10 Things Christians and Atheists Can and Must Agree On....

[betsy]

Here is a definition of religion, from Wiki...

A religion is a set of beliefs and practices generally held by a community, involving adherence to codified beliefs and rituals and study of ancestral or cultural traditions, writings, history, and mythology, as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term "religion" refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.

Since I have neither beliefs nor practices, no rituals , no personal faith, no mysticism....I am a member of a religion?

Talk about nutty.

Here's a definition from Webster's New World Dictionary:

2a) any specific system of belief and worship often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy...(Christian religion, Buddhist etc.,)

2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of or likened to such a system.

So as you can see from this definition, post-modern liberal secularism, followed by most Atheists, fits comfortably into this definition.

But let's not put too much weight on dictionary definitions. They're a good guide, but they clearly can't cover all the intricacies and depth of a subject such as religion or secularism or atheism.

[guyser]

I did say: "The question you SHOULD be asking, is are you a bona fide member of Canadian society."

Of course all Canadian citizens are members of society, including prostitutes, gangsters, murderers, rapist, ATHEIST, etc.

But basically, these people are living in a sheltered society provided by organized society and are not directly contributing to the overall betterment of society which does not make them genuine members of society as compared to the efforts of those who do contribute to the overall betterment of society.

Problem is Renegade, what happens to society, when the majority citizens of this country chose to ignore contributing to the overall betterment of society, relating to religion, laws, values, moral conduct, respect for authority etc?

Yes I am a member , bona fide even, of CDN society. Where in the hell did that come from?

I see your bent, and cannot in the life of me figure where you determined that because I dont believe in any god, nor any religion , that I am contributing to the downfall of society. Very few people in this country go to church (17%) . Are they all the reason (in your mind only) that CDN society is in freefall?

I will tell you what happens to society, when the majority citizens of this country chose to ignore contributing to the overall betterment of society, relating to religion, laws, values, moral conduct, respect for authority etc, SFA ! Hows that for an answer.

So, I dont go to church, or believe , ergo I .......

1)dont like authority. Well, not much anyway, but never been arrested nor handcuffed. So thats out.

2) religion is NOT for the betterment of society in and of itself.

3)have lousy values.

4)have suspect moral conduct. Oh ouch, my morals are not yours,so stop preaching.

How presumptious of you.

Sounds like my GF's mother. She knows I am a non-believer, and as such, I am not allowed to darken the doorways of her house. Such love and respect , such openness and welcoming . I guess you too are the Right Wing religious blowhards?

And some wonder why I hold religions with such contempt.With that love, who can blame me.

[guyser]

2a) any specific system of belief and worship often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy...(Christian religion, Buddhist etc.,)

2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of or likened to such a system.

So as you can see from this definition, post-modern liberal secularism, followed by most Atheists, fits comfortably into this definition.

Dont fit in any of those either. No beliefs, practices nor ethical values as pertains religion or the lack of.

Why do religious folks have to sermonize that I fit some religion or faith? For the most part, I dont in reverse.

[Guest coot]

Problem is Renegade, what happens to society, when the majority citizens of this country chose to ignore contributing to the overall betterment of society, relating to religion, laws, values, moral conduct, respect for authority etc?

Is this majority of citizens that choose to not contribute to society's betterment the same majority you claim are Christian?

[Figleaf]

Here's a definition from Webster's New World Dictionary:

2a) any specific system of belief and worship often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy...(Christian religion, Buddhist etc.,)

2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of or likened to such a system.

So as you can see from this definition, post-modern liberal secularism, followed by most Atheists, fits comfortably into this definition.

Nonsense. Secularism is not a 'system of belief', atheism is only arguably a 'system of belief', and neither of them have anything to do with "worship".

I really don't understand why religious people keep trying to tar atheism and secularism with the dirty brush of faith. What do you hope to gain?

[Riverwind]

Dont fit in any of those either. No beliefs, practices nor ethical values as pertains religion or the lack of.

Do you believe that it is wrong to kill someone? Do you think stealing is wrong? Do you believe in democracy? You must have a system of ethics - you could not survive in society without them. You have ethics because you have faith in something. It may not be a God but I am sure your sense of ethics is not based on some proveable natural law.

That makes your belief system a form of religion even if you deny it.

[betsy]

Here's a definition from Webster's New World Dictionary:

2a) any specific system of belief and worship often involving a code of ethics and a philosophy...(Christian religion, Buddhist etc.,)

2b) any system of beliefs, practices, ethical values, etc. resembling, suggestive of or likened to such a system.

So as you can see from this definition, post-modern liberal secularism, followed by most Atheists, fits comfortably into this definition.

Nonsense. Secularism is not a 'system of belief', atheism is only arguably a 'system of belief', and neither of them have anything to do with "worship".

I really don't understand why religious people keep trying to tar atheism and secularism with the dirty brush of faith. What do you hope to gain?

Take it up with Websters.....refer to Riverwind's post above. He said it well.

[Figleaf]

So I read a little further on the site that M.Dander referenced. What a load of tripe.

Can we now also agree...

2. Both Sides Really Do Believe What They're Saying

...when a Christian says:

"Only the saved go to Heaven!"

