Ideology - The athiest's religion

[davo]

The other day I was reading some of Pat Buchanan's new book "Day of Reckoning - How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are tearing America apart". Within it I found some very good points about ideology, and the following quote from one of the Chesterton's - "A man who doesn't believe in God does not believe in nothing at all; he believes in anything"

I found this especially true that a large percentage of people who don't subscribe to a religious belief seem to substitute it with some sort of ideological agenda, which they follow almost as if it were a religion. These ideologies tend to come predominately (but not exclusively) from left-leaning ideas such as world socialism or Marxism, 'human rights', the environmental movement, anarchism, and animal liberation. To be fair to the lefties I'll include ethnic nationalism, Neoconservatism, and also what Pat Buchanan calls "Democratism" - an ideological worship of democracy, in my brief list of ideological 'isms, that tend to take the place of religious belief in some people.

I've also found, in general experience, that political discussion in person to someone you have an ideological disagreement, can be even more ugly than one about religion. Political ideologies have been taking the place of religious belief in installing a world view in our young. Many years ago religious instruction told our young that certain vices were 'bad', such as excessive consumption of alcohol, use of narcotics, homosexuality, abortion, use of contraception, and so on. Young people ended up echoing these views, not because they developed a political ideology to be used in elections, but because God, the church, and their culture has a code of conduct.

Today's people see two different worlds. Whilst some see the advancement of gay rights, abortion, racial equality, cultural diversity, gender equality in the workforce, etc as being enlightened and 'progressive', and the goals of a successful civilization, just as many people (especially conservative Christians, Muslims and orthodox Jews) see these things as an extreme form of decadence, and the unfortunate sign of a dying civilization that's passed its use-by date.

Is the West facing a 'culture war'? Is religion a good or bad thing to have in society, and is a secular addiction to ideology worse than religion? In the 20th century alone, over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments, in pursuit of either Marxist/Communist or National Socialist ideology. No religious theocracy in history has come close to this level of mass murder.

[Truth_and_Power]

Well if you mean to include agnostics in your brash generalization, then I may have some standing to reply to this.

You try to paint this kind of split down the middle of religion and political ideology. There has never been and probably will never be such a split. Religion and politics have been holding hands since as far back in history as I have studied. You are basically saying that athiestic/agnostic people should not have morals or an ideology, which is ridiculous i think. What, I need a book with threats of eternal damnation to have ideas about how the world should be and about right and wrong?

I really think you need to take a deep breath and get some perspective, because you seem to be under the impression that evil originates from athiestic socialists. There's plenty of mass murder to go around.

[HankSaint]

Young people ended up echoing these views, not because they developed a political ideology to be used in elections, but because God, the church, and their culture has a code of conduct.

Davo nailed it completely. Having lived for 62 yrs. on this old earth, in that short amount of time anyone who has experienced the changes I have seen would have to agree of major changes in our social system. Not that the atheist religion has no code of conduct, I'm sure they have claim to many good examples. What they lack is responsibility to that code. Whereas people of religion honor a conduct or code with knowledge of righteous judgement. Big difference since some feel there is no final judgement for good and evil, and live by a code of personal conduct.

I really think you need to take a deep breath and get some perspective, because you seem to be under the impression that evil originates from atheistic socialists. There's plenty of mass murder to go around.

Perspective ---is the way in which objects appear to the eye, whereas the religious believe it appears to the eye and soul, (spirit and body). Evil to the secular and atheist is a word, whereas evil to one of faith is a entity, it's real, and has a personal agenda. Hence Mass Murder results in following a real personage, and not just a word. Being a atheistic socialist is not evil my friend, no one is claiming or depicting that to be evil. Responsibility, free will, agency are the key words in describing good or bad choices of the individual. Ideology is not evil, unless it produces evil results, and I dare say the book you scream about, is also called the Gospel of Happiness, never heard it called the Book of Damnation.

[davo]

Well, to be honest, this post is from a late night after about 10 cups of coffee, doing alot of thinking and expressing some random thoughts (as you do :D); I didn't mean to offend.


You are basically saying that athiestic/agnostic people should not have morals or an ideology, which is ridiculous i think. What, I need a book with threats of eternal damnation to have ideas about how the world should be and about right and wrong?


