Muslims calling for the Death of all Athiests.

[Stubby]

Signed into law by President Eisenhower, the Pledge of this Nation – with its Bill of Rights assuring its citizens that the government will never engage in the purveyance of religious dogma – now had God incorporated into its fabric. The following year, “In God we Trust” would be required for all United States coins and currency, and the year after that, the same phrase would become our National Motto.

And this is what I mean by "Evangelical Athiests". Nobody gives a sh*t about this stuff, except anti-religious kooks. Why don't we take a more accurate historical look at things, eh?

This proves nothing for your argument. You submitted something like it in another thread.
It is evidence of erosion of the wall between church and state.

[MSimon]

This proves nothing for your argument. You submitted something like it in another thread.
It is evidence of erosion of the wall between church and state.

Very dangerous should Islam become a very large minority religion. But the people making the argument have very limited imaginations. The attitude seems to be: "What could possibly go wrong?" or "It can't happen here."

[djolds1]

"By circumstances," which include maturation? Yes, children are so forced to drop belief in Santa. On the other hand, are adults forced to continually reevaluate their beliefs for veracity and material reality? Do you prefer "no" or "HELL no" for your answer?

Children are forced to stop believing in Santa because of maturation? That's an interesting theory. Maybe they're "forced" to give up beliefs well beyond Santa, too?

Eventually they realize mommy and daddy are delivering the presents, not the guy in the chimney.

Regardless of mechanism, the number of atheists is growing. How do you explain that?
I don't expect most adults to drop their faith. But I expect atheism to continue to grow in numbers.

It is aggressive in the West just now, but that will pass.

The current and decaying Religion of Juche in North Korea is a good parallel, as is Mauryan India under Ashoka. The Cult of the Supreme Being in Revolutionary France is a third possibility, but did not gel from the charismatic cult phase to the established and institutionalized religion phase, as did the USSR out of Leninist Bolshevism.

Go back and look at some pictures of the Soviet Union from the Brezhnev era and later. The "I have seen the future, AND IT WORKS" brave new experiment for the ages lost FAITH IN ITSELF. In barely two generation. All polities and ecumenes do lose that faith, eventually, but the Proletarian Vanguard did so at the triple-quick. And sure, established faiths disappear in history, but NOT THAT FAST. The Great Religions serve as the moral cores of societies and civilizations for multiple centuries to multiple millenniums - as contrasted with multiple decades for Messianic Marxism, Messianic Ashokism, and the decaying Messianic Kimism. The three great examples of "lapsed faiths" - Zoroastrianism, Greco-Roman Paganism, and Egyptian Pharaonic Religion lasted at least 1900, 1250, and 3000+ years, respectively.

You might contemplate the idea that under an oppressive regime many people aren't actually "believers".

I agree. That's the problem, and what enables the repression. When standards are dictated by "reason," they are essentially dictated by ego.

And even though the Soviet Union collapsed, neither communists nor atheists there have disappeared.

Stupidity never goes away entirely. These are human beings we're discussing.

Very dangerous should Islam become a very large minority religion. But the people making the argument have very limited imaginations. The attitude seems to be: "What could possibly go wrong?" or "It can't happen here."

The High Church Atheists are doing their best to kill off the West's native religion. Should they succeed, they will not kill the memetic niche Christianity occupies, they will merely kill off the species currently inhabiting that niche. As nature abhors a vacuum, something new will colonize that niche. Islam is well placed to do so. I doubt the High Church Atheists will be "amused" if that proves to be the consequences of their actions. Being hung, drawn and quartered has to be unpleasant, not amusing.

[MSimon]

Eventually they realize mommy and daddy are delivering the presents, not the guy NOT in the chimney.

[Stubby]

High Church Atheist . Atheism is not a religion so please do not use use religious terms to describe it. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. Pure and simple. There is no dogma, priests, popes, altar boys or holy books. There is no common denominator except the rejection of theistic claims. The only way to be a bad atheist is to believe in a god. Atheists reject religion because theistic claims do not meet their burden of proof.

Most atheists, myself included, do not want to destroy religion. I do believe that all religions are poison but as long as your poison doesn't affect me, you are welcome to it. I feel the same way about drugs, and alcohol. Do as you like but don't try to convert me. But as soon as you do something like impaired driving, you are going to get my boot up your ass figuratively speaking.

Religions are going to destroy themselves. They can't back up their claims. It used to be that an atheist was alone in a sea of believers, they kept to themselves because in most cases they were reviled, belittled and/or tortured and some cases killed for it. Today we have almost unlimited access to information via the internet, people and groups that share the same rejection of theistic claims. We are no longer alone. Our numbers grow not because of active recruitment but because the information is now available. Just click away. Anyone who has questions that their priests or pastors can't or won't answer, go looking for them elsewhere and they are extremely easy to find. I don't even have to point to a particular website.

The internet is religion's kryptonite (how the bleep is this word not in the forum dictionary?). I do find it very interesting/disturbing that a country as connected to the internet as the US has almost half its population believe the world is less than 10 000 years old and that humans just popped into existence. In order for the belief that the bible be literally true almost every aspect of biology, cosmology, physics, astronomy, geology and archeology has to be mindbogglingly wrong. It is a most disturbing case of willful ignorance.

