Hillary Clinton advocating all religions

kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Hillary Clinton advocating all religions

I read here that Hillary Clinton specifically states: The U.S. called on the military government to pass laws protecting all religions

 

It really disturbed me so I commented HERE

I just find it extremely annoying that in our modern day and age that Politicians aren't just supporting their voters by 'saying' they are religious, BUT they are going a step BACKWARD and making NEW laws in the name of religion??

It's ludicrous in my honest opinion.

I just wanted to post this crazy 'modern' (huh!) new law here, and ask other members if they feel the same as me or not?

Who knows, maybe I'm taking this too dramatically. Do we still need religious laws?


redneF
atheistRational VIP!
redneF's picture
Posts: 1971
Joined: 2011-01-04
User is offlineOffline
What I see is Clinton

What I see is Clinton calling for governments to promote religious tolerance, with the goal being moving closer towards religious pluralism, and as a result, every new generation would become more 'moderate'.

The countries she listed are obviously out of control. No doubt she realizes that changes aren't going to happen overnight, but, is moving towards sending a strong message by mentioning economic sanctions.

Attempts at progress like this, where the goal is to shift behaviours 180 deg. cannot happen overnight.

Believe me, I'm with you, I'd love to see religions 'banned'. But, implementing something like that, without serious backlash, is never going to happen, particularly in the Middle East.

You can't deal with crazy people like you can with normal people. Crazy people become completely unglued and become homicidal.

 

You have to employ 'child psychology' with these people. They're living in a fairytale land of invisible sky daddies. That's a serious level of emotional dysfunction, to be so married to such beliefs.

The reality is that atheism is on the rise. Especially in America. The 'studies' may indicate that 85% of Americans 'call' themselves Christians/Catholics, but, the reality is that those who do not 100% sincerely 'believe', are agnostic/atheists, who are just going through the motions, and playing Pascal's Wager.

 

 

I keep asking myself " Are they just playin' stupid, or are they just plain stupid?..."

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy" : David Brooks

" Only on the subject of God can smart people still imagine that they reap the fruits of human intelligence even as they plow them under." : Sam Harris


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote: The reality

redneF wrote:

 

The reality is that atheism is on the rise. Especially in America. The 'studies' may indicate that 85% of Americans 'call' themselves Christians/Catholics, but, the reality is that those who do not 100% sincerely 'believe', are agnostic/atheists, who are just going through the motions, and playing Pascal's Wager.

 

That is very true. With the exception of the extremist fundamentalist wackos, most people that I have encountered that call themselves "religious" are no more religious than I. They just haven't been able to shake that fear of hellfire and brimstone off of them. I have explained the fallacy of Pascal's Wager to quite a few of them and have actually had some good results. But the good results usually come from the ones that are already teetering on the fence and tired of the nonsense they have encountered in churches.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
redneF wrote:Attempts at

redneF wrote:

Attempts at progress like this, where the goal is to shift behaviours 180 deg. cannot happen overnight.

So what you are basically saying is baby steps.

Its been friggin 2000 years already! Exactly when are these baby steps going to look like one step in the right direction?

What I see is one step forward, two steps back. Plus I can just about hear the people when this man called Jesus actually was preaching his lies (if we assume this happened in the first place, since history tells us that the jesus story was stolen from another story centuries before that!) That the 'people' (back then) were saying this is nonsense, this is not the son of god, crucify him for blasphemy.

But oh no, its been a whopping 2000 or so, years and what's the progress again? Oh yeah you mentioned some are a bit emotionally unstuck and also not brave/loud/strong? enough to voice their opinion as yet?

Well this won't do!

I'm not going to inform my kids that we are looking at about 500 or so years from now!

I want (need) change NOW. I can't stand people praying for our world as it slowly irrepairably becomes so screwed up that our descendants have no other option but to put blame on the past, that no one decided to stand up for what is right, back now

We need a spokesperson, or group that will hit the streets, in huge numbers, similar to how other groups have done this before in the past. Nothing is going to change by enlightening the individual, when 6 more babies are born into the ignorant religious house.

If you want someone, I'd do it. But I need a lot of support behind me. I'd prefer it was the president, or someone famous already, no one knows anyone that is brave enough to speak the truth in public? Yes forums and Youtube and blogs are public, but quite obviously its not enough. We need numbers in every community to come out and be counted. Only then this craziness will we be able to move a step in the right direction, without turning back.


Cpt_pineapple
atheist
Cpt_pineapple's picture
Posts: 5487
Joined: 2007-04-12
User is offlineOffline
Oh no, she is advocating

Oh no, she is advocating making religion legal and that no one religion can take over. How dare she?

 

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Cpt_pineapple wrote:Oh no,

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Oh no, she is advocating making religion legal and that no one religion can take over. How dare she?