I never said that at all.

I'm also agnostic, but I do see the role religion plays in society. Athiest/agnostic people do have morals; I never said they didn't. The danger I can see is that ideological views about what's 'right' and 'wrong' for Western society come from an overgrown public education system with a virtual monopoly on the minds of the young.

I don't think there's a split between religion and political ideology. Rather, it's easier for an atheist to substitute a secular ideology for his/her religion. I've seen some particularly devoted eco-warriors, gay rights champions, feminists and diversity freaks. They all have one thing in common; the absence of mainstream religious belief. I'd also emphasize that I've come across many other atheists/agnostics (especially those involved in hard sciences) express radical-right views as well, regarding human equality, euthanasia, Darwinism, Eugenics, genetic engineering and so on, that religious belief would usually prohibit.

It doesn't take a genius to work out these two things are diverging from each other; there would not be such a gap and a difference fundamentally in what's right and wrong, and as much rapid social change, if more people received social guidance from religious institutions.

[Truth_and_Power]

What a completely ridiculous statement. I don't need a punisher god looming over me to adhere to my moral code, and I don't need a preacher to outline it for me. I learned it from my parents and I live by it.

You religious people are so high and mighty you think you're the only ones with backbones or morals but evidence proves otherwise.

[HankSaint]

What a completely ridiculous statement. I don't need a punisher god looming over me to adhere to my moral code, and I don't need a preacher to outline it for me. I learned it from my parents and I live by it.

You religious people are so high and mighty you think you're the only ones with backbones or morals but evidence proves otherwise.


No you don't need God, and He is fine with that since he gave you your free will. You did a wonderful job of outlining it for yourself good buddy. You choose your religion, atheist socialist, and that gives you happiness and pleasure, I hope.

High and mighty is a defensive statement used when one is angry, confused, or ignorant. I suggest either anger management, study, or more study :-)
Now take a deep breath, no one is condemning your right to be an atheist. If it brings you happiness, fulfillment, and peace, what else could you want.

Truth and power, give me some examples of we lack backbones or morals.

[Truth_and_Power]

Jimmy Swaggart is a great example of a religious person with no real morals. And I am a great example of a non-religious person with real morals. But if you look you will see that I did not say religious people don't have morals, I just said you don't have a monopoly on it. The OP and you are the ones pointing fingers here, throwing the first stone as it were.

High and mighty is what you call someone who writes about how you are an degenerate athiestic socialist without any actual evidence to support that (because it aint true) and titles himself a saint. I'm voting ron paul.. so I'm not a socialist. I'm an agnostic not an athiest. And I do have a moral code that I follow.

Parts of T&P's Moral Code

1. No Infidelity.
2. Don't judge friends based on what others say & don't abandon friends who are going through hard times -- rally to them. The same goes for family.
3. Don't steal.
4. Defend those being picked on or attacked. It's amazing how rarely you actually have to fight off a bully for someone, usually all it takes is the willingness to do so.
5. Forgive those who put forth a real effort to change.
6. Help others learn and progress. Anyone who is trying to learn deserves your advice and assistance in making that next step. If they are really showing effort just a little help & encouragement from you can go a long way.
7. Be friendly to strangers, especially those that others are less than friendly to without cause. Great examples of this: Toll Booth Operators, The people who serve/make your food, Homeless or downtrodden people you see on the street.

[HankSaint]

Jimmy Swaggart is a great example of a religious person with no real morals.

And I am a great example of a non-religious person with real morals.

High and mighty is what you call someone who writes about how you are an degenerate athiestic socialist without any actual evidence to support that (because it aint true) and titles himself a saint. I'm voting ron paul.. so I'm not a socialist. I'm an agnostic not an athiest. And I do have a moral code that I follow.


Well, well, well ---- quoting someone with an opinion is not evidence of we are the only ones with backbones and morals. You see, truth and power, you kind of lump or assume the religious faithful are the only ones who claim backbones and morals when in fact history shows just the opposite. I could google many names of good people who are atheist, secular and what-not, that meet that criteria, of having morals and backbones. So my friend what exactly is your point?