It IS possible for science to be wrong but even if every aspect of these sciences is wrong, the flip side is not 'therefore god did it!'

[MSimon]

When standards are dictated by "reason," they are essentially dictated by ego.

I dunno. I use evidence to inform my reason.

My faith is in a God more powerful than any heretofore in existence. He set the Universe in motion and hasn't had to touch it since.

Now explain the essential difference between that and atheism.

This is my EXPERIENCE: The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It's an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.

[Teahive]

Eventually they realize mommy and daddy are delivering the presents, not the guy in the chimney.

And eventually some of them put the religious narrative of their upbringing in context with all the other stories, information, and attitudes around them and come to find it literally unbelievable.

You think their number will shrink, I think that it will only grow. Time will tell.

You might contemplate the idea that under an oppressive regime many people aren't actually "believers".

I agree. That's the problem, and what enables the repression. When standards are dictated by "reason," they are essentially dictated by ego.
Translation of my statement: Many people in the Soviet Union weren't actually communists (or atheists for that matter). They simply had little power to actively resist the regime. Your response doesn't make sense in that context.

The High Church Atheists are doing their best to kill off the West's native religion. Should they succeed, they will not kill the memetic niche Christianity occupies, they will merely kill off the species currently inhabiting that niche. As nature abhors a vacuum, something new will colonize that niche. Islam is well placed to do so. I doubt the High Church Atheists will be "amused" if that proves to be the consequences of their actions. Being hung, drawn and quartered has to be unpleasant, not amusing.

Where does this memetic niche exist? In the minds of people who just rejected belief in the Christian God, I suppose. And you think that those same people are going to flock to Allah instead?

Yeah, sounds likely. Not.

[djolds1]

High Church Atheist . Atheism is not a religion so please do not use use religious terms to describe it. Atheism is the rejection of theistic claims. Pure and simple. There is no dogma, priests, popes, altar boys or holy books. There is no common denominator except the rejection of theistic claims. The only way to be a bad atheist is to believe in a god.

Dawkins et al do not appear to agree. They are quite aggressively evangelical and ritualistic in their proselytizing, citing Saint Darwin and the Miracles of Evolution almost like golden calves.

Atheists reject religion because theistic claims do not meet their burden of proof.

Religion isn't important because of its specific doctrinal claims or the (im)possibility of seeing the deity or deities in question exercise their powers. It is important because it binds communities together; see the Haidt cites quoted earlier. Humans are wired for faith, like it or not. I am a-theist myself; but I am not foolish enough to discount the importance of religion in forming and maintaining functional human societies. Where the specific doctrinal claims become important is in the minutiae of how they shape societal behavior. And that is where undermining the old faith will open the door to very new norms when the new faith takes hold. Humans are wired for faith - the niche will remain if the old species of religion is killed off. Dawkins and his fellow High Church Atheists are slitting their own throats, and they don't even realize it. It would be funny, if they weren't destroying my own civilization in the process.

When standards are dictated by "reason," they are essentially dictated by ego.

I dunno. I use evidence to inform my reason.

You are one relatively functional individual. Social standards are not dictated by one individual, but by a consensus of a society's opinion leaders and elites.

When those elites are constrained by "the dictates of heaven," breaking down those dictates takes time. A LONG time. Because the dictates of the putative supernatural or the "Uber Maximo Prophet of All Time" are not open to (much) debate. The dictates of heaven can be spurned and ignored, but the blasphemy of those acts is clear.

However, when the only guide to societal standards is the collective "enlightenment" of a society's opinion leaders and elites, the guide for what is right will shift rapidly with this year's hot new fads. A system based on that degree of decadence decays in decades, not centuries to millennia.

Faith in the materialist dialectic of history is perfectly functional as a lifelong creed for individuals, but it does not suffice to cement lasting communities and volks together.

The High Church Atheists are doing their best to kill off the West's native religion. Should they succeed, they will not kill the memetic niche Christianity occupies, they will merely kill off the species currently inhabiting that niche. As nature abhors a vacuum, something new will colonize that niche. Islam is well placed to do so. I doubt the High Church Atheists will be "amused" if that proves to be the consequences of their actions. Being hung, drawn and quartered has to be unpleasant, not amusing.

Where does this memetic niche exist? In the minds of people who just rejected belief in the Christian God, I suppose. And you think that those same people are going to flock to Allah instead?

Yeah, sounds likely. Not.

Religion exists quite far afield from the Abrahamaic faiths, but yes, people will flock to something new when the old is no longer able to justify the existence of their communities and volks. Just as Christianity flourished when Greco-Roman Paganism went into decline. But note how Catholic Christendom also redefined the character of the people of the (former) Western Roman Empire? Islam is one plausible and still-vital candidate to step in if Christianity were to rapidly collapse in the near-term.

