France attack...

[Dalyn]

I'm not kidding myself. Would I like to move past religion and all that is done in its name or to further its cause? Absolutely. But that's what works for me personally. I'm very aware that has little to no bearing on anything absolute. I don't think my point of view should be the only one out there. I think we need checks and balances to move through time at anything resembling accord. Religion in its current form does not allow for that. It swallows everything. It wants it all. I'm perfectly fine with your values and opinions having the same weight as my own and the same weight as the next person in line. But overall your religion claims ownership of morality and what it sees as evil and good is absolute, despite the hypocrisy of that absolute changing from time to time to better feed the beast. And, again overall, that is the fact with all religions. There is no room for my values or opinions in the world your kind want to create. And that's the problem that leads to so much religious strife and violence.

If the crime is attributable to atheism then atheism then is also poisonous/dangerous and must be rooted out, by the way you responded earlier. Or you aren't being consistent.

I already answered that on an individual level. But for argument's sake, let's say atheists start forming into a large group and somehow develop tenets around atheism. That's where I get off the boat, first of all, but that's not the point. After that, they start murdering people right and left to bring about an end to religion or whatever goals they've adopted for their new little religion. You better believe I would attribute it to their ideology and fight it just as hard as I fight religion as a whole.

Perhaps you missed this.

 

[Oklahomahawk]

I like this version better -

I like GNR a lot, but McCartney's version is still better. After all if McCartney and Wings wanted to redo November Rain or Welcome to the Jungle, I'd say Hell No!!!! Some things shouldn't be redone.

 

[BedellBrave]

But I think one thing you and others have such a hard time understanding about atheism is that it isn't a religion no matter how hard you try to convince people it is. It started as a slur against people whose belief in a god was in question. At some point, instead of letting the slur stand as an insult, a few of those people embraced the term. That's all it is. If some who have embraced the term also practice sex magic, it has nothing to do with the term. If some, such as myself, embrace the term and also have an interest in science, it has nothing to do with the term. I do nothing, except perhaps participate in these discussions, "in the name" of atheism. I don't belong or subscribe to any atheist forums or book clubs or discount outlets or newsletters or study groups or film clubs or youtube channels or softball teams or pottery classes, and the majority of my friends aren't atheists. If I'm ever in the room with another atheist, that fact is incidental and has never been the point of being in the room with them.

And of course I think you kid yourself to think that your own atheistic ideology isn't religious in nature. And that's not all that it is. It's not a mere name or tag or lack of belief. It is a belief system contrary to others and one that informs how you understand other things and how you act and what you think is good and what you think is not. It is something you advocate. Something you value. It encapsulates and is interwoven with a complex of ideas, scientific and philosophical. I could go on.

I don't disparage you nor say it is not within your right to hold or advocate that view. No, that is indeed your right. I think you are dangerous though when you seek to implement and promote that worldview and code of morality politically and will oppose you politically when our views collide. But seek to do so as a friend, who respects you and one day wouldn't mind sitting down to drink a beer and watch a Braves game with you and my fellow friends of opposing worldview and religions here.

 

[Dalyn]

And of course I think you kid yourself to think that your own atheistic ideology isn't religious in nature. And that's not all that it is. It's not a mere name or tag or lack of belief. It is a belief system contrary to others and one that informs how you understand other things and how you act and what you think is good and what you think is not. It is something you advocate. Something you value. It encapsulates and is interwoven with a complex of ideas, scientific and philosophical. I could go on.

I don't disparage you nor say it is not within your right to hold or advocate that view. No, that is indeed your right. I think you are dangerous though when you seek to implement and promote that worldview and code of morality politically and will oppose you politically when our views collide.

I'm not sure how you got that one out with a straight face. Maybe you didn't. I can't see you!

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm not kidding myself. Would I like to move past religion and all that is done in its name or to further its cause? Absolutely. But that's what works for me personally. I'm very aware that has little to no bearing on anything absolute. I don't think my point of view should be the only one out there. I think we need checks and balances to move through time at anything resembling accord. Religion in its current form does not allow for that. It swallows everything. It wants it all. I'm perfectly fine with your values and opinions having the same weight as my own and the same weight as the next person in line. But overall your religion claims ownership of morality and what it sees as evil and good is absolute, despite the hypocrisy of that absolute changing from time to time to better feed the beast. And, again overall, that is the fact with all religions. There is no room for my values or opinions in the world your kind want to create. And that's the problem that leads to so much religious strife and violence.

And that's wrong. It's a mischaracterization of my position. It sells but it's not a fair assessment.