Are you posting just to post, or do you have some substance to you debate?

Just wondering where you're coming from. :thumbsup:

[Truth_and_Power]

re-read my edited post perhaps it explains my position better.


Not that the atheist religion has no code of conduct, I'm sure they have claim to many good examples. What they lack is responsibility to that code.


Your quote smacks of condescension.

[HankSaint]

re-read my edited post perhaps it explains my position better.


Not that the atheist religion has no code of conduct, I'm sure they have claim to many good examples. What they lack is responsibility to that code.


Your quote smacks of condescension.


Hardly patronizing anything you said, good buddy. Look up the word responsibility.
Who are you responsible to other than yourself Truth and power. Your title says it all ---- Truth and Power, who's power my friend? You make my point, clearly. :thumbsup:

[Truth_and_Power]

re-read my edited post perhaps it explains my position better.


Not that the atheist religion has no code of conduct, I'm sure they have claim to many good examples. What they lack is responsibility to that code.


Your quote smacks of condescension.


Hardly patronizing anything you said, good buddy. Look up the word responsibility.
Who are you responsible to other than yourself Truth and power. Your title says it all ---- Truth and Power, who's power my friend? You make my point, clearly. :thumbsup:


I am responsible to myself, right. How is that a lack of responsibility? Like I said, my conscience is strong enough that I don't need the threat of eternal damnation or the holy carrot of redemption to motivate me.

My handle is more of a reference to the two great motivators of people in politics. Which one matters to you most is a matter of preference. As for me, I choose Truth.

[Keith Hamburger]

The other day I was reading some of Pat Buchanan's new book "Day of Reckoning - How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are tearing America apart". Within it I found some very good points about ideology, and the following quote from one of the Chesterton's - "A man who doesn't believe in God does not believe in nothing at all; he believes in anything"

I found this especially true that a large percentage of people who don't subscribe to a religious belief seem to substitute it with some sort of ideological agenda, which they follow almost as if it were a religion. These ideologies tend to come predominately (but not exclusively) from left-leaning ideas such as world socialism or Marxism, 'human rights', the environmental movement, anarchism, and animal liberation. To be fair to the lefties I'll include ethnic nationalism, Neoconservatism, and also what Pat Buchanan calls "Democratism" - an ideological worship of democracy, in my brief list of ideological 'isms, that tend to take the place of religious belief in some people.

Religion is an ideology.

From Merriam-Webster (http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/idealogy),

1: visionary theorizing
2 a: a systematic body of concepts especially about human life or culture b: a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture c: the integrated assertions, theories and aims that constitute a sociopolitical program

Your statement would be virtually the same if you said that "those that aren't Christians believe in something else". A tautology. To then say that those that aren't Christians have no morality is ludicrous. Morality, and immorality, is not the sole domain of one particular system of beliefs. Some Christians are immoral. Some atheists have a highly consistent and strong morality.

Personal integrity has far more to do with morals than any particular belief system. Some have integrity and some don't. That has nothing to do with religion or the lack thereof.

Keith

[Tsky]

Atheists are trying to influence policies by requesting that the Bible be removed from courthouses, that the word God be removed from currency and patriotic songs. They are moving to have evolution taught as fact and have opposed the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. This movement by atheist requires some organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words, atheism is becoming an organized religion. I wonder how they can reconcile that with their staunch opposition to Christianity because of it's organization and suppposed monolithic viewpoints? We'll see.

[Truth_and_Power]

Atheists are trying to influence policies by requesting that the Bible be removed from courthouses, that the word God be removed from currency and patriotic songs. They are moving to have evolution taught as fact and have opposed the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. This movement by atheist requires some organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words, atheism is becoming an organized religion. I wonder how they can reconcile that with their staunch opposition to Christianity because of it's organization and suppposed monolithic viewpoints? We'll see.


"organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words..an organized religion"

Other new Organized Religions:
Stock Market Investing
Corporate Lobbying
Snowboarding
etc..

Check your logic.

[HankSaint]

I am responsible to myself, right. How is that a lack of responsibility? Like I said, my conscience is strong enough that I don't need the threat of eternal damnation or the holy carrot of redemption to motivate me.

