So...why is it religions hate each other and atheists?

First topic message reminder :

Having given the topic some serious consideration, I have no idea why the religious hate each other and the irreligious. And vice versa, of course.

Despite being collective worship coordinator at my secondary school, I am an athiest. Not proudly so, I might add - I just don't have faith in a deity or multiples thereof. Having said that, I have no issue with anyone who does. Harnessed in the right way, it can be an astonishing force for good.

I suspect the umbrella I would fall under is humanist, although I have never chosen a banner for myself. I believe in people: the family and friends around me; my students and colleagues; members of the human race in general.

The thing I object to is the evangelising fraternity who,when I politely reject their view of the universe, choose to label me as ... well, all sort of insulting and unfair nonsense. At this stage, please believe that I find Richard Dawkins as irritating as any ayalloah, church elder or priest.

Ultimately, if your religion fascilitates your ability to be a good, kind and humane person, brilliant. If you can be the same without a god, more power to your elbow.

So why can't we leave each other to get on with it?

An aphorism current in World War II was, "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

Wiki is back in town...you missed out this bit.

Several atheist organizations object to the phrase. The Military Association of Atheists & Freethinkers has adopted the catch-phrase "Atheists in Foxholes" to emphasize that the original statement is just an aphorism and not a fact. The over 200 members of this organization publicly display their military service in order to show that there are atheists in foxholes, and on ships, and in planes.[18] The religious convictions of current U.S. military personnel are similar to those of the general American population, though studies suggest that members of the military are slightly less religious.[19] James Morrow has been quoted as saying "'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes."[20] Due to its opposition to the phrase, the Freedom From Religion Foundation has erected a monument to "Atheists in Foxholes".[21]

An aphorism current in World War II was, "There are no atheists in the foxholes."

I have a theory - and I believe Tosh concurs - that WWII is the reason why Europe began to lose its faith. It is the reason why atheism and non-religiosity took root and is rapidly growing in Europe and why America is still full of fantasy and fairy tales.

Europe - as well as Japan, China, and Korea (all primarily atheist nations) - saw first hand the destruction of their cities, the killing of their women and children, the Holocaust, and the horrors of war. The trauma of such events caused MANY people to doubt the existence of God. How could God allow such slaughter, such misery? MANY trapped in the Nazi camps asked the same question and now there are more non-Jewish Jews than there are religious or orthodox Jews.

America, on the other hand, came out of the war not only perfectly intact, but as the greatest Superpower ever to exist in all of human history. The American population, drawing upon an existing over-abundance of religiosity, began to claim themselves as even MORE Christian. This nonsensical religiosity was fueled by the belief in "American Exceptionalism," that somehow America was chosen by God to be as great as it was. Since Americans did not see their cities in flame or have its people rounded up and systematically gassed, there was no reason to doubt their beliefs in God. In fact, with America emerging from the war as strong as she was, the war did just the opposite. The exception to this was the US soldiers who fought in the war - especially those who liberated the concentration camps. THEIR faith in God WAS rattled and many became atheists as time went on. At the very least, they were no longer practicing Christians. I've listened to hundreds (if not thousands) of interviews with WWII vets, and quite a number of them personally admitted that they lost their faith during the war.

No one bothered, of course, to realize that America's thrust into Superpower status occurred because it was the only economy left intact after the war. The US economy was already massive before the war, but afterward, when there was literally no competition and the entire world, both Allied and Axis, was approaching America hat in hand looking for loans, it's literally a "no shit, Sherlock" moment that America became immensely powerful. God had absolutely NOTHING to do with it, yet even today, try telling that to the average American and you're liable to get a sermon (unless you pick a liberal Democrat).

In short, Often Wrong, they may not have been atheists when they went IN to the foxholes, but many of them WERE atheists when they came out,

Maybe we limit ourselves by stating that 'im an atheist, or Im a christian', or 'Im gay', etc....there s more to us than those lightweight remarks about what we think we think........................and when we've done thinking whatever it is that we think, things will be as they were before we started thinking these thoughts...................the same as always..??

'and their mouths are stoppd with dust' (12th c Persian guy)

2.7 million Shinto followers may be surprised to read that Japan is "primarily atheist" but perhaps they're only Buddhist really.