 

[BedellBrave]

I'm not sure how you got that one out with a straight face. Maybe you didn't. I can't see you!

Straight as they come.

 

[Dalyn]

And that's wrong. It's a mischaracterization of my position. It sells but it's not a fair assessment.

Perhaps on an individual level. I don't know you well enough to judge in that regard. Overall (as I keep pointing out is what I am talking about)? It's clear what I said is accurate. Just take a look around.

 

[Dalyn]

And of course I think you kid yourself to think that your own atheistic ideology isn't religious in nature. And that's not all that it is. It's not a mere name or tag or lack of belief. It is a belief system contrary to others and one that informs how you understand other things and how you act and what you think is good and what you think is not. It is something you advocate. Something you value. It encapsulates and is interwoven with a complex of ideas, scientific and philosophical. I could go on.

I don't disparage you nor say it is not within your right to hold or advocate that view. No, that is indeed your right. I think you are dangerous though when you seek to implement and promote that worldview and code of morality politically and will oppose you politically when our views collide. But seek to do so as a friend, who respects you and one day wouldn't mind sitting down to drink a beer and watch a Braves game with you and my fellow friends of opposing worldview and religions here.

I'm not sure how you got that one out with a straight face. Maybe you didn't. I can't see you!

Straight as they come.

"I think you are dangerous though when you seek to implement and promote that worldview and code of morality politically and will oppose you politically when our views collide."

Please tell me you have some idea how absurd (and mind-blowingly ironic) this part in particular is for a Christian in the USA to say.

 

[AerchAngel]

Correct me if I am wrong Dalyn. My understanding of you and what I view of you on Facebook is that you are a live and let live sort of moral person. I am probably 90% in being correct, yes I am against gay marriage IN THE CHURCH, but yet I am label a homo for some reason. I did not say anything about the government, because in my mind if a church don't want to marry you, they have that right, just like Chik Fil A or whatever that franchise is. If a restaurant don't want to allow blacks, do I really care? No, I don't, that is their right.

You see, I know you are atheist and that doesn't bother me one bit because of this and this is big, YOU RESPECT THE WAY I AM, like I respect the way you are. It is I live what I believe in and I don't care what you think attitude, which all people should have.

I remember on Scout we had some very nasty fights and now we are friends, you know why. I kept reading your posts, got to understand who and what you are, you are me, except I believe and you don't and I was the one who was in error trying to FORCE my beliefs on you and how you counterattack was devastating, it made me think. That last sentence is what you are saying to Bedell and I don't think he is grasping it. He is trying to force you in a corner but he neglects to think that you are an individual, a pawn of no religion/dogma, no restrictions with a moral compass you own as your own self.

This is why I respect you tremendously and someways I have adopted the same concept of what is right and wrong. Yes, I dog Sturg, Steak Sauce, Kr, Thethe and others. They all have their dogma in a certain place because they feel comfortable in it. Do I disagree with them? I just make fun of them. Goldie, I give a pass, he pisses me off no other on some of his comments, but he is close to what we are, seeing a world as an individual, not a pocket of the same vein.

You
Me
Goldy

We are true independents that would lean one way or the other because we do not put ourselves in a certain pocket and fit were our moral compasses are.

 

[BedellBrave]

Dalyn, it really isn't anything more than you are saying of me. That's the point. You, in keeping with the Hitchens and Dawkins screeds, find all religions dangerous and if that results in seeking to implement curbs upon legitimate religious expression via the political sphere, or pushing for legislation which would support an ethic that does not value life as I would hope, then you are dangerous. Not on a personal level but politically.

That is not to say it isn't within your right to do so or that I would fight against you having the right to do so. I'd actually advocate for your right to do so. The sort of battle I am speaking of is in the arena of seeking to persuade you and others to have a different view and the arena of the ballot box. Nothing more. Nothing less.

 

[BedellBrave]

Perhaps on an individual level. I don't know you well enough to judge in that regard. Overall (as I keep pointing out is what I am talking about)? It's clear what I said is accurate. Just take a look around.

I actually think it is a mischaracterization - a straw man argument - a boogieman - of many if not now most Christians in the United States. Like some/many in my "tribe" who take the words of extremely intolerant/vocal secularists and use those to fear-mong Christians, the "they are planning to turn America into a theocracy!" crowd is doing the same sort of fear-mongering.

 

[AerchAngel]

Dalyn, it really isn't anything more than you are saying of me. That's the point. You, in keeping with the Hitchens and Dawkins screeds, find all religions dangerous and if that results in seeking to implement curbs upon legitimate religious expression via the political sphere, or pushing for legislation which would support an ethic that does not value life as I would hope, then you are dangerous. Not on a personal level but politically.