 

 

 

I don't care what her intent is. It is a bad idea because it will be used by the Christian majority to further uphold the pecking order the First Amendment was supposed to prevent.

The First Amendment has not been enforced since the ink was dry on the bill of rights. It has been consistently ignored or implemented by bias groups to falsely and unconstitutionally create a pecking order. I do not blame the founders because in two blatantly clear places there was a DEMAND for government neutrality. And even after an entire congress said without dissent in the Barbary Treaty "as the government of the the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

What she should do instead of pandering to the politically correct, she should refer to the first laws written and demand those be upheld.

This will do nothing but serve to create more hostility between sects of Christianity and will only serve to disenfranchise non-Christians because it will be used by the Christians with political power to maintain their gang tagging government property mentality.

This is one thing about the left that pisses me off. They do not understand how their "good intent" can and will come back to bite them in the ass.

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4667
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cpt_pineapple

Brian37 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Oh no, she is advocating making religion legal and that no one religion can take over. How dare she?

 

 

 

I don't care what her intent is. It is a bad idea because it will be used by the Christian majority to further uphold the pecking order the First Amendment was supposed to prevent.

The First Amendment has not been enforced since the ink was dry on the bill of rights. It has been consistently ignored or implemented by bias groups to falsely and unconstitutionally create a pecking order. I do not blame the founders because in two blatantly clear places there was a DEMAND for government neutrality. And even after an entire congress said without dissent in the Barbary Treaty "as the government of the the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

What she should do instead of pandering to the politically correct, she should refer to the first laws written and demand those be upheld.

This will do nothing but serve to create more hostility between sects of Christianity and will only serve to disenfranchise non-Christians because it will be used by the Christians with political power to maintain their gang tagging government property mentality.

This is one thing about the left that pisses me off. They do not understand how their "good intent" can and will come back to bite them in the ass.

 

 

 

She is not talking about American laws. She is the Secretary of State, she was talking about how Arab countries need to pass laws like our First Amendment. I agree with her. 

 

Ugh, I can't believe I just defended Hillary, excuse me while I go take a shower. 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Beyond Saving wrote:Brian37

Beyond Saving wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cpt_pineapple wrote:

Oh no, she is advocating making religion legal and that no one religion can take over. How dare she?

 

 

 

I don't care what her intent is. It is a bad idea because it will be used by the Christian majority to further uphold the pecking order the First Amendment was supposed to prevent.

The First Amendment has not been enforced since the ink was dry on the bill of rights. It has been consistently ignored or implemented by bias groups to falsely and unconstitutionally create a pecking order. I do not blame the founders because in two blatantly clear places there was a DEMAND for government neutrality. And even after an entire congress said without dissent in the Barbary Treaty "as the government of the the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion".

What she should do instead of pandering to the politically correct, she should refer to the first laws written and demand those be upheld.

This will do nothing but serve to create more hostility between sects of Christianity and will only serve to disenfranchise non-Christians because it will be used by the Christians with political power to maintain their gang tagging government property mentality.

This is one thing about the left that pisses me off. They do not understand how their "good intent" can and will come back to bite them in the ass.

 

 

 

She is not talking about American laws. She is the Secretary of State, she was talking about how Arab countries need to pass laws like our First Amendment. I agree with her. 

 

Ugh, I can't believe I just defended Hillary, excuse me while I go take a shower. 

I'll tell you why you are having that needless response. Because of other issues you don't see her as a mere human with differences, but an enemy. Just because different sides of an issue have different views of how to obtain goals, doesn't mean we cant value the same things.

But thanks for pointing out my error. I did get on auto pilot. That is due to other issues and stories in the past where the left DOES here in the states advocate needless PC laws.

I am with her AND you in that those countries should have a version of our First Amendment. I think that will be a long time coming. Especially when we seem to be hypocrites here in blurring or obliterating Jefferson's wall.

You are an American and so am I. WE value many of the same things even if we don't agree on how our country should go about problem solving. It would be nice if the middle east would grow up and become pluralistic. There are some hints that the cracks are spreading, but that region is still steeped in a tribal past and it took a long time for secularists to break the back of Christianity.

I think the age of instant information in communication with cell phones and the internet are making it increasingly impossible for theocracy to  keep hold.