Tosh, your facility with Wikiwisdom is awesome. Truly. But you didn't actually experience WW2, did you?

2.7 million Shinto followers may be surprised to read that Japan is "primarily atheist" but perhaps they're only Buddhist really.

2.7 million out of 127 million.

Your statement indicates either (1) your lack of understanding of “b’r’shythe”, “bara”, “et hashamayim”, and “ve’et ha’arets”,

Yes, I don't understand any of those words although I'm sure at some point you have explained them to me and, forgive me, I probably didn't read them.

(2) that the immeasurable, incomprehensible power by which the universe originates at the singularity is “Zeus.”

Nope. How do you know immeasurable, incomprehensible power triggered the big bang? And how do you know it was God and not Zeus? Fact is, you will have to say those three little words....I don't know.

I have compared Dawkins’ words with Norse mythology in a scholarly fashion to seek truth.

Well, you weren't successful. I think this explanation of yours is daft. And if you were honestly seeking truth, Rock, you would take into account all of Richard Dawkins other words, instead of focusing on a few words in a video clip. This is what I mean about the pine trees, Rock. You see one pine tree in a forest and you assume the entire forest is a pine forest. Look at the rest of the trees before making astounding and untrue statements.

.

I’ve attached neither label to it. You are free to attach any label you choose to it. When, if ever, you choose to learn those meanings, I’ll return to Genesis 1:1 with you, and I mean with you, and explain to you the meaning of the word that is there to the best of my ability.

Not true. You have said that Genesis 1:1 perfectly mirrors Big Bang. Genesis 1:1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. You have labelled immeasurable, incomprehensible power as God.

You first. Then I’ll gladly acknowledge all that I don’t know about the event.

I don't know a lot of things. I do know that Richard Dawkins is an atheist. To say anything else is a lie.

The fact that I have done so means that I have necessarily done so successfully.

The fact that you were successful in typing your words to a forum, I will give you a pat on the back. You were not successful in seeking truth. You are not speaking truth when you say, based on Dawkins words in that video clip, that he is a theist and intrinsically hypocritical.

I have not heard Dawkins’ other words; I have head Dawkins’ these words. I know that the grammar is awkward, so I’ll rephrase: I have heard these words spoken by Dawkins. He said what he said. I heard what he said. I documented what he said, and I documented what he said meticulously and stone cold accurately (if you don’t believe that, listen to the video and view my transcription thereof simultaneously). I analyzed what he said in comparison to Norse mythology, which comparison I chose because I’m kind of a fan of the Norse gods, particularly Thor, and have a fan’s familiarity with the landscape thereof. Having done all of this, I have reached my conclusion, and living in a nation in which my right to reach my own conclusion is constitutionally guaranteed, “I’m good.”

And there we have it. By ignoring the rest of the evidence, as you so often do in these debates, you make a statement as though it were a fact and apply attributes to the whole of a man that are not true. If you were honest in this regard, you would at least couch your statement in cautious language such as, Dawkins appears to be comparing to the Norse gods, although he never mentions them, I have in my own mind made this connection and here are my reasons so it looks as if in this instance Dawkins is a theist and therefore intrinsically hypocritical. However, I accept that I don't know him that well. But you don't say that. Instead you make a statement as though it were a fact about a man you admit you know nothing about. That is not truth and that is not seeking truth.

However, I accept that I don't know him that well.

I know him fairly well - at least as well as anyone can know a man by what is scattered around the internet. I have listened to him debate Christians innumerable times, seen him on Fox News (what a laugh) and on a British show called The Big Question. I even read his book.

There is no WAY that he is a theist of any type, kind, category, genus or species. Rock's evaluation of Dawkins stems from a far too literal approach to the English language, a wordsmithing precision that almost no one uses. It is splitting hairs, picking nits, and any other assorted phrase describing the same thing.

I have explained also that Dawkins was referring to an alien race seeding life on earth which is a subset of the Ancient Astronaut theory started by Erik von Daniken. It was THAT which Dawkins referred to, not Norse gods. Even if said alien race were once worshiped as the Norse gods, Dawkins himself does not ever once claim they actually WERE gods. Dawkins would have to admit he believes in gods for him to be a theist, and he simply doesn't do that.

