whether they are Christian, atheist, Muslim or whatever.

Just making a point. Once again you point out what looks like a misinterpretaion to you but provide no alternative suggestions.

Elite benefit?: In this view it would be the same regardless of atheist, Christian, Muslim, Jewish or whatever

Yep they don't care.

I am not attracted to atheists. I treat them as equal humans with different beliefs.

Some of your statements concerning atheists today in this debate have been toxic as comparing Stalin and other cruel despots with atheists today. In reality the Czarist rulers of the Orthodox Church were no less cruel than Stalin.

Well was Stalin an atheist in his actions and rules? Feel free to disagree. I believe he could be seen that way but am willing to change my view if absolutely proven otherwise...and to be clear I'm not attacking people, I'm discussing ideas.

Reference point???? Needs an explanation. In other words you believe in Libertarian Free Will.?

I believe in "live and let live" as long as it doesn't step on others. I mean, I believe my God gave us a free will so why would I be any different? In addition . I also believe God gave each of us a decent amount of intelligence which means we should be able to make good decisions within our free will.

ou would have to explain how invisible subjective things and beliefs on your part regardless of what you believe as opposed to what anyone else believes.

By definition the 'jnvisible' is by definition subjective and not confirmable by objective methods whether it applies to you or anyone else.

We all believe in invisible things do we not? How can you say you are a theist when you question a being who is so big they can't be contained within this dimension?

 

[Starise]

Your acrid toxic agenda against atheism and science is revealed in spades without a polite cover.

The objective evidence of science is the bullwork of evolution without any regard for religious beliefs including atheism.

You are entitled to your opinions certainly. I believe there is a god, so yes I have a right to be against atheism, but not necessarily against atheists.

I also have the right to conclude evolution isn't entirely true based on the things I have studied. This is simply my position and it in no way is against evolutionists.

 

[shunyadragon]

You are entitled to your opinions certainly. I believe there is a god, so yes I have a right to be against atheism, but not necessarily against atheists.

Unresolved contradictions.

Atheists represent atheism, just as theists represent theism. You cannot distinguish your opposition, which in your previous posts is acrid and toxic associating atheism with evolution. There is no way to distinguish atheists from their beliefs. As a matter of fact atheism is Philosophical Naturalist belief, like Theism, cannot be objectively verified by Objective evidence. Atheism cannot justify their belief based on science, nor can science be justified by atheism.

I also have the right to conclude evolution isn't entirely true based on the things I have studied. This is simply my position and it in no way is against evolutionists.

Of course you obviously have these rights, but that is not the issues of the thread. What have you studied? This is not relevant unless you have the academic background or be specific about your objections to evolution based on the objective verifiable evidence and independent references that you can refer to for support of your argument and not assumptions of Theist beliefs. Also, your previous posts made clear references to your objections to atheists.

Again . . . you cannot make a distinction between evolution and evolutionists in your argument.

You clearly make a connection between atheism and evolution without justifying objectively this association. ALL of science based on Methodological Naturalism including the sciences of evolution excludes any of the many conflicting subjective religious beliefs including atheism from consideration, and based the conclusions on evidence only.

Your statement "evolution not being entirely true" needs clarification, since you equated evolution with atheism, without making Theist assumptions please refer and describe the independent objective reasons you selectively consider "evolution not entirely true" and what is specifically objectively wrong with evolution.

 

[shunyadragon]

Ok, so I guess for you then, the answer is no - you can't tell.

The question is 'can you.'

 

[shunyadragon]

Very good. Please expand on it for us then. Just rememeber uncovered stones can be uncovered by anyone.

Huh? your the one making naive distinctions between good and bad accusing atheists of the evil in history when Christians in history have been equally brutal and evil.

Just making a point. Once again you point out what looks like a misinterpretion to you but provide no alternative suggestions.

Previous you made a misleading and ambiguous statement separating atheists from atheist, It is your problem in the history of the thread making contradictory and misleading statements. You have made simplistic statements of good and bad empacizing bad as atheist Stalin, without acknowledging the Orthodox Christian Czars with the same motives as Stalin.

