Exciting Times We're In

[Ophir's Gopher]

Does 'Non-religious' equate to 'atheist?' . .. That is the question . .. .

IOW, IS a 'non-religious' label somehow a gain for atheists? Will the mewly non-religious side with(those who self-describe as) 'atheists' on many, or most, sociopolitical issues?

Maybe not. Masny young people who are non-religious are socially and politically conservative anyways

It doesn't matter whether the nonreligious benefit the atheists. Atheism isn't a homogenous cause with a mission statement and a celestial rule giver. What matters is that religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, failed to secure its validity in the new enlightenment. Instead, it waged anti-gay marriage and anti-Darwin campaigns. Smart.

[QuantumTroll]

It doesn't matter whether the nonreligious benefit the atheists. Atheism isn't a homogenous cause with a mission statement and a celestial rule giver. What matters is that religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, failed to secure its validity in the new enlightenment. Instead, it waged anti-gay marriage and anti-Darwin campaigns. Smart.

That might be the case in the US, but I don't think this is a global view. Look at the developing world, for instance, where religion is still a huge vehicle of social progress. And the Swedish Church has done better than any other organization I'm aware of in accepting women into leadership roles. And they'll do gay marriages, having rewritten the vows and everything so there's a gender-neutral version as well as an original version. Creationism and anti-gay sentiment are relegated to a small minority, and the former "movement" is almost entirely imported from the US, complete with Powerpoint slides and everything.

I think religion still has a role to play, albeit a different one from the last few thousand years. That's exciting enough, but if you believe that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are actually going to go away then I think you're very wrong. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that in some societies, these religions are liberalizing and secularization is on the rise, then I think you're right

[met]

Agree with QT.

Already said it, X-ianity is a worldwide religion, Oph, that's flexible enough to integrate into many different cultures and scenarios, and the 'fundamentalist' version you seem to object so much to is only a particularly -American flavor. So, in the current 'realignment of global markets' situation, the influence of US-style x-ian fundamentalists dwindles proportionally with the rest of the US's geopolitical and cultural influence.

X-ianity may be shrinking in the West (incl the US) - and not without reason - but its growing in the Third World and is now in fact (by majority) actually a Third World religion.

[Ophir's Gopher]

It doesn't matter whether the nonreligious benefit the atheists. Atheism isn't a homogenous cause with a mission statement and a celestial rule giver. What matters is that religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, failed to secure its validity in the new enlightenment. Instead, it waged anti-gay marriage and anti-Darwin campaigns. Smart.

That might be the case in the US, but I don't think this is a global view. Look at the developing world, for instance, where religion is still a huge vehicle of social progress. And the Swedish Church has done better than any other organization I'm aware of in accepting women into leadership roles. And they'll do gay marriages, having rewritten the vows and everything so there's a gender-neutral version as well as an original version. Creationism and anti-gay sentiment are relegated to a small minority, and the former "movement" is almost entirely imported from the US, complete with Powerpoint slides and everything.

I think religion still has a role to play, albeit a different one from the last few thousand years. That's exciting enough, but if you believe that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are actually going to go away then I think you're very wrong. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that in some societies, these religions are liberalizing and secularization is on the rise, then I think you're right

Hi QT.

If you take another look at my OP and some of my other posts, you'll see that I acknowledged this. I said that the "death" of religion might simply be the extreme transition it has recently undergone in the new enlightenment. Death is a matter of interpretation. Perhaps I focus too much on the fundamentalist chaff and not the more enlightened wheat.

Btw, this isn't an American problem. The Vatican in its current configuration is just as bad if not worse than American fundamentalism. One look at the horrors they perpetuate in Africa should easily convey this.

[met]

Btw, this isn't an American problem. The Vatican in its current configuration is just as bad if not worse than American fundamentalism. One look at the horrors they perpetuate in Africa should easily convey this.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. Other culture's spins on x-ianity are just different, not necessarily better. Infact, Third World versions are integrated into their cultures too, and often blend earlier beliefs into xianity in the forms of as spirits demons and/or angels. (Like the spirit-and-demon-infested worlds my Trinidadian-xian friends inhabit, probly as a result of the animistic beliefs their forebearers had in Africa.) So I don't know that you'd find those guys POV's any more 'enlightened' . .. . even though they're really really nice people.