...and what the atheist hears is:

"I want everyone else to go to Hell!"

From my perspective, what I hear on an emotional level from the Christian there is "I'm in and therefore good, you're out and therefore wicked."

On an intellectual level what I hear is "bluggabluggablugablahblahgloopplop".

....thinking that deep down Christians don't really believe this is the law handed down by a creator, and therefore Christianity is just a petty, intentional rebellion against the non-Christians of the world.

Strange little strawman projection there, eh? Who ever hears atheists complain that Believers don't really believe something?

If there's no God, then there is something in the human brain that can and does present an amazingly realistic impression of one.

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?!

Drivel.

...it appears that some good people honestly don't perceive him. For whatever reason. And there has to be some tolerance in God's rules for the Honest Mistake. Has to be.

"Has to be", eh? Well, find it in the Bible then. Don't just spout opinions.

[gc1765]

You have ethics because you have faith in something. It may not be a God but I am sure your sense of ethics is not based on some proveable natural law.

One does not need to have faith in something to be ethical. One does not even need to know what ethics is in order to be ethical, since some sense of ethics is innate (through evolution). Just like I don't need to have faith in order to feel hungry or tired.

[Figleaf]

Take it up with Websters...

Take what up with Websters? I didn't have a problem with the definition, only with your utterly fallacious claims about what it meant.

[M.Dancer]

If there's no God, then there is something in the human brain that can and does present an amazingly realistic impression of one.

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?!

Drivel.

Among the legion of things that Figleaf is ignorant of and with is the religious experiance.

Temporal lobe and religious experiences

The right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures as the biological interface with an interconnected universe

Melvin Morse M.D.

Associate Professor of Pediatrics

University of Washington

4011 Talbot Road S.

Renton, Washington 98055

From:

ABSTRACT:

Deep right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures are clearly linked to human religious experiences of all types, including conversion experiences and near death experiences. Simply because religious experiences are brain based does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance. Indeed, the findings of neurological substrates to religious experiences can be argued to provide evidence for their objective reality.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Th..._experience.htm

In fact, religious experiances and the brain are well documented, but figleaf is too dishonest a poster to acknoledge that.

[cybercoma]

I did say: "The question you SHOULD be asking, is are you a bona fide member of Canadian society."

Of course all Canadian citizens are members of society, including prostitutes, gangsters, murderers, rapist, ATHEIST, etc.

But basically, these people are living in a sheltered society provided by organized society and are not directly contributing to the overall betterment of society which does not make them genuine members of society as compared to the efforts of those who do contribute to the overall betterment of society.

Problem is Renegade, what happens to society, when the majority citizens of this country chose to ignore contributing to the overall betterment of society, relating to religion, laws, values, moral conduct, respect for authority etc?

Atheists don't contribute to the betterment of society?

You do realize the vast majority of the science community is atheist, right?

[Riverwind]

One does not need to have faith in something to be ethical. One does not even need to know what ethics is in order to be ethical, since some sense of ethics is innate (through evolution). Just like I don't need to have faith in order to feel hungry or tired.

Really? How exactly is a belief democracy and universal suffrage instinctive? How do you explain that virtually every example of 'natural ethics' in one society can be countered by an example of an another society that has evolved different sets of 'natural ethics'?

I believe humans are hard wired to adopt the ethical norms of the society they grow up in (whatever they happened to be). The willingness to accept ethical norms imposed by society is instinctive and a result of evolution. The exact set of ethics is learned and quite arbitrary. In our society secularism is the dominate religion and considered the norm.

[Figleaf]

Dont fit in any of those either. No beliefs, practices nor ethical values as pertains religion or the lack of.

Do you believe that it is wrong to kill someone? Do you think stealing is wrong? Do you believe in democracy? You must have a system of ethics - you could not survive in society without them. You have ethics because you have faith in something. It may not be a God but I am sure your sense of ethics is not based on some proveable natural law.

That makes your belief system a form of religion even if you deny it.

If you want to simply define religion as including all things, then go ahead, but in terms of an argument it's pretty silly.

[Figleaf]

One does not need to have faith in something to be ethical. One does not even need to know what ethics is in order to be ethical, since some sense of ethics is innate (through evolution). Just like I don't need to have faith in order to feel hungry or tired.

Really? How exactly is a belief democracy and universal suffrage instinctive?

An understanding of the benefits of democracy is based on reason. Democracy is fairer than systems of privilege or command, therefore more stable. And because it recruits more minds into free decisionmaking its choices should be better, by and large.

[M.Dancer]

No it's reason!

No it'sinate!

Reason!

Inate!

Reason!

blah blah blah..........

[cybercoma]

If there's no God, then there is something in the human brain that can and does present an amazingly realistic impression of one.

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?!

Drivel.

Among the legion of things that Figleaf is ignorant of and with is the religious experiance.

Temporal lobe and religious experiences

The right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures as the biological interface with an interconnected universe

Melvin Morse M.D.