Yep they don't care.

By the evidence they do not care regardless of whether they are JEwish, Christian, Islamic or Atheist. You have not been able to make a clear distinction.

Well was Stalin an atheist in his actions and rules? Feel free to disagree. I believe he could be seen that way but am willing to change my view if absolutely proven otherwise...and to be clear I'm not attacking people, I'm discussing ideas.

Actually Stalin had the same motives of the previous Czarist Orthodox Christian Czars, and that was the Manifest destiny of Russian dominion over Russian Asia and Eastern Europe. Putin appealed to this Russian Orthodox Christian appeal of Manifest Destiny in his brutal invasion of Ukraine. Putin is from a Russian Orthodox believing family and still declares his belief today.

I believe in "live and let live" as long as it doesn't step on others. I mean, I believe my God gave us a free will so why would I be any different? In addition . I also believe God gave each of us a decent amount of intelligence which means we should be able to make good decisions within our free will.

OK, this is what you believe

We all believe in invisible things do we not?

No

How can you say you are a theist when you question a being who is so big they can't be contained within this dimension?

I am a theist and I acknowledge it is a subjective belief, and I do not try and objectively justify it with irrational toxic arguments to negate other beliefs, nor negate science as science.

 

[Starise]

Unresolved contradictions.

Atheists represent atheism, just as theists represent theism. You cannot distinguish your opposition, which in your previous posts is acrid and toxic associating atheism with evolution. There is no way to distinguish atheists from their beliefs. As a matter of fact atheism is Philosophical Naturalist belief, like Theism, cannot be objectively verified by Objective evidence. Atheism cannot justify their belief based on science, nor can science be justified by atheism.

There are certain traits to atheists so it seems irrational to me to ignore such traits. They don't believe in god so they only have a few bags left to pull from and one of those bags is generally evolution as a counter explanation to our existence. I mean, how many creationist atheists have you met?
Don't attempt to steer me into what you think I can and cannot do. I can do anything that makes the most sense to me. Same as you.You can't say I am toxic to atheists because I am Christian. I happen to like many atheists. I just disagree with them.

I would agree with you that true science is not a basis for their belief. Why do you think this is so?

Of course you obviously have these rights, but that is not the issues of the thread. What have you studied? This is not relevant unless you have the academic background or be specific about your objections to evolution based on the objective verifiable evidence and independent references that you can refer to for support of your argument and not assumptions of Theist beliefs. Also, your previous posts made clear references to your objections to atheists.

Again . . . you cannot make a distinction between evolution and evolutionists in your argument.

You clearly make a connection between atheism and evolution without justifying objectively this association. ALL of science based on Methodological Naturalism including the sciences of evolution excludes any of the many conflicting subjective religious beliefs including atheism from consideration, and based the conclusions on evidence only.

Your statement "evolution not being entirely true" needs clarification, since you equated evolution with atheism, without making Theist assumptions please refer and describe the independent objective reasons you selectively consider "evolution not entirely true" and what is specifically objectively wrong with evolution.

Here's what I think. I think you're attempting to draw me into some kind of a convoluted argument, but I won't bite because I don't have endless amounts of time here.You are well aware of my position and you know why most Christians don't believe in evolution unless you've been living under a rock.
The 'association' is blatently obvious to their belief there is no god and evolution. At least to me it is. I don't believe evolution has ever been verifyable to the levels they suggest. Simple. If you are a theist and you think you came from a single celled organism 2 billion years ago I won't stop you, and if an atheist thinks this I will only state my position. I am not here to argue. If you want to turn up the snark go ahead but I won't be participating simply because it's a waste of my time.

I don't owe you anything. If you don't know the counter arguments to evolution, you'll need to find someone else to tell you, or at the very least start another thread on evolution and hope you can draw some someone into it.

This thread was about the ideas on atheism being a religion. What do all religions have? Prophets and tenets. Some here seem to think there is a connection to religion. I can only say I think there is a belief system that doesn't necessarily mirror religions, however it does have some of those traits.