But it's not just a simple fundie-lib dichotomy.

[Metacrock]

It doesn't matter whether the nonreligious benefit the atheists. Atheism isn't a homogenous cause with a mission statement and a celestial rule giver. What matters is that religion, particularly Christianity, Islam, and Judaism, failed to secure its validity in the new enlightenment. Instead, it waged anti-gay marriage and anti-Darwin campaigns. Smart.

That might be the case in the US, but I don't think this is a global view. Look at the developing world, for instance, where religion is still a huge vehicle of social progress. And the Swedish Church has done better than any other organization I'm aware of in accepting women into leadership roles. And they'll do gay marriages, having rewritten the vows and everything so there's a gender-neutral version as well as an original version. Creationism and anti-gay sentiment are relegated to a small minority, and the former "movement" is almost entirely imported from the US, complete with Powerpoint slides and everything.

I think religion still has a role to play, albeit a different one from the last few thousand years. That's exciting enough, but if you believe that Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are actually going to go away then I think you're very wrong. If, on the other hand, you're simply saying that in some societies, these religions are liberalizing and secularization is on the rise, then I think you're right

that's interesting man. I'd like to talk to some Swedish Church people. I wonder where I can find any to email?

[Metacrock]

this is the second half of Ophir's post that I accidentally ruined.


remember the words not in quote boxes are by Ophir.[/b]


I am truly sorry Ophir that I ruined your post. I was winking out and didn't realize it and hit edit when I meant to hit "reply." It posted before I realized what I had done. you could reconstruct if you try from the one above and this one (up where your post was my new edit contains what you said.). I am sorry. I swear I did not do that on purpose.

Besides, remember I'm not going with the 1.5% I spot them 3% and it may be as high as 6%. That's still extremely small and it's not really growing. It have grown some over the last 10 years but not amazingly so. If it went from 3 to 6% it doubled and still pathetically small.

And, again, one wonders why you obsess on them so much if they're such a pathetic minority. Obsess on the dogmatists and fundamentalists, meta! They're the ones making your mission to proselytize liberal theology difficult. They're the ones who give atheists like PZ Myers and Christopher Hitchens so much fodder for their rants.

Oswald killed Kennedy. He was an expert marksman (proven)and a delusional madman (proven). Conspiracy theorizing itself is a quasi-religious delusion. I say this as a former conspiracy theorist.

that's rubbish. nothing about conspiracies that requires religious thinking.

Conspiracy theorizing mirrors religious thinking. Tens of thousands of years ago, when an asteroid hit the earth or a volcano buried a city, people extrapolated unseen conscious forces behind the events to explain them. It helped them process the information and "control" it by appeasing the gods through sacrifice. Conspiracy theorizing gives people a sense of control over seemingly inexplicable, painful events. The latest of course is the 9/11 truth movement. The precedent that 9/11 truthers often cite is the mythical "coup d'etat" of President Kennedy. There was no coup d'etat. A lunatic and skilled marksman shot the president. It's not that complicated.

I don't know why you bring up Oswald?

You brought up the Kennedy assassination and wonder why I mentioned Oswald? Seriously?

I don't doubt that was a conspiracy. In fact I know it was.

I know you think you do. I'm sure you have all kinds of wild bits and pieces of "evidence" that the Mafia, the military, Castro, the Russians, and little green men killed Kennedy (instead of the guy we know who really did -- Lee Harvey Oswald).

I know a lot about the classic arguments for God. They are good arguments. they immanently defensible. Nothing stupid about Craig, But Craig is not the typical fundie he's a good guy> he 's a nice guy. Ask Loftus if Craig is an asshole. Atheist author John Loftus was Craig's student. ask him.

LOL. Did I ever say Craig was an asshole? Where do you get this stuff, meta?