In fact, where in Norse mythology was there references to advanced technology? The Vikings didn't even have the vocabulary to discuss computers, interstellar space craft, and the like.

Shirina- is that avatar a pic of you?.if so, you can come to tea and argue religion and philosophy all day!

Tosh, your facility with Wikiwisdom is awesome. Truly. But you didn't actually experience WW2, did you?

No need, the person who invented the aphorism didn't actually experience every single soldier in every single foxhole to state NO ATHEISTS, did he now ?

.

GOD: 3. any person or thing to which excessive attention is given: money was his god

ACCORDING TO THE LOGIC OF TEXAS, ANYONE WHO WORSHIPS MONEY IS IN EFFECT A CLOSET DEIST OR THEIST, ATHEISTS CANNOT WORSHIP MONEY AS A GOD.



Genius.

.

I believe that Dawkins’ words clearly and accurately express Dawkins’ belief as to the possible origin of human life on Earth, a belief eerily similar to Norse mythology, with (1) aliens (implied by Dawkins) corresponding to Norse mythological gods, (2) the universe corresponding to the Norse mythological tree, (3) a civilization elsewhere in the universe corresponding to Asgard, (4) this planet corresponding to Midgard, (5) human life on earth, designed by aliens from elsewhere in the universe, carrying aliens’ signature in the details of human chemistry molecular biology, corresponding to human life on Midgard, designed by gods from Asgard, carrying Norse mythological gods’ signature in the similarities of humans’ physiological makeup to Norse mythological gods’ physiological makeup, and (6) implied aliens themselves coming into existence via some explicable process corresponding to Norse mythological gods coming into existence by an explained process.

mmmm, the only thing I find eery is your ability to distort concepts beyond recognition, show me where dear old Richard mentioned these aliens wandering about the earth interacting with other humans and determining nature.

Only then will I see a link to a form of deism or theism, never mind Norse mythology.

In the communications discipline (in which I hold an NBS by proxy), it’s about “5 w’s and an h”, “who-what”, the necessary core of every “idea” and thus of every sentence, “when-where”, the time-place setting, and “why-how”, the self-explanatory details. Genesis 1:1, one sentence, addresses four of these six components, “who-what” and “when-where”, saying nothing whatsoever about “why-how.” Big Bang addresses five of these six components, “who-what”, “when-where”, and “how”, saying very little or nothing about “why.”

If you are disciplined in communication then you will be aware that "why" is certainly not at the core of every idea, unlike " how " which relates to causation.
Not every idea requires a purpose, there is no purpose to the idea that snow melts, and in effect you are imposing purpose on an event without reason, and I wonder why ?

Maybe faith is the belief that everything MUST have a " why " or purpose, but I believe you will have problems demonstrating this to be a logical conclusion.

Shirina- is that avatar a pic of you?.if so, you can come to tea and argue religion and philosophy all day!

LOL! Yes, that is a pic of me. A while back most of the women on the forum had pics of themselves as avatars so I went along with the crowd. Unfortunately, I live in the US now so I'm a bit far to have tea with you at the moment. Who knows, though ... that might change eventually.

.

In the communications discipline (in which I hold an NBS by proxy), it’s about “5 w’s and an h”, “who-what”, the necessary core of every “idea” and thus of every sentence, “when-where”, the time-place setting, and “why-how”, the self-explanatory details

" Who " is not the necessary core of every idea or every sentence either, and " why " is not necessary for self-explanation in all cases as I have alluded.

Try again, your failure to communicate belies your self appointed expertise.

“who-what”, the necessary core of every “idea” and thus of every sentence

This is simply begging the question, Rock.

You want to insert "who" because you believe in God so your conclusion is always in your premise (hence the fallacy).

I will agree that there is always a "who" and/or a "what" ... but I'm fairly certain you aren't referring to a "what" in the case of evolution. You want a "who" and that's what you're aiming for.

It is perfectly reasonable to ask "What caused the Big Bang." That "what" could even be a "who" if it were ever proven to be such. But to say straight away that it was a "who" not only begs the question, it is also a case of that nasty confirmation bias rearing its ugly head again.

It seems to me the BIG Bang confirms the cause of the universe and the time and place of the Big Bang, I don't believe we know what caused the Big Bang and we are not looking for any " whos" or " whys " because there is no reason to.