Huh? your the one making naive distinctions between good and bad accusing atheists of the evil in history when Christians in history have been equally brutal and evil.

Oh I could show connections to atheism and also to other religions so far as wars and human mistreatment are concerned. I never said I thought atheists were evil, but we have had evil atheist leaders. That's an unfounded accusation from you. The only thing naive here is you jumping to these unfounded accusations. Does it get your dopamine up?

Previous you made a misleading and ambiguous statement separating atheists from atheist, It is your problem in the history of the thread making contradictory and misleading statements. You have made simplistic statements of good and bad empacizing bad as atheist Stalin, without acknowledging the Orthodox Christian Czars with the same motives as Stalin.

I invite anyone to read over the enitre thread. I can mention one bad element without being required to mention another. Really. If my focus was Stalin that was my focus. I invited you to bing in an alternative view but so far we are coming up empty. Who was DIRECTLY responsible for the murders? Can you answer that one?

By the evidence they do not care regardless of whether they are JEwish, Christian, Islamic or Atheist. You have not been able to make a clear distinction.

Yes because we were talking about the world elites who don't make a distinction. For them it's a means to an end that fills thier pockets.

Actually Stalin had the same motives of the previous Czarist Orthodox Christian Czars, and that was the Manifest destiny of Russian dominion over Russian Asia and Eastern Europe. Putin appealed to this Russian Orthodox Christian appeal of Manifest Destiny in his brutal invasion of Ukraine. Putin is from a Russian Orthodox believing family and still declares his belief today.

This is exactly why I'm not a religious Christian because that term is over applied to far too many religious figures.

No

This was your answer to not believing in invisible things. What comes out of your lungs with regularity? Can you see it?

I am a theist and I acknowledge it is a subjective belief, and I do not try and objectively justify it with irrational toxic arguments to negate other beliefs, nor negate science as science.

If you believe something that's subjective how can you pass judgement on any one else here as you have me?

 

[Mock Turtle]

Imagine if homosexuality wasn't even on the table at all. In other words neutral. Why is it in government discussons at all? Societies have grown very well without an induced interest in these things. I don't dislike gay people, but neither do I want it smeared in my face if it isn't my thing. I don't think it should be legal or illegal IMO

We often have to deal with what comes from our country's historical past, if we can recognise the mistakes made, and is why racial integration eventually happened in the USA and the slave trade was abolished in most countries. The issue of non-heterosexual attractions has always been there and often just tolerated or even openly allowed, but having a legal position for this at least gives people with some protection that might not have been there before - so mostly just a bit of evening up the playing field.

For whatever reasons condemnation appears in a religious text, such is not conducive to a healthy society these days - not ones based in individual freedoms at least rather than religious dogma. And we have enough evidence that such attractions are as normal in any population as they always were - unless a country just bans them and says they don't exist there - given the large enough numbers within any population. And if you do admit to our evolutionary path and our closest cousins, I suggest a look at the behaviour of bonobos - our closest relatives genetically.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are certain traits to atheists so it seems irrational to me to ignore such traits.

Ir is your right, of course, to do this, but based on your posts you are NOT ignoring atheists or their supposed traits.

They don't believe in god so they only have a few bags left to pull from and one of those bags is generally evolution as a counter explanation to our existence. I mean, how many creationist atheists have you met?

Yes, atheists argue for evolution, but based on science and NOT their claim nor justification for atheism. Evolution is NOT a counter explanation to our existence, except in your biased view without science.

Again and again . . . atheism as a matter of belief has absolutely no relationship to science.

Don't attempt to steer me into what you think I can and cannot do. I can do anything that makes the most sense to me.

I am not trying to steer you anywhere. You are in full control of your facilities, What makes sense to you is what makes sense to you. I am more basing my posts simply on factual information.

Your intentional ignorance of science and associating it with atheism based on a religious agenda is appalling.