Whether William Lane Craig, the Pope, or Pat Robertson are "good guys" is immaterial. Citing their affability is a complete non-sequiter.

Arguments for God are good. The standard apologist is shallow and bound up on conventions so he can't argue outside the box.

you and I have no yet done the debate thing on a God argument. I'm not going back that bull shit we were doing "You can't think you are no good." You can think, you are good, not stupid. I want to be friends and I'm really sorry I fell into that shit.

when we have a real discussion on the God arguments I am not going to "beat you" I'm not going to try and show you how smart I am, not about that. but I think you will see these arguments are good ideas and have a lot of commend them.

Fair enough. But whether these God arguments are compelling really has nothing to do with my observations on this thread. Organized religion is in serious trouble. I gave, and can continue to give, good reasons why the leadership --the priestcraft and apologists -- can't pass the baton to the next generation. They haven't equipped the laity to continue their traditions, and that's entirely the fault of its proponents. Atheists can't be faulted for the problems believers brought on themselves. We're just watching the trainwreck. Can you blame us? =)

Very interesting that you mentioned 9/11. The self-implosion of religion is WAY more interesting to observe than the fall of the twin towers. Religious terrorism is just the same bullshit that has happened for millenia. Nothing new or unprecedented about it at all, except for the effect it had in triggering the collapse of religion.

Atheists have propagated the myth that the motive behind 9/11 was religious and seeing it as a product of religious thinking. That's utterly stupid it proves my point about how illiterate atheists are (sorry--in some quarters). If you have studied the politics of the middle east and the Arab movement you should know religion is just a tool it is not the motive force of those guys actions.

Whuh? Religion gave those zealots the existential comfort and moral motivation needed to go ahead with their plan. The socio-political nature of the crime doesn't absolve dogma's role from it at all. Name one murderer of an abortion doctor who didn't cite God as being the inspiration for the act.

They are closer to being a product of Marxism than of religion.

I thought you said atheism was a religion. You have to make up your mind on this.

Like I said, the socio-political factors of 9/11, Oklahoma City, and a dozen abortion doctor murders don't absolve religion's role in the crimes. "God" informed every one of those acts and gave the perpetrators the courage and moral confidence to carry them out.

[Metacrock]

these are my answers to the previous post by OG.

Besides, remember I'm not going with the 1.5% I spot them 3% and it may be as high as 6%. That's still extremely small and it's not really growing. It have grown some over the last 10 years but not amazingly so. If it went from 3 to 6% it doubled and still pathetically small.

And, again, one wonders why you obsess on them so much if they're such a pathetic minority. Obsess on the dogmatists and fundamentalists, meta! They're the ones making your mission to proselytize liberal theology difficult. They're the ones who give atheists like PZ Myers and Christopher Hitchens so much fodder for their rants.

Partly becasue they did make it personal.I also see great harm they are doing. It's something atheists don't' want to see. But all Chrsitians on the net now how they are. We all talk about it. Atheists don't want to hear it, but we all know they are growing to a frenzy and we can't have a rational discussion with them anymore.

why should I allow atheists to convince everyone not o find God not to have the experiences that show revitalize our whole Life, why should I sit still and allow them convince people that any sort of belief in God si stupid? they do treat my ideas about God as stupid.

Oswald killed Kennedy. He was an expert marksman (proven)and a delusional madman (proven). Conspiracy theorizing itself is a quasi-religious delusion. I say this as a former conspiracy theorist.

that's rubbish. nothing about conspiracies that requires religious thinking.

Conspiracy theorizing mirrors religious thinking

.

no it does not. that is your opinion, non expert opinion based upon look at religion as an evil and not understanding anything about religion is a positive light, you sear for analogy to fit your misunderstanding and cast it in a bad light.


I am from Dallas. Two weeks before Kennedy came to Dallas, a friend of my parents o the Dallas Police force told them Kennedy would be shot when he came to Dallas. They didn't tell anyone because they didn't want to die. They only told me in the 80s.