You got to slow down and read slowly, very slowly what I posted, my shoot from the hip, Truth and Power (to the people) friend. What they lack is responsibility to the code, not personal responsibility. Where as people of faith feel responsible for personal actions that require forgiveness, repentance, restitution. I just don't believe that fits in into your personal idea of ownership and responsibility. Maybe forgiveness, and restitution, but why repent if you are not a believer in Eternal progression.

[Truth_and_Power]

I am responsible to myself, right. How is that a lack of responsibility? Like I said, my conscience is strong enough that I don't need the threat of eternal damnation or the holy carrot of redemption to motivate me.

You got to slow down and read slowly, very slowly what I posted, my shoot from the hip, Truth and Power (to the people) friend. What they lack is responsibility to the code, not personal responsibility. Where as people of faith feel responsible for personal actions that require forgiveness, repentance, restitution. I just don't believe that fits in into your personal idea of ownership and responsibility. Maybe forgiveness, and restitution, but why repent if you are not a believer in Eternal progression.



re·pent1 /rɪˈpɛnt/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[ri-pent] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–verb (used without object) 1. to feel sorry, self-reproachful, or contrite for past conduct; regret or be conscience-stricken about a past action, attitude, etc. (often fol. by of): He repented after his thoughtless act.


As for why do it.. um. I don't know. That's just how I roll. I have a conscience, I feel bad about bad things that I do, and I try to do better next time. Being a good person is its own reward.

I guess it's just a matter of contributing to the kind of world you want to see. And yeah, I do shoot from the hip a lot on here. Sorry if I picked a fight where one was not intended. I've probably had a lifetime's worth of snotty religious people shoved down my throat. Lets just say i don't get along with baptist preachers.

[Tsky]

Atheists are trying to influence policies by requesting that the Bible be removed from courthouses, that the word God be removed from currency and patriotic songs. They are moving to have evolution taught as fact and have opposed the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. This movement by atheist requires some organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words, atheism is becoming an organized religion. I wonder how they can reconcile that with their staunch opposition to Christianity because of it's organization and suppposed monolithic viewpoints? We'll see.


"organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words..an organized religion"

Other new Organized Religions:
Stock Market Investing
Corporate Lobbying
Snowboarding
etc..

Check your logic.


re·li·gion
- 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

If the shoe fits, all of the organizations you mentioned can wear it....including atheists.

Don't get mad at me because your ridiculous reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Your thoughts are just as in line with Agnostics or atheists or whatever you call yourself and the fact that there is oneness in thought, values and goals signifies that atheism is truly a religion. Now I would like for you to explain to me how your religion is any better than mine. How the religious intolerance are you going to explain that?

[David Hume]

Atheists are trying to influence policies by requesting that the Bible be removed from courthouses, that the word God be removed from currency and patriotic songs. They are moving to have evolution taught as fact and have opposed the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. This movement by atheist requires some organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words, atheism is becoming an organized religion. I wonder how they can reconcile that with their staunch opposition to Christianity because of it's organization and suppposed monolithic viewpoints? We'll see.


And then there are those of us who believe in God as best enunciated by Paine & Spinoza (and others) who also strongly feel religion has no place as an official state-sponsored & sanctioned ideology largely because the Constitution says so. Note that our founding document is completely secular and leaves god entirely out of the equation. Our founders believed, as do I, that religion is a private matter best left to ecclesiastic authorities and/or the self and that the state's function is to regulate life here on earth.

Besides, a religion that feels it needs the state's official imprimatur in order to stand is likely not worth the price of paper it takes to print its holy book.[hr]
The other day I was reading some of Pat Buchanan's new book "Day of Reckoning - How Hubris, Ideology and Greed are tearing America apart". Within it I found some very good points about ideology, and the following quote from one of the Chesterton's - "A man who doesn't believe in God does not believe in nothing at all; he believes in anything"

I found this especially true that a large percentage of people who don't subscribe to a religious belief seem to substitute it with some sort of ideological agenda, which they follow almost as if it were a religion. These ideologies tend to come predominately (but not exclusively) from left-leaning ideas such as world socialism or Marxism, 'human rights', the environmental movement, anarchism, and animal liberation. To be fair to the lefties I'll include ethnic nationalism, Neoconservatism, and also what Pat Buchanan calls "Democratism" - an ideological worship of democracy, in my brief list of ideological 'isms, that tend to take the place of religious belief in some people.