Same as you.You can't say I am toxic to atheists because I am Christian. I happen to like many atheists. I just disagree with them.

Your posts concerning atheism are acrid and toxic regardless of your religious beliefs. Your stereotyping atheists based on the actions of Stalin does not reflect an unbiased view of history. It ignores the history of Christianity.

I would agree with you that true science is not a basis for their belief. Why do you think this is so?

You associated atheism with evolution in previous posts and opening of this post.

It is you that rejects evolution on the basis of your religious agenda.

Here's what I think. I think you're attempting to draw me into some kind of a convoluted argument, but I won't bite because I don't have endless amounts of time here.You are well aware of my position and you know why most Christians don't believe in evolution unless you've been living under a rock.

I am not aware of your position

First, most Christians believe in Theistic evolution. How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it

Those that reject evolution are living under the rock of ancient world views without science.

The 'association' is blatantly obvious to their belief there is no god and evolution. At least to me it is. I don't believe evolution has ever been verifyable to the levels they suggest. Simple. If you are a theist and you think you came from a single celled organism 2 billion years ago I won't stop you, and if an atheist thinks this I will only state my position. I am not here to argue. If you want to turn up the snark go ahead but I won't be participating simply because it's a waste of my time.

The sciences of evolution are neutral to the existence of God, as well as all sciences.

What is 'at least to you it is' is a personal opinion where I deal more with factual issues. The bold above makes it clear you reject the sciences of evolution based on a religious agenda and not the factual basis in science.

You are most definitely here to argue and doing a very poor job. At least this post makes your religious agenda against science clear and up front.

I don't owe you anything. If you don't know the counter arguments to evolution, you'll need to find someone else to tell you, or at the very least start another thread on evolution and hope you can draw some someone into it.

I, of course, don't owe you anything. I know the dishonest counter arguments against very well and in great detail. Like yours they are based on a religious agenda and not legitimate science.

I am a scientist with over fifty years as a geologist. I have started many threads on this forum documenting evolution with scientific references, I have also started and posted on many threads concerning the religious agenda against evolution without science.

I am one of over the 95%+ of all the scientists in the USA and Europe in the fields related to evolution that support evolution including ALL the major universities and academic institutions of the world.

This thread was about the ideas on atheism being a religion. What do all religions have? Prophets and tenets. Some here seem to think there is a connection to religion. I can only say I think there is a belief system that doesn't necessarily mirror religions, however it does have some of those traits.

You equated atheism with the sciences of evolution, which makes it part of the argument, because many fundamentalist Christians do just that without a basis in factual science. Science is independent of all religious beliefs, and the majority of scientists all over the world in many different religions support the sciences of evolution.

Oh I could show connections to atheism and also to other religions so far as wars and human mistreatment are concerned. I never said I thought atheists were evil, but we have had evil atheist leaders. That's an unfounded accusation from you. The only thing naive here is you jumping to these unfounded accusations.

Does it get your dopamine up?

No this is silly willy foolishness.

I invite anyone to read over the enitre thread. I can mention one bad element without being required to mention another. Really. If my focus was Stalin that was my focus. I invited you to bing in an alternative view but so far we are coming up empty. Who was DIRECTLY responsible for the murders? Can you answer that one?

I have answered it and brought in the alternate less biased more balanced view that throughout history of Europe and the world the Christian rulers were not less cruel and persecuted and ethnic cleansed non-believers like Jews and those that opposed the government

Yes because we were talking about the world elites who don't make a distinction. For them it's a means to an end that fills thier pockets.

If you agree there is no basis for singling out atheist rulers and not consider the whole history of Christianity and Islam.

This is exactly why I'm not a religious Christian because that term is over applied to far too many religious figures.

The problem remains that in history you cannot single out atheist leaders based on the accusation of ruling cruelly when in the much greater scope of history Christians and Christian governments have been involved in untold Cruelty as in the attempts to persecute and ethnic cleanse Jews from Europe.history and the cruel rule elsewhere in the conversion by the sword. The writings of Martin Luther were great inspiration for Hitler.