That is not to say it isn't within your right to do so or that I would fight against you having the right to do so. I'd actually advocate for your right to do so. The sort of battle I am speaking of is in the arena of seeking to persuade you and others to have a different view and the arena of the ballot box. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Is this true, Dalyn?

 

[BedellBrave]

Correct me if I am wrong Dalyn. My understanding of you and what I view of you on Facebook is that you are a live and let live sort of moral person. I am probably 90% in being correct, yes I am against gay marriage IN THE CHURCH, but yet I am label a homo for some reason. I did not say anything about the government, because in my mind if a church don't want to marry you, they have that right, just like Chik Fil A or whatever that franchise is. If a restaurant don't want to allow blacks, do I really care? No, I don't, that is their right.

You see, I know you are atheist and that doesn't bother me one bit because of this and this is big, YOU RESPECT THE WAY I AM, like I respect the way you are. It is I live what I believe in and I don't care what you think attitude, which all people should have.

I remember on Scout we had some very nasty fights and now we are friends, you know why. I kept reading your posts, got to understand who and what you are, you are me, except I believe and you don't and I was the one who was in error trying to FORCE my beliefs on you and how you counterattack was devastating, it made me think. That last sentence is what you are saying to Bedell and I don't think he is grasping it. He is trying to force you in a corner but he neglects to think that you are an individual, a pawn of no religion/dogma, no restrictions with a moral compass you own as your own self.

This is why I respect you tremendously and someways I have adopted the same concept of what is right and wrong. Yes, I dog Sturg, Steak Sauce, Kr, Thethe and others. They all have their dogma in a certain place because they feel comfortable in it. Do I disagree with them? I just make fun of them. Goldie, I give a pass, he pisses me off no other on some of his comments, but he is close to what we are, seeing a world as an individual, not a pocket of the same vein.

You
Me
Goldy

We are true independents that would lean one way or the other because we do not put ourselves in a certain pocket and fit were our moral compasses are.

No, AA, I don't think you get it. Dalyn has said that Islam is dangerous and that we ought (note a moral judgment) to take steps to defeat Islamic jihadists (I agree). But he then goes on to say, but it's not just Islam - it's all religions. Implication? We must somehow take steps to stop all religions (except his own - and I know, he denies that he has a religion, but that's a semantic game - everyone does). Now I recognize he isn't saying let's kill Christians or Buddhists, but he is saying that these religious expressions and all religious expressions need to be stopped and somehow taken out of our societal equation. How so? Well, through proselytizing for a secular-atheistic worldview and I would assume political means. And those are the very spheres that I am saying I will oppose him.

 

[AerchAngel]

No, AA, I don't think you get it. Dalyn has said that Islam is dangerous and that we ought (note a moral judgment) to take steps to defeat Islamic jihadists (I agree). But he then goes on to say, but it's not just Islam - it's all religions. Implication? We must somehow take steps to stop all religions (except his own - and I know, he denies that he has a religion, but that's a semantic game - everyone does). Now I recognize he isn't saying let's kill Christians or Buddhists, but he is saying that these religious expressions and all religious expressions need to be stopped and somehow taken out of our societal equation. How so? Well, through proselytizing for a secular-atheistic worldview and I would assume political means. And those are the very spheres that I am saying I will oppose him.

And I did ask, if that is what he believes, but I understand your angle.

 

[AerchAngel]

What I do understand that Islam is a murderous religion, don't accept we will kill you dogma. Christians, USED to be that way to a certain extent, but they have outgrown it. I have no love for the pope at all so if people want to make fun of him or even Jesus or any other Christians, would not upset me one bit, that is the difference being an actual human being with a conscience than an animal (Thethe) which I think all Muslims are if they get upset when someone pokes fun at your religion.

I have no love for them and will not until they grow the hell up about feelings on matters that should not affect their being. I can say bad things about the pope, and I have, bad things about Jesus, I have, not one person got upset about it, but if I say anything bad about Muslim or their religion, it is anarchy. Stupid.

 

[Dalyn]

Dalyn, it really isn't anything more than you are saying of me. That's the point.

Lots of new stuff to address!

You are correct. It really isn't anything more. The difference is the political reality in the United States. That's what's so absurd and ironic about it. I'll go deeper into that in a bit with some of my other replies. Just wanted to post this quick response while I have a minute.