Associate Professor of Pediatrics

University of Washington

4011 Talbot Road S.

Renton, Washington 98055

From:

ABSTRACT:

Deep right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures are clearly linked to human religious experiences of all types, including conversion experiences and near death experiences. Simply because religious experiences are brain based does not automatically lessen or demean their spiritual significance. Indeed, the findings of neurological substrates to religious experiences can be argued to provide evidence for their objective reality.

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Th..._experience.htm

In fact, religious experiances and the brain are well documented, but figleaf is too dishonest a poster to acknoledge that.

Hey, imagine that... science explaining why people have religious experiences, just like science can explain why people have out of body experiences. Amazing the way the mind works and how chemicals can induce thoughts and feelings, isn't it?

Now if you want to be dishonest enough to claim this is "God," by all means, continue to delude yourself... but this is clearly evidence that hearing, seeing and experiencing God is nothing more than a function (or rather, dysfunction) of the mind.

[gc1765]

Really? How exactly is a belief democracy and universal suffrage instinctive?

I never said that much. I said some sense of ethics is instinctive.

How do you explain that virtually every example of 'natural ethics' in one society can be countered by an example of an another society that has evolved different sets of 'natural ethics'?

I believe humans are hard wired to adopt the ethical norms of the society they grow up in (whatever they happened to be). The willingness to accept ethical norms imposed by society is instinctive and a result of evolution. The exact set of ethics is learned and quite arbitrary. In our society secularism is the dominate religion and considered the norm.

Yes, societies may have a different set of ethics depending on their beliefs. However, every society that I can think of would agree that killing for no reason is 'wrong' (not to say that it doesn't still happen). If you can think of a society that doesn't have at least some aversion to killing their own species, they likely would have all killed each other and died off a long time ago.

Basically, our sense of "ethics" (outside of any other beliefs) is whatever allows our species to survive. At the very least, that involves not killing eachother and helping each other out (eg sharing food).

[M.Dancer]

Hey, imagine that... science explaining why people have religious experiences, just like science can explain why people have out of body experiences. Amazing the way the mind works and how chemicals can induce thoughts and feelings, isn't it?

Now if you want to be dishonest enough to claim this is "God," by all means, continue to delude yourself... but this is clearly evidence that hearing, seeing and experiencing God is nothing more than a function (or rather, dysfunction) of the mind.

Thanks for the strawman...without the likes of you the crows wouldget the corn..........

[cybercoma]

Strawman? Really?

Epileptic hallucinations are not a dysfunction of the mind?

Oh wait... they are... unless they involve hallucinations about a higher power, then it's a strawman.

[Figleaf]

If there's no God, then there is something in the human brain that can and does present an amazingly realistic impression of one.

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?!

Drivel.

Among the legion of things that Figleaf is ignorant of and with is the religious experiance.

Temporal lobe and religious experiences

The right temporal lobe and associated limbic lobe structures as the biological interface with an interconnected universe ...

http://www.meta-religion.com/Psychiatry/Th..._experience.htm

In fact, religious experiances and the brain are well documented, but figleaf is too dishonest a poster to acknoledge that.

...

Poor M.Dancer. What an absolutely idiotic post.

First off, I'm well aware of that research. If it is correct, and religion begins with a mere neurochemical short circuit, then wow, what a destructive pathology that is!

Second, bizarrely, M.Dander doesn't see any difference between an IMAGINARY God and a REAL one -- one that IN HIS HEAD works miracles vs. (the kind I was refering to, a real God) who really DOES miracles.

Dancer's explanation for the imaginary kind of God says 100% zip about a real one, and it's just lame that he can't see that.

Third, does anyone have any idea what Dancer thinks 'dishonest' means?

[cybercoma]

I'm pretty sure M.Dancer thinks dishonest is the name of the garden gnome in those travel commercials.

I realize that makes absolutely no sense, but neither does Dancer's posts.

[M.Dancer]

Strawman? Really?

Epileptic hallucinations are not a dysfunction of the mind?

Oh wait... they are... unless they involve hallucinations about a higher power, then it's a strawman.

Now if you want to be dishonest enough to claim this is "God," by all means, continue to delude yourself

Even an atheist might have a religiopus experiance, but with different cultural parametres they might interpret it differently.

Now of course the narrowminded immediately dismiss it as a dysfunction.......oh to have such faith.....even if it is only in our inflated egos........

[sharkman]

Atheism is a just another type of religious belief system. Fundamentalist atheists are as dogmatic as any radical christian or Muslim. Mao and Stalin singled out people who practiced traditional religions in their purges because they were a threat their atheistic ideology.

Dancer, ignorance is bliss, isn't it? Atheists just can't realize that they worship at a shrine just like all of the good religious folk.

[M.Dancer]

First off, I'm well aware of that research. If it is correct, and religion begins with a mere neurochemical short circuit, then wow, what a destructive pathology that is!

That comment is just such utter drivel it's hard to know where to begin. The human brain produces a "realistic impression" of an all powerful, miracle healing, red-sea parting, jealous God!?!?!

Drivel

Busted Fibleaf.........

Second, bizarrely, M.Dander doesn't see any difference between an IMAGINARY God and a REAL one

Is that all you got?? Making false assumptions about what i see

Poor poor figleaf.........