Western civilization has lost faith in itself over the last century. In contrast, despite its primitive trappings and defeats of the last century, the Ummah quite obviously has not lost similar faith in itself. Societal confidence and pride are attractive - memetic hooks to pull in believers. And the Ummah self-defines itself as a community of belief. So dismissing the proselyting potential of Islam in the West out of hand is foolish. Highly foolish.

[Stubby]

Did you say you were an atheist or a theist? Your word a-theist is not clear.

Evolution and atheism are 2 completely separate things independent of each other. As previously said, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims because they fail to meet their burden of proof. Anti-theism is the assertion that no gods exist. Hitchens was a big anti-theist. Dawkins is not. Saint Darwin is your description not theirs.
They are/were both evangelical but evangelical can mean "marked by militant or crusading zeal" which in this case has nothing to do with churches. If you find the word 'evangelical' is too closely associated with religion, one could use the word 'zealous' or 'ardent'.

Atheism does not depend on or require physics to be correct but most religions need it to be wrong. The bible can't be right and true if physics is true or even somewhat true.

Atheism does not depend on or require geology to be correct but most religions need it to be wrong. The bible can't be right and true if geology is true or even somewhat true.

Atheism does not depend on or require cosmology to be correct but most religions need it to be wrong. The bible can't be right and true if cosmology is true or even somewhat true.

Atheism does not depend on or require evolution or Darwin to be correct but most religions need them to be wrong. The bible can't be right and true if evolution or Darwin is true or even somewhat true.

[djolds1]

Did you say you were an atheist or a theist? Your word a-theist is not clear.

Its something I use to distinguish myself from the militant atheists like Dawkins et al. I'm more an Omegist - I do not believe a deity currently exists (therefore a-theist, prefix plus noun), but I do believe one may come into existence, eventually.

Evolution and atheism are 2 completely separate things independent of each other.

No. They should be separate, but they aren't. The vast majority of academe are card-carrying Jacobins, with the historic anti-clericism and militant atheism that goes with Jacobinism. The stupid efforts at Christian Creationism have been equated with all "ignorant!" religion by the High Church Atheists and their supporters in academe, and the tool (aka idol) mustered out onto the battlefield for use against said Creationism (i.e. the idol of militant atheism) has been Darwinism.

As previously said, atheism is the rejection of theistic claims because they fail to meet their burden of proof.

Which is irrelevant to the Haidt-based argument I've been making as to the utility of religion. Hell, I even agree with this statement. But that in no way means religion will or should wither away.

[MSimon]

Faith in the materialist dialectic of history is perfectly functional as a lifelong creed for individuals, but it does not suffice to cement lasting communities and volks together.

I get your point. Now all you need is a believable faith. Faith in "the Force" was catching hold at one time. Too bad it didn't last.

In this day and age any faith that has a meddling God is not going to go far. May I suggest that instead of mourning your loss you look for an alternative superior to those currently available. For "the Force" all you need faith in is meddling humans. And there is ample evidence of that. I aim to be a meddler myself.

As to me being unusual - maybe, for now - I like to think I'm setting an example (as are many others) for generations to come.

[MSimon]

Note: the Buddhists managed to come up with a moral system without reference to God(s).

[djolds1]

Faith in the materialist dialectic of history is perfectly functional as a lifelong creed for individuals, but it does not suffice to cement lasting communities and volks together.

I get your point. Now all you need is a believable faith. Faith in "the Force" was catching hold at one time. Too bad it didn't last.

Lucas managed parallels to cut-rate Buddhism and Taoism, respectively.

But as for a "believable" faith? Faith generally evolve up organically out of the social soil, IMO to fit the needs and aspirations of their formative times. Engineering a faith is as totalitarian as engineering a society. In some ways a siren song for uber-rationals like thee and me, but something we also need to consciously refuse as a fast path to evil.

In this day and age any faith that has a meddling God is not going to go far.

1) Christianity has never been as intellectually stupid as the Jacobins have long insisted;

2) My own metaphysical musings run along lines fusing thermodynamics, complex emergent systems, and Omegism.

May I suggest that instead of mourning your loss you look for an alternative superior to those currently available. For "the Force" all you need faith in is meddling humans. And there is ample evidence of that.

Not I think how it works. A society's or civilization's faith works in constant feedback with the society itself - each shapes the other. We know what Catholic Christendom creates. Lucas-Lite Force-ism, not so much. Besides, "the Force" is just Qi repackaged - and better to go to the honest sources on that, not the fictional.

I aim to be a meddler myself.

Then you are no different from the control-freak liberals you rail against.

I myself spent a good hunk of my '20s trying to puzzle out "the third way." My ultimate conclusion? It doesn't exist.

Note: the Buddhists managed to come up with a moral system without reference to God(s).

But Buddhism DID pick up the trappings of gods and demons very quickly.

[Diogenes]

Note: the Buddhists managed to come up with a moral system without reference to God(s).

And what did it accomplish? Technology was Stagnant under Buddhism.

[rj40]

Some of this is starting to sound a bit (only just a bit!) like this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cydkTy6GmFA

And the monologue was, apparently, improvised by Welles. I keep hearing Zither music while reading some of these posts.