Genesis 1.1 states the universe was caused, and that is where the similarity ends, the rest is just Texas embellishing concepts beyond reason.

I will agree that there is always a "who" and/or a "what" ...

Me too, but that is not what Texas posted, and like him I insist on precision, I wanted him to sweat a bit more.

I am waiting for the suspended hyphen hypothesis.

Is it still the Law of God to only consider Genesis 1:1 without involving Genesis 1:2 ?

I love that one, God created the earth before the Sun ( LIGHT), which seems to contradict the HOW, WHEN, WHAT AND WHERE !!

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

What did God call 24 hour light and 24 hour darkness at the North Pole, or did he just forget to separate it into days ??

Bang addresses five of these six components, “who-what”, “when-where”, and “how”, saying very little or nothing about “why.”

"How" is sufficient. Placing a "why" in there is once more begging the question.

Let's take a common childhood question: "Why is the sky blue?"

The more appropriate question is: "How is the sky blue?"

"Why" implies intent, and in order for there to be intent, there has to be some kind of mind.

and as nothing in Big Bang’s “how” contradicts Genesis 1:1 in any way whatsoever

How could anything contradict Genesis 1:1? It's one short sentence. In fact, Genesis 1:1 doesn't say a single word about "how." It just says that God did it. Therefore, because there is no reference to HOW God created the universe, you are free to insert ANYTHING into the blank. No matter what science says about the "how," you can always just assume that's how God did it. That's not a very solid argument.

I speak truth as I say that Dawkins spoken words are theistic, that theistic words indicate a theistic speaker, that said theistic speaker self-identifies as a theist by speaking theistically, and that such a self-identified theist is intrinsically hypocritical when she/he calls herself/himself anything that precludes theist.

You can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

I have led you to enough water to fill the five Great Lakes and still you would rather shrivel up from dehydration.

I just don't get it.

I have meticulously and accurately documented factual statements spoken by Dawkins

Sure, Rock. I see this all the time in historical arguments. Someone will accurately state the facts and then misinterpret or misrepresent those facts in some harebrained theory or other. You're doing the same thing. Accurately and meticulously documenting Dawkins' words does NOT mean you have meticulously and accurately arrived at the correct meaning of those words. I see this same sort of twisting by conspiracy theorists who take real facts and turn them into a fantasyland of speculation by 20-something basement-dwellers all over the nation.

"But ... but ... Cheney told the Air Force officer that his orders still stand! That PROVES that Cheney ordered all US military planes to stand down on 9/11!" All it proves is Cheney said what he said, but there is no proof that Cheney's orders were to stand down the US Air Force. See what I mean? You're doing the same thing with Dawkins.

Do you remember the deep dramatic voice of Don LaFontaine who introduced thousands of movie trailers, he always began with :

IN A WORLD WHERE .....etc etc.

A movie about Texas would begin:

" In a world where aliens are Norse Gods, in a world where Genesis 1:1 is the Big Bang, in a world where a greedy atheist is a deist and in a world where evolution is both true and false.

Around around we go.

.

Shirina wrote:-
I have a theory that WWII is the reason why Europe began to lose its faith.

During the early part of World War Two, when there was a threat of imminent invasion, the churches of Britain were usually full. At the end of the war, there were those in Britain who assumed that “God was on our side” because the Germans had been defeated. (God must also have been on the side of the atheist Stalin in that case!). Nevertheless, although the war may have hastened the decline of religion in Europe, it was already in trouble. I think the decline started much earlier, with the growth of universal education.

Some years ago, I met an American pastor at a free church in West Sussex who believed that his fellow citizens must be “God’s chosen people” - because he’d made them the wealthiest in the world. (He was asked to leave that church soon afterwards!). I guess those who hold such views may have to think again when China becomes the richest country on the planet.

Many of the most religious people in Europe started making their way across the Atlantic in the 17th century, usually to avoid persecution, so the USA has religion at its roots. With the exception of the USA, it seems that the more a country develops economically, the more materialistic and less religious its people become. Perhaps that's because development usually brings with it more widespread education.

