Tis the season...deja vu anyone?

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Those unfamiliar with it!!??!!

Please...religion has been questioned nearly as long as it is has existed!

S.D.

Sure, but there are many many many people in the US alone who simply cannot FATHOM someone being atheist. It has existed for a very long time, but, growing up, you know how many atheists I knew? None.

Marketing. Atheism needs better marketing.

And, apparently more joy. Get these people an infusion of hedons....and FAST!

[Morrigoon]

The problem is that most atheists are converts to atheism. And we all know how pleasant religious converts can be*

(* edit: After writing this, it occurred to me that I can't think of one proselytizing pagan, though most of them are converts too. I wonder if it has to do with the individualized nature of their belief system? Maybe the local pagans can suggest hypotheses on this one.)

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

And I'm fine with the notion that there are things that just "unknowable" even our own experience of the world cannot be "proven" to be objective truth (I clearly break with Kant on that one). Since neither position can be proven, from a pragmatic sense I find the argument rather pointless.

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

The problem is that most atheists are converts to atheism. And we all know how pleasant religious converts can be

Subjective opinion...

S.D.

[Sir Dillon]

Originally Posted by Not Afraid

Sure, but there are many many many people in the US alone who simply cannot FATHOM someone being atheist.

Ignorance is bliss...as "many people in the US alone" would say.

S.D.

[Not Afraid]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

I guess you have to separate religion and spirituality for me to agree that religion is the problem - and then i probably wouldn't agree to that statement. I LIKE certain religions. I like aspects of MANY religions. I don't find them to be all bad.


Edit to add quote and to say that I take issue to the statement "further from the truth" since that implies that truth is stationary and absolute and I don't buy that.

[Morrigoon]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Subjective opinion...

S.D.

But since I'm not personally participating in the side debate of subjective arguments vs. objective ones, I don't give a cr*p.

[€uroMeinke]

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

This couldn't be any further from the truth.

Science and scientific theory (e.g. evolution) have already DISPROVEN many religous stipulations, as argued within my various responses.

It is religion and religious belief that is the negative, not non-religion and its susbsequent belief (or absent thereof).

S.D.

Science may have proven that biblical metaphor is just that - metaphor. But I've seen not "scientific" proof of the existence or non-existence of God - and for this point lets define God as Omniscient and Omnipresent (we'll skip Benevolence for now and the problem of evil).

On the other hand many people have claimed to have "numinous" experiences, experiences of the presence of God - so if we accept our senses as legit, then they have a good a claim as those of us who have never had a personal experience of God. (I think scientific knowledge is still based on "observable" repeatable experiments).

If we only accept things as true that we have verified ourselves, we'll then I'm sorry there are a lot of things I'll have to no longer believe, like the existence of Lapland.

[Not Afraid]

We have a GREAT conversation with our niece Danica when she was about 5. It involved knowledge and existence, truth and proof. The look on her face when we asked her "How do you know you are Danica" was priceless - and still discussed at family get togethers.

[alphabassettgrrl]

Originally Posted by €uroMeinke

You know, as an atheist I first thought I had a problem with religion, but I've come to discover my real problem is with dogma - atheist dogma is just as fowl to digest as religious dogma and equally ignorant.

Excellently stated.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

There is no atheist domga...i.e. a doctine presented without proof.

Atheist have nothing but proof (at least far more than religious folk do) to substantiate their viewpoint.

I disagree. "God does not exist" is as much an opinion as "God does exist". Neither can prove their point.

Originally Posted by Morrigoon

But a lack of display at holiday time... could be interpreted as supporting the atheist viewpoint.

Really? Huh. I didn't see it that way.

We're just questioning the merits of that particular sign.

Originally Posted by Sir Dillon

Which is akin to questioning its legal right to be presented on public property!!

No- not the same. Posted anywhere, I would question its merit.