But they weren't so far gone that they would forget. My Das was working in secret government work related to the aircraft and took design. they had not taken him off line yet, he was still sharp enough to drive to work and do engineering on secret weapon systems.

I am not saying the secret work he did put him in a position to know about the assassination. Don't be unclear about that. I'm not saying that. he got that from a friend on the Dallas Police. I bring that into to show that he was still rational and sharp when told me about that incident.

you also have the actuarial figures which show death rates for witnesses way over what it should be.

Tens of thousands of years ago, when an asteroid hit the earth or a volcano buried a city, people extrapolated unseen conscious forces behind the events to explain them. It helped them process the information and "control" it by appeasing the gods through sacrifice.

That's Valecovsky and it's also outmoded. socialists scientists don't accept those ideas about the origin of religion anymore. As Tiny thinker, he's an anthropologist.

Conspiracy theorizing gives people a sense of control over seemingly inexplicable, painful events. The latest of course is the 9/11 truth movement. The precedent that 9/11 truthers often cite is the mythical "coup d'etat" of President Kennedy. There was no coup d'etat. A lunatic and skilled marksman shot the president. It's not that complicated.

you still haven't linked it to religious thinking. People are conspiratorial for many reasons, one of which is there are conspiracies and people are dishonest.

I don't know why you bring up Oswald?

You brought up the Kennedy assassination and wonder why I mentioned Oswald? Seriously?

Hmmm if I did it wasn't because I was using any kind of conspiracy argument. I don't even remember bringing it up.

I don't doubt that was a conspiracy. In fact I know it was.

I know you think you do. I'm sure you have all kinds of wild bits and pieces of "evidence" that the Mafia, the military, Castro, the Russians, and little green men killed Kennedy (instead of the guy we know who really did -- Lee Harvey Oswald).

ahahahahaah that would be typical of an assassination buff. Actually I can't stand that stuff. I think most of it is crap. I try not to listen to it. there are just a hand full of clean facts that prove it, it doesn't take a genius or 10 episodes of Nova to figure it out. But the main reason is what my parents told me.

I'll put a post on the relax board about it listing my reasons.

I know a lot about the classic arguments for God. They are good arguments. they immanently defensible. Nothing stupid about Craig, But Craig is not the typical fundie he's a good guy> he 's a nice guy. Ask Loftus if Craig is an asshole. Atheist author John Loftus was Craig's student. ask him.

LOL. Did I ever say Craig was an asshole? Where do you get this stuff, meta?

I've from Texas, that's the way we talk. but you did seem to be saying he doesn't have good arguemnts. His arguments are fine. Although he is forced to stick to the conventional kind of thinking. I think he's limited his abilities by appealing to the fundies as his base audience. He studies with a student of Bultmann who is a famous liberal theologian in his own right (Kassasemann). So he knows liberal theology.

Whether William Lane Craig, the Pope, or Pat Robertson are "good guys" is immaterial. Citing their affability is a complete non-sequiter.

but you put them in the same camp and they not. by "asshole" I meant you think his arguments are bad and he doesn't know his stuff. right? He does know his stuff.

Arguments for God are good. The standard apologist is shallow and bound up on conventions so he can't argue outside the box.

you and I have no yet done the debate thing on a God argument. I'm not going back that bull shit we were doing "You can't think you are no good." You can think, you are good, not stupid. I want to be friends and I'm really sorry I fell into that shit.

when we have a real discussion on the God arguments I am not going to "beat you" I'm not going to try and show you how smart I am, not about that. but I think you will see these arguments are good ideas and have a lot of commend them.

Fair enough. But whether these God arguments are compelling really has nothing to do with my observations on this thread. Organized religion is in serious trouble. I gave, and can continue to give, good reasons why the leadership --the priestcraft and apologists -- can't pass the baton to the next generation. They haven't equipped the laity to continue their traditions, and that's entirely the fault of its proponents. Atheists can't be faulted for the problems believers brought on themselves. We're just watching the trainwreck. Can you blame us? =)

I think organized religion will be in more trouble if it doesn't change.It's not dying out, it's not losing members. But its dying spiritually if it doesn't outgrow the fundie outlook.

the fundie segments are growing. It's actually the main line that's dying out. that's because it's not giving people enough infantile stimulation, not enough bread and circuses. people don't want to think. It's also not spiritual enough. people are hungry for the spiritual.