This is one issue I am in complete solidarity with you on. Now if you would stop blaming the middle class and poor for everything I might be nicer to you.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
It's been a thousand plus

It's been a thousand plus years because there's been a thousand plus years of occupancy. Europe only recently pulled its controlling forces out of Africa and the Middle East. In the decades since, nothing surprising has happened. Europe may have controlled these areas to a degree, but never brought the enlightenment age with them. All educational faculties were put to use in colonies and at home, indigenous peoples were not a concern to ruling parties. So instead of European secular involvement, you had christians going in and using their familiarity with European laws and history to destabilise any religion oriented belief system in favour of christianity. In Africa it worked wonders, because there was no credible opposition to the power of the church. In the Middle East it sparked race wars as there were already strong and capable religious groups that had little trouble not only resisting the christians, but using them to increase the power of the prevailing religions.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10710
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is onlineOnline
It could very well be

It could very well be another one or three hundred years before all the chaos dies down.
You have to view most of the peoples in these areas to be similar socially to somewhere between the 1500's and the 1800's (not entirely, there are a few exceptions, but in most social structures compared to Western cultures they have a lot of catching up to do). As such, tolerance for multiple religions is a necessary first step. Without such tolerance, you can never achieve the state which allows you to compare and contrast religions against each other, which is a requirement for abandoning them altogether.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Darwinsbulldog
Posts: 2
Joined: 2011-09-19
User is offlineOffline
Well, atheists and [what I

Kinsland wrote:-

I just find it extremely annoying that in our modern day and age that Politicians aren't just supporting their voters by 'saying' they are religious, BUT they are going a step BACKWARD and making NEW laws in the name of religion??

It's ludicrous in my honest opinion.

I just wanted to post this crazy 'modern' (huh!) new law here, and ask other members if they feel the same as me or not?

Who knows, maybe I'm taking this too dramatically. Do we still need religious laws?

 

Well, atheists and [what I shall call for now "rational theists"] share a common interest in building and maintaining secular societies. The tolerance for all beliefs, [provided it includes the freedom not to have a belief ] - is a vital first step. This is particularly true in countries that have a religious majority or significant religious influence in government.

Having a number of different faiths is a marvelous teaching tool for the atheist, because  by definition, a monotheist, is an atheist in all religions but one!

I think that atheism is on the rise, and with care, will become fixed in the population. The care bit is about not coming across as an intolerant asshole. Ok, some god-botherers will think that anyway, but that is no reason to alienate the rationale theists by giving evidence of intolerance.

As atheists we are a diverse bunch, but nevertheless have to work together in an effective way to make religion a thing of the past. Pick the battles that really matter.

 


Wonderist
atheist
Wonderist's picture
Posts: 2479
Joined: 2006-03-19
User is offlineOffline
Darwinsbulldog wrote:I think

Darwinsbulldog wrote:
I think that atheism is on the rise, and with care, will become fixed in the population. The care bit is about not coming across as an intolerant asshole. Ok, some god-botherers will think that anyway, but that is no reason to alienate the rationale theists by giving evidence of intolerance.

Hi Darwinsbulldog, would you mind defining what you mean by 'intolerance'? I've found that it can be a very slippery word.

Wonderist on Facebook — Support the idea of wonderism by 'liking' the Wonderism page — or join the open Wonderism group to take part in the discussion!

Gnu Atheism Facebook group — All gnu-friendly RRS members welcome (including Luminon!) — Try something gnu!


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

kimsland wrote:

I read here that Hillary Clinton specifically states: The U.S. called on the military government to pass laws protecting all religions

It really disturbed me so I commented HERE

I just find it extremely annoying that in our modern day and age that Politicians aren't just supporting their voters by 'saying' they are religious, BUT they are going a step BACKWARD and making NEW laws in the name of religion??

It's ludicrous in my honest opinion.

I just wanted to post this crazy 'modern' (huh!) new law here, and ask other members if they feel the same as me or not?

Who knows, maybe I'm taking this too dramatically. Do we still need religious laws?

I like the reference to Iraq. Hussein did protect all religions and women and never provoked such an admonition. Then Don Quixote rushed in to fix things.

Islam started with Mohamed. The Sunni/Shi'a conflict started immediately after his death. Lets just pass a law to fix it. And while we are at it just pass a law against Islam and rectify that too.

In Egypt the Copts and the Muslims have been at odds since the Muslims took over shortly after Mohamed's death. Certainly a law can rectify everything.

It took Europe both the 100 years war and the 30 years war to abjure conflict based upon religion but at Westphalia the requirement that the subjects must have the same religion as their subjects was the law.

The US was the first a-religion political union but the Catholics did not have an easy time while the LDS got the shaft. Even after it sort of died down a wave of immigrants brought it with them.

Laws cannot change human behavior unless the people subject to the laws agree with the laws. That is why it took Hussein to establish religious equality in Iraq and why the democratic government cannot.

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
We are in 2011 not

We are in 2011 not 1911

Things such as the Internet have made us more aware of the ridiculous religious beliefs out there.

Due to this (and other technologies, ie finding water on other planets and specifically moons) It doesn't take 100years to turn a community around. As seen recently by Steve Jobs who single handedly changed the world in a mere decade or two.