 

[Dalyn]

Correct me if I am wrong Dalyn. My understanding of you and what I view of you on Facebook is that you are a live and let live sort of moral person. I am probably 90% in being correct

Much as my reply with O-Hawk, you are correct in an ideal situation kind of way. Unfortunately, the whole live and let live thing doesn't hold up well when people refuse to participate in the "let live" part of the equation. In a physical fight, I've never punched first in my life. I try the same approach on the mental side of things, too. Doesn't mean I can claim I don't fight, though, and that is where I have to say you give me too much credit in the live and let live assessment.

 

[Dalyn]

I actually think it is a mischaracterization - a straw man argument - a boogieman - of many if not now most Christians in the United States. Like some/many in my "tribe" who take the words of extremely intolerant/vocal secularists and use those to fear-mong Christians, the "they are planning to turn America into a theocracy!" crowd is doing the same sort of fear-mongering.

There is some truth here. I think the landscape is changing (and some churches are making honest changes while others alter their absolutes to better feed the beast, as I mentioned earlier), and I hope it is heading toward what I mentioned before about my opinions and values holding the same weight as yours. Equality. That's my goal vs religion, not as you try to claim with the destructive comments and such. The way that comes into play is that the current religious system as a whole (not just USA) is nowhere near compatible with that type of endgame. In its current form, it is a sickness, an illness, a disease, a poison. It may be one that can only be treated with a cure, but like I said, I would be fine with a treatment that allows the patient to live basically unaffected by the ____.

And this, along with my previous reply to AA, ties into your first comment and why it is absurd and ironic. Let's take a look at some of the political movements you could possibly tie to someone like myself pushing my agenda -

Gay marriage: I think there should be no marriage laws on the books whatsoever. State or Federal. I think it should be a choice between the parties wanting to get married and the person or organization they want to officiate. The only laws on the books should be age of consent, and that is because it is needed for other valid laws. Other than that, if a person or organization does not want to marry someone, the couple (or whatever) should move on to someone willing. Unfortunately, it is too late for that because Christians already legislated their morality and now to get it back to even close to what I am talking about you have to get those laws removed or the wording changed or other laws added to counter them.

Abortion: Again, I think there should be no abortion laws on the books whatsoever. It should be between the patient and the doctor. If the doctor doesn't want to do it, move on to someone willing. Unfortunately, it is too late for that because Christians already legislated their morality and now to get it back to even close to what I am talking about you have to get those laws removed or the wording changed or other laws added to counter them.

I think you get the point. If there are other political issues like this you would like me to address individually, just ask, but the idea is basically the same throughout. Do you see the absurdity and irony of a Christian saying that, now? I completely agree with what you said, and you'll be hard pressed to find a law I support in this area ("morality") that isn't a reactionary one. If you could find it and point it out to me, I imagine it would have a great chance of changing my views regarding said law.

 

[Dalyn]

We must somehow take steps to stop all religions (except his own - and I know, he denies that he has a religion, but that's a semantic game - everyone does).

Even if atheism is a religion, you are wrong regarding the "except his own" part. If religion is not a factor, there is no atheism. What you see as my religion would die right alongside the rest of them.

 

[Dalyn]

You, in keeping with the Hitchens and Dawkins screeds, find all religions dangerous and if that results in seeking to implement curbs upon legitimate religious expression via the political sphere, or pushing for legislation which would support an ethic that does not value life as I would hope, then you are dangerous. Not on a personal level but politically.

That is not to say it isn't within your right to do so or that I would fight against you having the right to do so. I'd actually advocate for your right to do so. The sort of battle I am speaking of is in the arena of seeking to persuade you and others to have a different view and the arena of the ballot box. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Is this true, Dalyn?

I think I've addressed how it IS true and how it is NOT true in my last few replies, but just in case, I'll expand the idea a bit -

Dawkins is undeniably a genius and in his area of expertise I agree with him more often than not. That said, he has social issues and some of his ideas and things he says, I think, come more from the damaged molested child inside, and I disagree completely with those FAR more often than not.

Hitchens is another story. I have immense respect for him. I've read all his published work and most of those multiple times, and the same goes for his lectures and debates. I agree with him FAR more often than not. He is the main reason I changed my mind regarding the war, and his work still challenges me to question and analyze my own opinions in different ways as I grow.

The other bits about pushing for legislation and all that is addressed in my other post. To reiterate, I do my best to only support laws that to my understanding are reactionary and needed to correct inequality or freedom of choice on an individual level. I can't stand the PC movement, and I would not support laws that forced any preachers to officiate a wedding if they didn't want to or any doctors to perform an abortion if they didn't want to. If their personal organization (a hospital or church, for example) choose to force them, that is between them and (what is essentially) their employer.