Ok I need to get this out, I dont mean to offend anyone so if I do, I apologise in advance.

All my life I have been fascinated with religions, war, philosophy and all manner of things around this sort of stuff. I used to be Christian, that was how I was brought up at school (yes mandatory scripture is a stupid practise).
Then half way through year four I started going to Catholic scripture because I wanted to know why we were seperated for scripture (didnt God make everyone? Why are we split up?), noone noticed but it was totally different.
In high school I started to look at different things, my uncle is a Buddhist monk so I looked into that, it didnt really capture me though, as much as I believe many things they teach are necessary.
Then I started to look into Satanism. When I say this, I do not mean the modern "Satanism" we hear of today, worshipping the "devil" and black magic, the original religion of Satanism was simply a scientific based Anti-Christian movement, much like Atheism today. I followed into this sort of thing for a good few years (the classic way not the modern) but still it never explained anything outside of common belief.
When I chose Environmental Science as an elective in my senior years I moved a bit more toward the Scientology stuff but again it was too vague for me.
I have also looked at Paganism briefly in recent years and I must agree the way of life is similar to Buddhism and many of the values regarding social and personal practises are quite uplifting.
But thats when I decided how fucked up religions are. Every major religious movement I have looked at is simply an adaption of common belief to fit modern society.
Then early this year my Grandad moved on. My Grandma and one of my Uncles are strong Christians, one uncle as mentioned is Buddhist, many of us were non religious, but my Grandad was a Stone Mason. So it really got me wondering about life after death, rebirth, heaven, hell, purgatory, what happens?
I got into reading a lot more about it, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins puts up a stand against common belief of God, and was very enlightening. Then I moved onto the Conversations With God books by Neale Donald Walsch after I watched the film Conversations With God. It also puts up a stand to common belief, but it explains on a social, personal and spiritual/faith level, which is what I was looking for.
In simple terms I am gonna try and regurgitate what it teaches. I will avoid the stuff that explains what God is, and why because I dont want to try and convert people. We are not judged by God. The meaning of life is to experience. Our soul creates everything we need to experience for our mind and body. We can manipulate our experience of life with our mind (I was brought up like this through sport, think positive, you can do anything, that sort of stuff). Life is eternal, after life, your soul is reborn to re-experience and experience new things. Love and fear are the two major emotions which branch into others. If you can love uncoditionally you will live godly. Happiness is a state of mind derived from love. Honestly, there is just so much stuff my head is exploding right now I cant think straight.
Point is, I am so frustrated with organised religion (and yes Atheism is an organised religion) they try and convert you or condemn you. Basicly I have learnt your relationship (or non relationship) with God is a personal experience. I feel like blowing up every time I read the arguments about religion vs religion vs science. Why cant you leave everyone else alone? Sure I have friends of all religions, they believe what they want, I let them and I dont judge them. BUT THEY DONT JUDGE ME EITHER. Let people believe what they want, you are all misguided to think you can change the way another thinks, to think you can prove or disprove the existence of God. People with faith will believe uncoditionally, people without faith can not even understand what they are trying to disprove. STOP THINKING! STOP TRYING! JUST LIVE AND LET LIVE.

Damn it feels good to get that out. Yes, I am Agnostic, no I am not trying to change the way you think or what you believe, but you dont need others to feel the same way. Be you, live your life, stop preventing other people from doing the same.

And on a sidenote, if you think you can think with an open mind, I really do recommend Conversations With God, not to convert you, just to show you a different view of things, without bias.

Thankyou and good fucken night lol

well I like conflict... that doesn't mean i like violence... or anything of that nature. But differences of opinion... all expressed views helps us to understand one another. And if we can understand anything at all hopefully it is ourselves.

Some people have different motives though for convincing each other of things.... and the desire simply stems from the belief that since other people affect you that their beliefs have an impact on you because of this so it is necessary to correct them.

Live and let live is fine with me... I do not care what anyone believes personally..I only post on this forum because they are my inner thoughts that i feel have to be written down sometimes.

Dont take this as a personal attack anyone here either, it wasnt meant to be.