Paul Bell, writing in ‘Mensa Magazine’ in 2002 said: “Of 43 studies carried out since 1927 on the relationship between religious belief and one’s intelligence and/or educational level, all but four found an inverse connection. That is, the higher one’s intelligence or education level, the less one is likely to be religious or hold beliefs of any kind.” Bertrand Russell once said that “the immense majority of intellectually eminent men disbelieve in Christian religion”.

Another factor to consider is that, certainly in the UK, deferment to those in authority declined in the 1960s, and that would have included the unquestioned respect previously shown to 'men of the cloth' and the institutions they represented. Furthermore, science has solved so many of the mysteries of life, leaving fewer gaps in our knowledge for religion to fill.

Red herring. I have not commented on the sufficiency of “how.”

Oh yes you did ... you said:

and as nothing in Big Bang’s “how” contradicts Genesis 1:1 in any way whatsoever

By claiming that nothing in Big Bang's "how" contradicts Genesis 1;1, you have commented on the sufficiency of "how." If Genesis 1:1 doesn't address "how" as you claim, then how in the hell can you know that the "how" of the Big Bang doesn't contradict Genesis 1:1?

Unless, of course, my original argument still stands which, reiterated, says that: Since Genesis 1:1 does not elaborate on "how" God created the universe, you can claim ANY "how" is the correct "how." Thus, whatever science comes up with, you can just say, "See? I told ya! That's how God created the universe!"

Red herring. You’ve raised the question; you may adder the question if you so choose

It's not a red herring, Rock, if you're trying to claim that nothing in the Big Bang contradicts Genesis 1:1. You're equating a fluff statement like "In the beginning, God created the universe" to the complexities of empirical science. Since there are NO details of ANYTHING in Genesis 1:1, it is just vague enough to be substituted for ANY statement offered by science. It's just a cheap argument, Rock, like it or not.

It reminds me of a friend I used to have named Ronda. Whenever we were at her apartment, we always had to ask her where things were. We would ask, "Hey Ronda, where are the Nintendo controllers?" And she would flop her arm in a general direction and say, "Oh, they're over there somewhere." We might find them in some bizarre place like behind the couch. We'd dig them out, and Ronda would say, "See? I told you they were over there behind the couch!" Yeah, thanks Ronda for that helpful information. You're doing the same thing with Genesis 1;1. It's such an ambiguous statement that it can fill in for any scientific answer - just like "over there somewhere" could mean across the room or across the continent, and even if we found the Nintendo controllers in Des Moines, Iowa, Ronda would not have been "technically" incorrect.

I'm just not buying it.

It’s strange that you argue for my position in arguing against my position.

That's because your position changed. One post you're saying you haven't commented on the "sufficiency of how" and in the next, you're claiming that the "how" of the Big Bang doesn't contradict Genesis 1:1. If there IS no "how" in Genesis 1:1, then you cannot know if science will contradict it. You want to have your cake and eat it too. Either Genesis 1:1 talks about "how" or it doesn't. If it doesn't, as you claim, then you can't logically say that the Big Bang doesn't contradict it. Yet that's what you're saying - which means you're claiming to know something that Genesis 1:1 does not tell you.

What you're doing is trying to be "technically" correct the way Ronda was in saying the controllers are "over there somewhere."

Genesis 1:1 says that Elohim bara-ed it.

I really don't think it matters whether it says God or Elohim. If it seriously takes 6 billion people to become fluent in Greek in order to understand what the Bible actually says, then God or Elohim or whomever did a piss poor job with a book that is supposed to be "for the ages."

But here is what I want to know: What does the Greek version of Genesis 1:1 say that the English version doesn't?

I have also meticulously and accurately exposited factual statements spoken by Dawkins in the video presented on this thread. Neither misrepresentation nor misinterpretation are present in my meticulously and accurately documentation and exposition of the factual statements spoken by Dawkins in the video presented on this thread.

And this coming from someone who is so concerned about libel and slander laws. Yeah ... because you are calling him a hypocrite even though you are completely wrong in this. Unfortunately, you're like a dog with a bone on this Norse mythology nonsense that no matter what I, Snowy, OR Richard Dawkins says will sway you to bury that bone.

I have accurately determined the meaning of Dawkins’ words.

No, Rock, you haven't.

Do you remember the deep dramatic voice of Don LaFontaine who introduced thousands of movie trailers, he always began with :

LOL! Yes, I do remember him.