This was your answer to not believing in invisible things. What comes out of your lungs with regularity? Can you see it?

Very odd response concerning what we would consider invisible,

Air goes in and air goes out on a cold day you can see your breath. On any day at any time your breath can be measured. It can very well be determined when someone stops breathing by holding your hand over their nose and mouth.

If you believe something that's subjective how can you pass judgement on any one else here as you have me?

No problem!!!! Your own words pass judgement on your acrid toxic view of today's atheists by associating them with Stalin and associating the sciences of evolution with atheism.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Anywhere there is a stable Judeo Christian underpinning. Notice I said stable. Not all are.

So it's a stabilizing factor as long as you don't count all the cases where it's a destabilizing factor?

60% of the time, it works every time... right?

There was this guy.....Stalin. Killed more people than Hitler. Do you have a background from there?

The vast majority of deaths attributed to Stalin were the people who died in the 1932-1933 famine, which was driven by Stalin's push to collectivize farming. What do you think this had to do with Stalin's beliefs about gods?

When good religion is adopted by the people we have stability IMO. Notice I said 'good". Almost never has anything to do with the government if the outcome is good. It makes positive changes in people. Not control.

For the whole "people" to adopt one religion takes government control.

Religion as a control mechanism is employed by embedded religious institutions in bed with governments. They practically ruined Christianity in this way, at least during those times. The undercurrent was the real thing. The more apparent state endorsed version was the hypocritical one.

The only reason you even know about Christianity is the state-endorsed version of the religion.

Yes I would agree, only to add I seen those nationalistic religions calling themselves christian as the aped versions. There may be others who see Musim the same or Buddism.

If religion is supposed to improve man then it would not oppress him unless they skewed the vision for it and think oppression is good for men.

Every bad version of religion is "skewed" and every good version is from God?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

There are certain traits to atheists

There are? The only traits that are statistically more likely in atheists that I know of is that on average they are more intelligent, and they are more moral than the average person. Can you tell me specifically what traits you think atheists have?

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Where has religion "shown itself to be a stabilizing feature"?

There are oodles of studies linking involvement in a religious community with greater health, happiness, longer life, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. Indeed, the less often someone attends religious gatherings, the more likely they are to have a mental health diagnosis. Dr David Sloan Wilson postulates that religion has been selected for in our evolution because it underscores cooperative groups, and we all know that cooperative groups will out compete non-cooperative groups every time. I'd say the evidence is in that religion is a stabilizing force.

 

[DNB]

The question is 'can you.'

God is the supreme, Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe - The Father alone. He is holy and righteous, as wickedness is synonymous with hypocrisy and confusion, and therefore cannot create such a complex and precise planet, and instill in man's heart the notion of love.

All men are created in God's image (spiritual creature) - his efforts on earth are not based on secular concerns alone (physical survival) as all other non human creatures - man is in the midst of a spiritual warfare - fighting against greed, arrogance, hate, bigotry, selfishness, and wickedness. Where the only cure is not feeding one's family and staying healthy, but employing altruism, charity, compassion, equality, respect, benevolence, decency, love and dignity.

This spiritual dimension in man was not derived from stardust and protoplasm - God is real, and the key is to be holy, as God is holy, by loving Him with all one's heart, mind and soul..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

God is the supreme, Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe - The Father alone. He is holy and righteous, as wickedness is synonymous with hypocrisy and confusion, and therefore cannot create such a complex and precise planet, and instill in man's heart the notion of love.

All men are created in God's image (spiritual creature) - his efforts on earth are not based on secular concerns alone (physical survival) as all other non human creatures - man is in the midst of a spiritual warfare - fighting against greed, arrogance, hate, bigotry, selfishness, and wickedness. Where the only cure is not feeding one's family and staying healthy, but employing altruism, charity, compassion, equality, respect, benevolence, decency, love and dignity.

This spiritual dimension in man was not derived from stardust and protoplasm - God is real, and the key is to be holy, as God is holy, by loving Him with all one's heart, mind and soul..