Healthy conflict is a good thing because it makes us think and rethink, but forcing your own or comdemning the views and beliefs of someone else isnt healthy.

Good read!

I have some questions though; Why do you consider atheism 'organized'? I see no organized atheism anywhere. Maybe if you would consider science organized atheism, or some political ideologies organized atheism, otherwise I don't see it. (Dawkins is the closest attempt to organize, but not much has happened yet.)

And this is my view on the conflict-issue;
I let people believe what they want, but if
1. They tell lies, I will tell them they are wrong.
2. Hurt/kill/injury people, I will try to stop them.
3. Tries to convert me/others, I will defend my views.
4. Want to discuss their view, I will discuss it (I do like that discussion, with no purpose of conversion from any side).
And I expect others to do the same to me.

Previously Atheism has not been organised, The Out Campaign is the first modern attempt to organise atheists. I understand they do not want to be seen as a religious movement and are trying to do what religions are doing but at the same time denying it. Atheism is like a social movement version of religion. They are forcing their ideas onto us, trying to make us change our beliefs like religion does, but insist that because what they believe doesnt require you to put faith in them, they arent a religion. Classic Atheism (satanism) denied the whole faith thing, it let people have faith, it simply pout out the facts, non biased, and let you choose. You cant do this anymore.

no not quite, anymore than galileo was 'forcing' his idea of a non-geocentric universe on people, they merely want objective evidence recognised as such and for superstition to not affect society anymore.
no, they claiming they arent a religion because they arent, religion requires faith, a definition of religon is

atheism does none of these things, atheism does not attempt to understand purpose, meaning, and anything spiritual, it merely is just complete dismissal of the supernatural in any form, you are lumping atheism together with humanism, the two are often held by the same people but not all.

classic atheism as you call it is not atheism, there is simply no factual evidence for the existance of a higher power. what you call classic atheism is just science,which i can find no evidence for anyone ever calling science satanism outside of the religious extremists like kent hovind.
as for not being allowed to do it anymore, thats just wrong, you can do it and most people do. you just cant come to the conclusion that the supernatural exists and call yourself an atheist, anymore than you can call youself muslim and claim allah doesnt exist.

I explained it wrong, Atheism is not a religion, but they are doing what religions do. They are pushing their ideas into society, trying to convert and condemn. They keep telling us "There is no God", "there is no evidence", "these are the facts". Fair enough if they laid out the "facts" and left them there for people to find, if people are looking. But they can't do that, they are a movement the same as any social movement or religion and they need numbers to make their voice heard. Why do they need to be heard? They do not believe in a higher being, so what harm is there in believing what they want and let others do the same?

There is simply no factual evidence for the non existence of a higher power, you dont belive thats fine, but dont judge others because they have faith. So stop arguing like that, you can't win, noone can.

The Christians named the scientific movement of the time as "Satanism" because the science was undermining their beliefs. They tested the facts, they asked the questions, the were the people who believed that what had proof to support it. Is that not what Atheism is? Fact based truth?

By not doing this, I meant why can't any movement, any belief, any idea be based on you personally? Why cant you just accept that other people will ALWAYS have different views, and let them be? You argue and fight and try and convince everyone that you are right (this goes for everything). If you truly only wanted to "enlighten" people to the truth, or a better way, than put it out and let people choose, dont force them.

ive yet to see them pushing their ideas into society, though i have seen them trying to uphold current parts of society against religious pressure, as for trying to convert and condemn, ive seen the condeming the actions religious people do in the name of their religion, ive never seen them 'condemn'anyone purely for what they are. If pointing out the total absence of evidence for things is converting then heck, your average philosophy teacher or scientist is trying to convert people against something or other on a daily basis.