I've also found, in general experience, that political discussion in person to someone you have an ideological disagreement, can be even more ugly than one about religion. Political ideologies have been taking the place of religious belief in installing a world view in our young. Many years ago religious instruction told our young that certain vices were 'bad', such as excessive consumption of alcohol, use of narcotics, homosexuality, abortion, use of contraception, and so on. Young people ended up echoing these views, not because they developed a political ideology to be used in elections, but because God, the church, and their culture has a code of conduct.

Today's people see two different worlds. Whilst some see the advancement of gay rights, abortion, racial equality, cultural diversity, gender equality in the workforce, etc as being enlightened and 'progressive', and the goals of a successful civilization, just as many people (especially conservative Christians, Muslims and orthodox Jews) see these things as an extreme form of decadence, and the unfortunate sign of a dying civilization that's passed its use-by date.

Is the West facing a 'culture war'? Is religion a good or bad thing to have in society, and is a secular addiction to ideology worse than religion? In the 20th century alone, over 100 million people were murdered by their own governments, in pursuit of either Marxist/Communist or National Socialist ideology. No religious theocracy in history has come close to this level of mass murder.


I'd start by saying that the National Socialists were grounded in religion. What Hitler called "Positive Christianity" (a mixture of Lutheranism & Germanic pagan traditions). Let us also not forget that the Catholic Church was an important ally of Germany. Not to mention the #1 target of the Nazis--the Jews, who were by definition targeted for their religion & culture, thus making the very bloody WWII based at least somewhat on religion (and this is w/o even going into the precepts of emperor worship in Japan).

It also seems you see religion quite short in terms of what it can get up to when it comes to killing. A short list from the website http://users.erols.com/mwhite28/warstatz.htm#RelCon

Albigensian Crusade, 1208-49
Algeria, 1992-
Aztecs
Baha'is, 1848-54
Bosnia, 1992-95
Boxer Rebellion, 1899-1901
Christian Romans, 30-313 CE
Croatia, 1991-92
Early Christian doctrinal disputes
English Civil War, 1642-46
Holocaust, 1938-45
Huguenot Wars, 1562-1598
India, 1992-2002
India: Suttee & Thugs
Indo-Pakistani Partition, 1947
Iran, Islamic Republic, 1979-
Iraq, Shiites, 1991-92
Jews, 1348
Jonestown, 1978
Korea, 1700s
Lebanon
1860
1975-92
Martyrs, generally
Molucca Is., 1999-
Mongolia, 1937-39
Northern Ireland, 1974-98
Russian pogroms:
1905-06
1917-22
St. Bartholemew Massacre, 1572
Shang China, ca. 1300-1050 BCE
Shimabara Revolt, Japan 1637-38
Sikh uprising, India, 1984-91
Spanish Inquisition, 1478-1834
Taiping Rebellion, 1850-64
Thirty Years War, 1618-48
Tudor England
Vietnam, 1800s
Witch Hunts, 1400-1800
Xhosa, 1857

In addition, here are a few noteworthy conflicts where dissimilar ethnic groups fought for primarily religious reasons:

Arab Outbreak, 7th Century CE
Arab-Israeli Wars, 1948-
Al Qaeda, 1993-
Bible Crusades, 1095-1291
Dutch Revolt, 1566-1609
Muslim conquest of India, 11th-17th C
Nigeria, 1990s, 2000s

Also, since we are in America and the majority of Americans are Christian, I would also like to point out the bloody history as delineated in the Bible. In it, we have a vengeful god full of bloodlust who supports murder, rape, slavery, abortion, infanticide, genocide, even the smearing of feces upon the faces of his own people. Many verses in the Bible have been used for centuries to justify many of the wars above. And what has not been sanctioned with the Bible (which I use simply because we are in a nation full of Christians) was most certainly sanctioned by the Q'uran or any number of other holy books.