"In a world where horses do not drink, in a world where dogs refuse to bury their bones, in a world where Ronda's Nintendo controllers can be found 'over there somewhere,' a handful of atheists struggle relentlessly against overwhelming odds. It is a world benighted by religion, a world where the Dark Ages threaten to return ..."

I have meticulously and accurately documented and exposited factual statements spoken by Dawkins in the video presented; by so doing, I have accurately determined the meaning of Dawkins’ words.

You must be a real hoot with metaphors, and your meaning is not accurate just because you determine it so.

Words have meanings and aliens does not mean deities or gods in the English Language, this is a literal fact, any fool knows the meaning of alien is a creature from outer space not a creator from outer space. The fact that an alien may share some similarities with a deity does not make it the same as a deity, a cabbage is not a stapler.

I speak truth as I say that Dawkins spoken words are theistic, that theistic words indicate a theistic speaker, that said theistic speaker self-identifies as a theist by speaking theistically, and that such a self-identified theist is intrinsically hypocritical when she/he calls herself/himself anything that precludes theist.

Did Dawkins mention a deity or God, yes or no ? If no, then you are mistaken. Move along now, nothing more going on here.

Evening Ivan,

I have studied the decline of religious belief in Europe and the variables are all products of Democratic socialism, in a nutshell citizens were provided with education, housing, healthcare and community support. The state removed the need for God and the comfort of religion by reducing fear, insecurity and anxiety, welfare begat well being.

America stands alone in the developed world, its religiosity is on a par with the social Darwinism of the 3rd world.

I have studied the decline of religious belief in Europe and the variables are all products of Democratic socialism, in a nutshell citizens were provided with education, housing, healthcare and community support. The state removed the need for God and the comfort of religion by reducing fear, insecurity and anxiety, welfare begat well being.

I remember a speech from an MP (I believe) whose last name was Beverege (again, I believe). He went on about how WWII would have been for nothing if Britain simply returned to business as usual. Instead, the UK should become a "welfare state" and provide for its citizens (based loosely on Roosevelt's 2nd Bill of Rights). That's precisely what Britain did.

America, which did not have to change much on account of the war, DID continue with "business as usual" and this is where it got us. A nation with a pretty lousy welfare system, all things considered. Americans still believe that opportunities abound and that one can be ANYTHING they wish to with just a bit of hard work. Yet even staunchly conservative and business-oriented media sources such as the Wall Street Journal have said that upward mobility in America is largely a myth. Without that mobility, a strong welfare state is a necessity. We don't have one.

Perhaps of FDR hadn't died before the war ended, his 2nd Bill of Rights would be a reality instead of just another dead dream.

I have meticulously and accurately documented and exposited factual statements spoken by Dawkins in the video presented; by so doing, I have accurately determined the meaning of Dawkins’ words.

You have pedantically documented Dawkins words and inaccurately determined the meaning of his words whilst ignoring key information about the man. You are wrong, plain and simple. And no one on this forum thinks for one second that Dawkins was speaking theistically in that video or that he is a closet theist.

I think we can close down this debate, Rock. Expositing isn't a license to spread untruth.

.

Now I remember why I stopped having discussions with you where we may disagree.

I won't make the same mistake twice.

.

.

Expositing is a method of extracting truth.

True

I have exposited;

True

I have extracted truth.

False

As you do with your religious belief, you hone in on the letter of the law rather than extracting the true meaning. This is like asking a 5 year old if he took a cookie from the cookie jar and because he took the cookie from the pantry says no. I can let a 5 year old get away with this.

I think for many seconds that Dawkins was speaking theistically in that video.

Ahh, finally. That is not what you said initially. You made a blanket statement describing Dawkins as a theist and intrinsically hypocritical and not confining it to your interpretation of what he said in that video.

Now that is the truth of this situation. Everything previous to this is not.

.

My exposition; my extraction of truth.

You have plainly failed to make your case, sorry, you lose.

If “what” is present, inclusion of “who” makes it a sentence; conversely, if “what” is present, exclusion of “who” makes it not a sentence.

"The car's parking brake malfunctioned, causing the vehicle to coast down a hill and into a storefront."

That's a sentence that does not contain a "who" just a "what."