Indeed because people attack the evidence and the facts to say its wrong so it fits into their world view, it has to be defended, which means bystanders hear about it. If People were going around trying to convince everyone antibiotics didnt work and that despite the evidence for, people should stop taking them, then people are going to tell them that theyre wrong and/or lying, and the things that people are trying to do if allowed to succeed would have worse consequences on society than the dismissal of antibiotics. If the other side were passive then laying the facts out is all that would be done.

the civil rights movement was a social movement, the protest against the iraq war, people wanting the death penalty reinstated, anything needs numbers to make it heard, what it is has no bearing on that.

as above mentioned, this would be fine if the religious extremists were passive, but unfortunately they arent and are intent on impinging on society, so there needs to be a counter voice to keep society sane.

You attack, condemn, and convert just like everyone else. You provide proof and facts, then shove it down peoples throats disregarding their belief system, disrespecting their personal choice and opinion. You continuously deny even the possibility that God exists, all based on scientific assumption not fact, and continually push that into the faces of religious groups. You arent just pointing out the facts you have, you are making assumptions based off them. You personally keep saying there is no evidence for God and using it as an argument, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR THE NON EXISTENCE OF GOD EITHER.

This is why we live in such a fucked up society. It does NOT have to be defended, ever. Ignore the other side, the other side is religion, the other side is the what we have been warring about for thousands of years, the other side has never co-existed because they are always attacking and defending. Ignore it. Atheists have the science, they have the proof (considering they dont jump to conclusions about stuff they cant prove), people will believe it on their own accord, there is no need to defend it or attack back. Dont wait for the other side to be passive, they never will.

Everything needs numbers, yes. So wait. Eventually people will see themselves what is "right" and "wrong" on their own accord. By attacking and defending you scare people away, you make people despise you because you are in effect doing exactly what the opposition is doing, so what makes you any better?

Like I said you dont need to counter, defend, or attack to make yourselves heard. If you are backed with the proof you claim (and I personally believe it) then let the religions try and make fools of themselves. The religions are bringing the attention to you, so just sit back with the facts laid out and the people will find it themselves. Stop being a religion.

First Off: Chill Winston!

Secondly i show no special respect to religious beleif, its the same as if you support labour or lib dem when a political debate comes up ill tell you why i dont and show the evidence why and if you want to show me evidence why you do support them, then ill listen, but if you say,"ive got no evidence youll just have to take my word for it" then ill fairly doubt at it. as ive said many a time, as ive said already, i dont see atheists initiate the confrontations, i only see them respond to them, that is not disrespecting or limiting their personal choice, and as for opinions as far as im concerned, everyone has a right to be critical of anyone elses opinion on anything, I dont totally deny the possiblity that a god exists, i technically assign it the same possibility as other supernatural things, you cant be consistant and say no proof for fairies means they dont exist and no proof for god means he does exist, something which is entirely fictional can never have direct proof found against it anyway. i suppose that strictly makes me an agnostic, but only in the same way I am agnostic on Giant Alien Space Cats. as for continuously pushing it into the faces of religious groups, thats again wrong, they only defend it against people who damage parts of society, ive yet to see a religion attacked for anything other than what anyone would be attacked for, i.e. the catholic church is attacked for causing the spread of aids in africa, there not attacked for running orphanages or feeding the homeless, thats not pushing it in other peoples faces, ive yet to even see the extreme evangelicals attacked for thigns that dont affect the people of society at large, they only seem to get attacked for 1) attacking the education system, and infringing on other peoples rights to marriage or have children. anyone who did that regardless of religious persuasion would be attacked for those things, that is not by any stretch of the imagination pushing it in religious groups faces.

I disagree, it does need to be defended, can you imagine what would happen if noone defended evolution?, it would have been forced out by the evangelicals years ago, science does need defending, otherwise people get free reign to disregard facts they dont like, which is fine, but they need to be stopped from forcing it on society as a whole.

unfortunately i dont have that much hope in average dave on the street, they will unfortunately determine whats "right" and whats "wrong" from daytime telly and the red top papers, and the last thing they present is facts, rather than by looking at the evidence, so defense is needed, as for attacking i still havent ever seen this happen, and there is a significant difference between defence and attack.

as i mentioned above, unfortunately the majority dont look for the facts, we are sitting back with the facts laid out, but we do need to defend when others can come along and say "all those facts can be ignored" and the majority then proceed to ignore it.