[Ralph]

Concerning morality, the scriptures touch on the subject of "non-practicing" morality, as the apostle Paul declares that "morality" is inherent to "all" man due to the "obvious" presentation of God's handiwork in nature.(As they are without excuse, Rom. 1:20-23) As the gentiles before the introduction of Christianity were a "law unto themselves", left by God due to their insistence of worshiping the created instead of the CREATOR. "For when the Gentiles which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves;" (Rom.2:14). Therefore "all" will be judged by the Law, whether they obtain this morality to abide within the law by direct commandment or by nature. (Rom. 3:20)

But the fact still remains, that "all" have come short of the glory of God, and are not fit to be saved via natural works, we all produce "sin". (Rom. 3:23) And there remains "only one" path to salvation and that is Christ (Acts 4:10-12).

Being a good moral person, is not enough to gain salvation. As was presented by the Gentile Cornelius, "There was a certain man in Caesares called Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian band, A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God always." (Acts 10:1-2)

Of course anyone that professes to be "agnostic" rejects the scriptures as simply another Book, without any value other than some historical reference. But anyones "disbelief" does not preclude it from being the actual truth. As none of its scriptures have been proven wrong, only "hypothesized" as so. But everyone is "entitled" ,as agents of free will, to reject the "professed" will of God and try to live this life without sin under the direction of their own morality.

As for myself, I prefer the "crutch" of Christianity, and its GRACE, for it is a tempting and cruel word in which we reside. But, in any case, there is no ill will, as we continue to agree to disagree on certain topics, and I wish any and all the best that life has to offer. (R)

[preservanation]

Where's Penn and Teler?
Bless you![hr]A good bet is better than a bad bet....ask the secularists who but lottery tixs...God Bless America,

[Truth_and_Power]

Atheists are trying to influence policies by requesting that the Bible be removed from courthouses, that the word God be removed from currency and patriotic songs. They are moving to have evolution taught as fact and have opposed the idea of Intelligent Design being taught in schools. This movement by atheist requires some organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words, atheism is becoming an organized religion. I wonder how they can reconcile that with their staunch opposition to Christianity because of it's organization and suppposed monolithic viewpoints? We'll see.


"organization and some type of oneness of mind. In other words..an organized religion"

Other new Organized Religions:
Stock Market Investing
Corporate Lobbying
Snowboarding
etc..

Check your logic.


re·li·gion
- 1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2. a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
3. the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4. the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion.
5. the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6. something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.

If the shoe fits, all of the organizations you mentioned can wear it....including atheists.

Don't get mad at me because your ridiculous reasoning has come back to bite you in the ass. Your thoughts are just as in line with Agnostics or atheists or whatever you call yourself and the fact that there is oneness in thought, values and goals signifies that atheism is truly a religion. Now I would like for you to explain to me how your religion is any better than mine. How the religious intolerance are you going to explain that?


I'm not going to explain that, and in fact I've never said that. I pretty much leave it to the christians to explain how their way is the only way to salvation and everybody else is going down in flames for their unholy lifestyle.

I'm just refuting the idea that agnostics are a bunch of do-as-they-please folks who do not have moral codes they live by, as well as the idea that athiesism/agnosticism is some kind of organized religion. When agnostics start getting together every sunday to hear agnostic-in-chief give long talks about how you have to live your life if you don't want to follow satan, and the great-white-robed agnostics issues edicts from babylon that all the other agnostics have to live by, then maybe we're an organized religion. It's pretty simple, if we're organized, WHERE'S THE ORGANIZATION? Sure, you can find some author or some book that sells like 1/100th the # of copies that tom clancy does in a year, much less the bible, or maybe you can find some athiest that went on a talk show and try to convince me I live my life based on what the guy says, but it's just a figment of your imagination like when the neocons try to tell me I idolize Sean Penn & Rosie O'Donnell.

Agnostics are so far from having a "oneness of thought", the only way you could concievably think that is if you look at the world as divided into two parts - like me and not like me. I know agnostics that have all sorts of different ideas about the world and how to live in it. About the only thing we agree on is that we don't want christians telling us how to live. This is where keeping christianity out of schools and courthouses comes in.