More claims, but I notice you still haven't answered my question.

 

[shunyadragon]

God is the supreme, Almighty Creator and Ruler of the universe - The Father alone. He is holy and righteous, as wickedness is synonymous with hypocrisy and confusion, and therefore cannot create such a complex and precise planet, and instill in man's heart the notion of love.

All men are created in God's image (spiritual creature) - his efforts on earth are not based on secular concerns alone (physical survival) as all other non human creatures - man is in the midst of a spiritual warfare - fighting against greed, arrogance, hate, bigotry, selfishness, and wickedness. Where the only cure is not feeding one's family and staying healthy, but employing altruism, charity, compassion, equality, respect, benevolence, decency, love and dignity.

OK, this is what you believe concerning your religion, but it does not address the questions in the thread how we relate to others who believe differently, The history of Christianity is not enlightened when it comes to showing universal compassion and understanding to those who believe differently,.

This spiritual dimension in man was not derived from stardust and protoplasm - God is real, and the key is to be holy, as God is holy, by loving Him with all one's heart, mind and soul.

True, but our spiritual reality should not be in conflict and have contradictions between the objective nature and history of our physical existence. To cling to ancient tribal beliefs in contradiction to the harmony between the physical and the spiritual in the unity of God's Creation reflecting the attributes of God.

 

[shunyadragon]

There are oodles of studies linking involvement in a religious community with greater health, happiness, longer life, and having a buffer against anxiety and depression. Indeed, the less often someone attends religious gatherings, the more likely they are to have a mental health diagnosis. Dr David Sloan Wilson postulates that religion has been selected for in our evolution because it underscores cooperative groups, and we all know that cooperative groups will out compete non-cooperative groups every time. I'd say the evidence is in that religion is a stabilizing force.

There are studies . . . does not address the issues of how people believe differently regardless of how well they get along with others outside their tribe or in touch with a more universal nature of humanity and the nature of our existence. There are religious communities such as UU is a humanist organization where atheists and agnostics get along very well, and my affiliation over time with this group they appear very healthy and friendly and more in touch with the universal nature of humanity beyond ones own tribe.

Also, in Scandinavian countries people are very healthy and get along well without the dominance of ancient tribal religions in their culture. In these countries less than 25% consider religion important, and the overwhelming believe in the sciences of evolution.

Demographics of atheism - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Relative to its own populations, Zuckerman ranks the top five countries with the highest possible ranges of atheists and agnostics: Sweden (46-85%), Vietnam (81%), Denmark (43-80%), Norway (31-72%), and Japan (64-65%).

Not all atheists and agnostics are simply loners in society, and not affiliated with groups compatible with their beliefs. This is where polls can be deceptive concerning religion. The above demonstrates that those like atheists, agnostics and believers in non-traditional Theistic religions can be very healthy and happy, and more in touch with the reality of our existence.

 

[Starise]

We often have to deal with what comes from our country's historical past, if we can recognise the mistakes made, and is why racial integration eventually happened in the USA and the slave trade was abolished in most countries. The issue of non-heterosexual attractions has always been there and often just tolerated or even openly allowed, but having a legal position for this at least gives people with some protection that might not have been there before - so mostly just a bit of evening up the playing field.

For whatever reasons condemnation appears in a religious text, such is not conducive to a healthy society these days - not ones based in individual freedoms at least rather than religious dogma. And we have enough evidence that such attractions are as normal in any population as they always were - unless a country just bans them and says they don't exist there - given the large enough numbers within any population. And if you do admit to our evolutionary path and our closest cousins, I suggest a look at the behaviour of bonobos - our closest relatives genetically.

Very true our past can haunt us no doubt. As both individuals and as countries. The chattel slavery in the US was nothing like servants in many past societies. It was basically forced labor as opposed to an accepted contract keeping in exchange for labor. We have human trafficking today that they want to hide. It's one of those things people don't talk about but we know it exists.
The way I view the sexual things, I think we've always had laws that protected everyone no matter who they are, so extra laws to push mainly the exclusivity of that leaning could later be abused to infringe on those who simply don't agree with those lifestyles.