Perhaps it's a difference between your country and mine, but I have never seen atheists standing out on street corners and handing out pamphlets, or preaching to classrooms, or knocking on doors, or really doing anything other than arguing against the religious types who try to convert them. When you say that atheists are pushing their opinions into religious peoples' faces, what do you mean by that? What exactly occurs?

I honestly can't see where you're getting these notions. Please explain how atheists are shoving their ideas down people's throats or pushing them in the faces of religious groups. No one is forcing anyone to read Richard Dawkins' book. No atheists are going into churches and preaching to them about how wrong they are. No political movement is trying to outlaw belief in gods. So where is this forcing of views upon society taking place?


As far as I can tell, that's all that any atheists have done: written books and blogs. Again, how is doing that "forcing" their views upon people or shoving them down their throats? No one is being forced to read any of it.


Wouldn't that be wonderful? I would love to live in a world where everyone just lived and let live. Unfortunately that isn't the world we have. Many religious people do in fact want to force their beliefs on society. We see it all too horrifically in the U.S. with the religious right constantly attempting to codify religious beliefs into law.

Would you prefer that non-believers refrain from writing books, keep their views silent, and allow the religious members of society to turn the government into a theocracy? Europe had theocracies for centuries. Do you realize the unbelievable effort it took to free ourselves from theocracies...the courage it took for the thinkers of the Enlightenment period to speak out against the religious people who were ruling them...to actually change society? None of that would have happened if no one has spoken up. We would still be living in fear of the Inquisition.

I think we need people like Dawkins, Harris, Dennett, et. al. to keep making the views of non-believers available for anyone to read. Again, no one is forcing anyone to read them. But they need to be written.


Peace and love, man. Peace and love.
--Dan

Has there even been an atheist auto de fe?

I thought not. Try not to confuse advocation with force.

As an agnostic, I also disagree with fundamentalism, whether it be theistic or atheistic. However, I do think that it is good to have atheistic fundamentalists, if only to provide balance with the theist fundamentalists (and vice-versa). In short, I think there will always be fundamentalists, because people with strong beliefs will often try to convince others of those beliefs.

If I might make a recommendation, I would advise that you take a look at religion as a socio-cultural institution. Any decent textbook on Social-Cultural Anthropology or Sociology should have a chapter on Religion. My personal favourite is textbook by several authors, the most well-known of whom is William A. Haviland, titled simply "Cultural Anthropology". If you can get a copy of it-or any other social/cultural anthropology textbook-I would definitely recommend looking at the Religion chapter, I think it might change your mind about organized religions.

Interesting that you would apply the term "fundamentalist" to atheists. A fundamentalist is someone who adheres to a doctrine (usually, but not necessarily religious) without appeal to reason or evidence, or even in the presence of evidence to the contrary. Atheists don't have a doctrine, they simply don't believe that supernatural beings exist.

Imagine if a large proportion of the population followed a religion with a central doctrine that leprechauns exist. Fundamentalist Leprechaunists would be those who believe that they exists no matter what evidence or agruement against it. If someone (an aleprechaunist?) were to then write a book outlining the reasons why he doesn't think that leprechauns exist, that would not make him a fundamentalist with regard to not believing in the existence of leprechauns.

I highly recommend the following articles with regard to the idea of whether atheists can be fundamentalist, militant, or extremist:

Are We "Secular Fundamentalists?"
Why There’s No Such Thing as a Fundamentalist Atheist
"Fundamentalist" and "Militant" Atheism
Atheist Extremism


With regard to your suggestion to look at Anthropological and Sociological studies of religion, I whole heartedly agree. No other angle, in my opinion, gives as broad a perspective on religion. Peter Berger's The Sacred Canopy is a classic in the Sociology of Religion. And Blackwell published a nice anthology of writings in Anthropology of Religion (and there are many others).

Just like to say that I probably havn't really explained myself very well, so yeh my bad for that, I dont usually do this sort of thing but whatever I had to.