I don't know if the Charismatic/pentecostal would be listed as "traditional" in demographic sources. if you are quoting commentators you may think they mean the Protestant fundamentalists when say "traditional" but no, they mean liberals and the fundies are nontraditional because they believe in the gifts and in miracles.

Very interesting that you mentioned 9/11. The self-implosion of religion is WAY more interesting to observe than the fall of the twin towers. Religious terrorism is just the same bullshit that has happened for millenia. Nothing new or unprecedented about it at all, except for the effect it had in triggering the collapse of religion.

Atheists have propagated the myth that the motive behind 9/11 was religious and seeing it as a product of religious thinking. That's utterly stupid it proves my point about how illiterate atheists are (sorry--in some quarters). If you have studied the politics of the middle east and the Arab movement you should know religion is just a tool it is not the motive force of those guys actions.

Whuh? Religion gave those zealots the existential comfort and moral motivation needed to go ahead with their plan.

I said they use it as a tool. It did not give Bin La din his basic motive. His basic motive is economic. Religious is a pose he strikes. The political content of the Arab movement cam out of Marxism in the mid 60s as a counter to Israel as USA satellite. The early organizers of Arab terrorism were Marxist based. That's remained a motive throughout history. Marxism is gone, they don't have a loyalty to the USSR but they are nationalistic and Politically motivated.

The socio-political nature of the crime doesn't absolve dogma's role from it at all. Name one murderer of an abortion doctor who didn't cite God as being the inspiration for the act.

that' silly. that's like blaming nutrition's role in their physical ability to pull it off,or textile's role in their having cloths to wear. They could use a lot of things if they didn't have religion to use as a tool. the main motivation of the average suicide bobmer is poverty. They pay their family's well that's the major reason they do it.

They are closer to being a product of Marxism than of religion.

I thought you said atheism was a religion. You have to make up your mind on this.

an er zots religion, that means phony, counterfeit. It's a stand in for religion.

Like I said, the socio-political factors of 9/11, Oklahoma City, and a dozen abortion doctor murders don't absolve religion's role in the crimes. "God" informed every one of those acts and gave the perpetrators the courage and moral confidence to carry them out.

that's stupid to balme religin, sorry. it's just silly. It's like blaming eggs because they eat them for brakefast.

well with abortion I can see it but that's a specific take on religion. what you are saying is the whole root principle of religion is to balme for that, going back to the cave them drawing fertility symbols on the wall. For that kind of causal chain you could easily blame atheism as well.

[QuantumTroll]

If you take another look at my OP and some of my other posts, you'll see that I acknowledged this. I said that the "death" of religion might simply be the extreme transition it has recently undergone in the new enlightenment. Death is a matter of interpretation. Perhaps I focus too much on the fundamentalist chaff and not the more enlightened wheat.

Yeah, I thought that was maybe what was happening . There's a lot of chaff and not so much wheat, but I think the proportions are changing and the current "debates" on creationism and homosexuality reflect that. The progressive types are standing up for their beliefs and the fundamentalist types are forced to put out a lot of propaganda.

Btw, this isn't an American problem. The Vatican in its current configuration is just as bad if not worse than American fundamentalism. One look at the horrors they perpetuate in Africa should easily convey this.

I suppose one should say that religious institutions in the developing world does both good and harm. Forbidding condom use is terribly harmful, but building schools and clinics is fantastically good. Didn't pope John Paul II make a statement to the effect that condoms could be the lesser evil in places like Africa where HIV is so prevalent and deadly? I think he did, but Ratzinger changed the Vatican's position back to its traditional stance...

[Metacrock]

you think the Vatican ordered people to kill children as witches? what role do you think (Ophir) they are playing in Africa? It looks to me like war Lords are the real villians in Africa.