If those religious texts you refer to are correct, they only lead to the person's self destruction. Since I am largely libertarian, I don't believe I should do anything but state my views and never attempt to legalize that behavior or make laws which would force either view to do anything they don't wish to do. I believe the texts are correct so I believe on reprecussions regardless.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Very true our past can haunt us no doubt. As both individuals and as countries. The chattel slavery in the US was nothing like servants in many past societies. It was basically forced labor as opposed to an accepted contract keeping in exchange for labor. We have human trafficking today that they want to hide. It's one of those things people don't talk about but we know it exists.
The way I view the sexual things, I think we've always had laws that protected everyone no matter who they are, so extra laws to push mainly the exclusivity of that leaning could later be abused to infringe on those who simply don't agree with those lifestyles.

Given that it tends to be from religions that such discrimination is most likely to come from, why not simply accept the science that shows that such attractions appear to be as normal as binary attractions, and as to how common such is within the non-human world. Hence why so many countries have done this levelling up - and the more religious ones haven't.

If those religious texts you refer to are correct, they only lead to the person's self destruction. Since I am largely libertarian, I don't believe I should do anything but state my views and never attempt to legalize that behavior or make laws which would force either view to do anything they don't wish to do. I believe the texts are correct so I believe on reprecussions regardless.

Well I am sure many of us do look at religious texts, and as to their authenticity, from what they espouse as to doctrine. With such perhaps being a common view of the time but not for all time. And which, for me, is one of the giveaways as to their origins - not coming from God at all.

 

[shunyadragon]

Very true our past can haunt us no doubt. As both individuals and as countries. The chattel slavery in the US was nothing like servants in many past societies. It was basically forced labor as opposed to an accepted contract keeping in exchange for labor. We have human trafficking today that they want to hide. It's one of those things people don't talk about but we know it exists.

Yes, the past haunts us!
The statement in bold needs more clarification as to what you are referring to "servants of the past." If you are referring to the Bible, which by the way clearly describes chattel slavery acceptable among Hebrews of 'foreign slaves' and indentured servitude of Hebrews among Hebrews. In history the slavery in the USA South and Europe was justified based Biblical references. Nowhere in the Bible is slavery forbidden.

The way I view the sexual things, I think we've always had laws that protected everyone no matter who they are, so extra laws to push mainly the exclusivity of that leaning could later be abused to infringe on those who simply don't agree with those lifestyles.

The above is false, we did not have laws that "that protected everyone no matter who they are or by sexual orientation." In our history alternate sexual orientations were not only illegal, but severely punished, and many Christians in the USA believe these standards must remain law.

The problem of laws and discrimination against alternate secual orientation still exist in the USA, and any sense of over sensitive infringement on your part reflects your hostile attitude toward those of alternate sexual life styles.

To add your illusive claim to separate atheism and you do not have anything against atheists does not match your posting history. Your acrid toxic view toward atheists as well is exemplified by the following. The 'Disclaimer" line does not help your case.

Disclaimer- This is my opinion that some atheists don't want to be bothered, so they flash that card to get rid of what they perceive to be riff raff. I guess maybe it was a shallow thought in that they have other deeper reasons, but there is a clear 'hate the opposition' club.

 

[Starise]

Ir is your right, of course, to do this, but based on your posts you are NOT ignoring atheists or their supposed traits.

You either have a problem understanding my posts or you are engaging in intentional word twisting. If we are discussing atheism as a supposed religion we need to identify if there are traits. Not personal traits but those associated with rationalizing such a belief. Beliefs are not typically held on a whim.

Yes, atheists argue for evolution, but based on science and NOT their claim nor justification for atheism. Evolution is NOT a counter explanation to our existence, except in your biased view without science.

Again and again . . . atheism as a matter of belief has absolutely no relationship to science.