They arent attacking like that, they attack when they retaliate. Dont retaliate. There is no need to, you have the proof, the facts, the evidence, not them.


Exactly. Everyone does have a right to their opinion. So we have the two of us, you have your opinion, I have mine, why does it matter to you what I think?. We know what we believe, why do we need to express it at all? Of course it will be different, of course they are going to conflict each other because everyone is different, but they are never going to cause a confrontation if they are kept personal.

So why may I ask do you reserve "There is simply no scientific evidence for the existence of God" as an argument? There is no evidence for or against, its a lost cause.


The truth never needs defending, it stands for itself. Let them disregard facts, it isnt going to change the facts.

That is because the modern generations are told what to think from day dot. Religion has held such power over society that even the education system is powerless to teach otherwise. What have you got to lose? The people you have will still come.


You can not ignore facts. You can disregard their relevance, but they are still there no matter what. If they are there long enough people will take notice.

Richard Dawkins has nothing to do with it. You not attacking first, you are retaliating and attacking back.



You retaliate because you feel threatened, why? Why are you threatened by religions? You dont believe in God so he isnt going to strike you down for it. You have the evidence so you wont lose followers from it. Why does it matter what religion will do to keep the power it has? You are in the "right", not them.

Then why do we keep it that way? Why dont we fucken change it? You cant live and let live if you keep defending yourselves because you feel threatened. If you start, others will follow.

We arent living centuries ago. Modern society acknowledges and accepts the proof of science. There is no need to speak up, just publish it (as you do), then leave it be.

I agree.

That is what agnostics say, not atheists, and yes, there is no evidence for or against. If you are a person who requires evidence to believe in something, then that is a pretty strong argument for agnosticism.

You know, you might be right that it is irrational to retaliate. But I don't think I would retaliate because I feel threatened, rather, I just feel pissed off. I don't give a damn if someone tells me I'm going to burn for my sins, or God will strike me down, or any of the other threatening statements. The thing that pisses me off is when religious types feel pity for me. It's when they shake their heads and offer comfort and promise to pray for the salvation of my soul that I get really angry. And before you say that that doesn't make sense, well, emotions aren't exactly logical. All I'm saying is that when someone feels sorry for me because I haven't found God, I just want to punch them in the face.

With claims of existence (like "There's a hammer in my shed") the burden of proof is on the person making the claim of existence. It's impossible to prove non-existence.

If it is the case that there is no evidence for something, this in itself is enough justification to say it probably doesn't exist. My point is, I'm not sure you can say there is "no" evidence ... a lack of evidence is itself evidence.

You miss an important point here. Just because there's no hard evidence either way, and we can't prove for or against in practice, doesn't mean that both existence and non-existence are equally probable. You can never prove that leprechauns exist or don't exist, but that doesn't change the fact that it is hightly improbable that they exist. That's the whole point that Dawkins made in his book.

Well, there's the crux of the problem, my friend, that you seem to be missing. We feel threatened by religion because religious zealots with power have demonstrated time and time again that they will in fact force their views on others—and force in rather horrific ways. Have you ever read any of the documents from the Inquisition? I have. And the very real possibility of that happening again scares the shit out of me. It happens today by extreme Islamic governments in the Middle East.

You said it yourself: "Religion has held such power over society that even the education system is powerless to teach otherwise." That's a dangerous power. And one that should not go unchecked. It is very important to keep religion out of government. I have no problem with anyone holding their own religious views and believing in gods if the want. I do have a problem with them attempting to force those views on me.

With regard to living in a world in which people don't just "live and let live" you wrote:

As I said, I'd love it if everyone in the world would just "live and let live". But you're living in a dream world if you think that the religious zealots would not start another Inquisition if they got the chance.


Look, I really feel for what you're sayin', man. It would be great if we could just ignore these fundamentalist extremists and their views. And if all they were doing was ranting and raving in their own private circles and not affecting anyone, we could do that. But we can't. They are very actively attempting to use their power in the government and influence public policy and legislation. That means that their views will affect us if we don't respond.

--Dan

Fair enough guys I can sort of see where you are coming from.