[preservanation]

Gaylor and Barker recently recorded their first radio show, which will be broadcast nationwide on several affiliates of Air America, the liberal radio network. Gaylor said she believes it's the first national show of its kind.

The convention will tackle heavy subjects, such as Hitchens' argument that “religion kills,” and also feature some lighter moments.

Instead of a prayer or a moment of silence, today's nonprayer breakfast will include the foundation's traditional “Moment of Bedlam.” That's when those sitting down to eat can make as much noise as they want by pounding their silverware, reading their favorite poem or simply yelling.

“It's our chance to fight back,” Barker said. “How many events have you gone to and you've been told to bow your head in prayer?”

And then there's the raffle for U.S. dollars manufactured before 1957, when the words “In God We Trust” were added to bills. Winners will receive “clean” $1 bills, $20 bills and even a $100 bill – and chalk up their luck to chance and not some higher power at work.Atheists are now actively ATTACKING religion. That's where I draw the line.[hr]Where does the work of the New Atheists leave us? I hope they have roused a significant portion of America from its timidity. But to what end? Living without God means turning toward something. To flourish we need coherent secular popular philosophies that effectively answer life's vital questions. Enlightenment optimism once supplied unbelievers with hope for a better world, whether this was based on Marxism, science, education or democracy. After Progress, after Marxism, is it any wonder atheism fell on hard times? Restoring secular confidence will take much positive work as well as the fierce attacks on religion by our atheist champions. On a societal level, as Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris point out in Sacred and Secular, living without God requires creating conditions in which people are free from the kinds of existential vulnerability that have marked all human societies until the advent of Europe's postindustrial welfare states. Markedly more religious than any of them, the United States provides a life that is far more unequal and far more insecure http://www.thenation.com/doc/20070625/aronson/2

[David Hume]

I'm not going to explain that, and in fact I've never said that. I pretty much leave it to the christians to explain how their way is the only way to salvation and everybody else is going down in flames for their unholy lifestyle.

I'm just refuting the idea that agnostics are a bunch of do-as-they-please folks who do not have moral codes they live by, as well as the idea that athiesism/agnosticism is some kind of organized religion. When agnostics start getting together every sunday to hear agnostic-in-chief give long talks about how you have to live your life if you don't want to follow satan, and the great-white-robed agnostics issues edicts from babylon that all the other agnostics have to live by, then maybe we're an organized religion. It's pretty simple, if we're organized, WHERE'S THE ORGANIZATION? Sure, you can find some author or some book that sells like 1/100th the # of copies that tom clancy does in a year, much less the bible, or maybe you can find some athiest that went on a talk show and try to convince me I live my life based on what the guy says, but it's just a figment of your imagination like when the neocons try to tell me I idolize Sean Penn & Rosie O'Donnell.

Agnostics are so far from having a "oneness of thought", the only way you could concievably think that is if you look at the world as divided into two parts - like me and not like me. I know agnostics that have all sorts of different ideas about the world and how to live in it. About the only thing we agree on is that we don't want christians telling us how to live. This is where keeping christianity out of schools and courthouses comes in.



Actually, I'd say that the biggest issue with freethinkers is that, much like cats & frogs, they're difficult to corral into a "groupthink" corner. It's only a problem in that it makes it difficult to develop a solid organization of freethinkers; in every other way, it's good that most freethinkers don't feel compelled to join a group to help support whatever ideology they espouse. Most freethinkers feel quite capable of speaking for themselves without help from a person of authority.[hr]
Atheists are now actively ATTACKING religion. That's where I draw the line.


The quote you provide from Dan Barker states that he is fighting back, not attacking. For centuries, religionists have had non-believers in their sights. I don't ever recall a group of atheists burning Christians at the stake or placing them on a dunking stool, but I do know the Christian churches have done this with some regularity to non-orthodox people. It is high time non-religious people fought back & defended themselves from these holier-than-thou types. That's where you SHOULD be drawing the line. . . .

PS: I really like the Frank Zappa avatar. ;)

[Truth_and_Power]

I agree with Mr. Hume. SOME atheists are attacking religion, those are the ones that had to deal with even more annoying baptist preachers as children than I did.