So you do agree with me that evolution is a strong component in rationalizing their belief. You also make a pre supposition that I am biased in my scentific thought or opinions when really the burden of proof lays in the one making the claim. So far I have made no claims. It doesn't matter what I believe here. All that matters in this discussion is why they are atheists.

You are disagreeing with the comments of the majority of atheists here. Science is one of their main claims.

am not trying to steer you anywhere. You are in full control of your facilities, What makes sense to you is what makes sense to you. I am more basing my posts simply on factual information.

Your intentional ignorance of science and associating it with atheism based on a religious agenda is appalling.

Sure you are. You want to discuss evolution and make this about something you don't agree with about my beliefs instead of the point of the discussion which is to discuss whether we think atheism is a religion and then infer they distance themselves from science. I affirm my stance here that there is an association with atheism and evolution. As a geologist you are severely limited in your understanding of biology which is one of the cruxes of evolution.

Your posts concerning atheism are acrid and toxic regardless of your religious beliefs. Your stereotyping atheists based on the actions of Stalin does not reflect an unbiased view of history. It ignores the history of Christianity.

Nonsense. I've already shown here what I think. I pointed to one atheist who tortured and killed millions of people because you pointed to religion as the main agressor. I wanted to show some balance here. Common sense tells us that these are mostly exceptions rather than rules.

In any case neither is this a discussion about who we think was evil and who we make associations to. If there is any take away here, it's that both sides like to demonize the other side to solidify their positions. Mislabeled Christians who rape and kill at the bequest of country rulers still doesn't disprove a god. It simply shows man's behaviors., yet this is a common argument used to justify a belief.

ou associated atheism with evolution in previous posts and opening of this post.

It is you that rejects evolution on the basis of your religious agenda.

Let's pretend for a minute that no atheist believes in evolution. How do they rationalize their position?

If God has an agenda I'm on board with that. I told you over and over again I'm not religious. That wasn't some trippy statement.

I am not aware of your position

First, most Christians believe in Theistic evolution. How highly religious Americans view evolution depends on how they’re asked about it

Those that reject evolution are living under the rock of ancient world views without science.

Ah yes, Google is our friend and any Tom Dick and Harry can write an article and post it there.

No this is silly willy foolishness.

It is? Let's see here. We have a theist who says his belief is subjective discussing a non belief. What is your definition of foolishness?

I have answered it and brought in the alternate less biased more balanced view that throughout history of Europe and the world the Christian rulers were not less cruel and persecuted and ethnic cleansed non-believers like Jews and those that opposed the government

Or so you sincerely believe. I have more than clarified why I didn't believe all of these groups were Christian but simply extensions of rulers looking to conquer. None of them followed Christian teaching so how could they call themselves Christistians? They were more akin to killer bees.

If you agree there is no basis for singling out atheist rulers and not consider the whole history of Christianity and Islam.

I don't think I agree with anything you are attempting to tie me to. I see it clearly as day

The problem remains that in history you cannot single out atheist leaders based on the accusation of ruling cruelly when in the much greater scope of history Christians and Christian governments have been involved in untold Cruelty as in the attempts to persecute and ethnic cleanse Jews from Europe.history and the cruel rule elsewhere in the conversion by the sword. The writings of Martin Luther were great inspiration for Hitler.

Even if what you said were true, and it isn't entirely true, it has little or nothing to do with this discussion or if you think it does, please indicate how it does.

Very odd response concerning what we would consider invisible,

Air goes in and air goes out on a cold day you can see your breath. On any day at any time your breath can be measured. It can very well be determined when someone stops breathing by holding your hand over their nose and mouth.

Ok describe thoughts in the same context. Science is ever changing.. If we admit this we must also admit there are things science has yet to discover, and if such discoveries are limited to only our time and space and nothing outside of it, how can you be so sure there aren't things there we can't see? You can't.

No problem!!!! Your own words pass judgement on your acrid toxic view of today's atheists by associating them with Stalin and associating the sciences of evolution with atheism.

I find this laughable. I like atheists and evolution is a feature of their beliefs.