Catch up time, is fast approaching. People such as me (in the half century area) see the demise in religious values, NOT the new laws protecting them. Nothing can protect religion from falling to miniscule values over the next few years or so (presuming 30yrs max.) The wave of rational thinking is already upon us.

I have little else to add to this forum (or others) as I see this only as a temporary stepping stone to finally seeing the truth.

There is no god.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

kimsland wrote:
We are in 2011 not 1911

Things such as the Internet have made us more aware of the ridiculous religious beliefs out there.

The problem with that is there are orders of magnitude more religious websites than atheist websites. And as with this one and with Dawkins they turn out to be anti-Christian and anti-Muslim but pro-Judaism -- fake atheist websites.

Quote:
Due to this (and other technologies, ie finding water on other planets and specifically moons) It doesn't take 100years to turn a community around. As seen recently by Steve Jobs who single handedly changed the world in a mere decade or two.

This is hardly the place for gushing eulogies. His only claim to fame was bringing computer technology to people who could  not grasp it like artists. In the process his products were not only largely manufactured in the third world with child labor but his prices were more than double with the actual hardware and software was worth for the same performance benchmarks. And if you are sentimental about the original Apple, talk about the Woz not him. But even then, when I bought my first PC the Apple ][ was an option. I bought the Atari 800 because it had overall better performance for a bit over half the price.

Jobs had nothing to do with the internet.

Quote:
Catch up time, is fast approaching. People such as me (in the half century area) see the demise in religious values, NOT the new laws protecting them. Nothing can protect religion from falling to miniscule values over the next few years or so (presuming 30yrs max.) The wave of rational thinking is already upon us.

I have little else to add to this forum (or others) as I see this only as a temporary stepping stone to finally seeing the truth.

There is no god.

Laws against crimes against religions which establish all religions as equal are not protecting religion. It is not atheist mobs attacking churches, it is synagogues attacking mosques and mosques against mosques. As I said, the Christian world reached an accomodation because of the bloodshed of two wars over 130 years.

It may take the non-creedal religions like Islam and Judaism their own century of bloodshed to learn to give it up as a bad idea. I have no interest in nor reason to stop them from learning the hard way. Unlike most Americans I eschew the role of Don Quixote to the world.

If you are implying in the US, our laws are quite sufficient and the "hate crimes" laws should be abolished immediately. A crime is a crime. Motivation does not lessen nor worsen the crime. Sentencing because of motivation should go back to judicial discretion. Only judges have enough experience in such cases to form good policy in the matter.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
I see

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The problem with that is there are orders of magnitude more religious websites than atheist websites.

I speak mainly of 'information' Now I also understand that information on the Internet can and has been somewhat scrambled with sp@m and alike.

I also note I joined a government forum some time ago on helping to change the direction of the Internet, I remember that the final decision was to have two main world servers, one for factual information that cannot be added to, unless you're some type of professor, and the other for most of what else you see on the Internet now-a-days.

What in effect came from this was restrictions on such things as p0rn and sp@m dealt with a more professional manner, and greater firewalls. Obviously we haven't exactly got to the educational server only, just yet. But I'm pretty positive that search engines are not just limiting results, they are illiminating some of them!

This new concept of 'newspeak' seems to be accepted, but at least the same result will be met, only facts will inevitably remain.

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Jobs had nothing to do with the internet.

Agreed, but my point was that in our fast paced society, things happen more quicker!

A better example may have been the atom bomb could blow up cities whereas a nuclear bomb could do an entire country. Things seem to happen on much larger scale compared to the days before industry and technology were about. Due to this political decisions can change a community overnight

 

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Laws against crimes against religions which establish all religions as equal are not protecting religion. It is not atheist mobs attacking churches, it is synagogues attacking mosques and mosques against mosques. As I said, the Christian world reached an accomodation because of the bloodshed of two wars over 130 years.

It may take the non-creedal religions like Islam and Judaism their own century of bloodshed to learn to give it up as a bad idea. I have no interest in nor reason to stop them from learning the hard way. Unlike most Americans I eschew the role of Don Quixote to the world.

If you are implying in the US, our laws are quite sufficient and the "hate crimes" laws should be abolished immediately. A crime is a crime. Motivation does not lessen nor worsen the crime. Sentencing because of motivation should go back to judicial discretion. Only judges have enough experience in such cases to form good policy in the matter.

This paragraph is the real reason I replied. And its fully ontopic.

Why don't atheists 'mobs' attack churches?

If your wife broke up with you, then took your young kids to one of the (legal) known religious cults to live, would you accept this? Or would you fight? If the 'law' stated that you had no right to do such things as safe guard your children (and possibly your ex-wife) by attacking the church, would that stop you?

Churches ARE abusing children, we are also fully aware that some mosques in the Middle East also corrupt children, this is known. Are these children not as important or don't make you feel that you shouldn't fight them? In many religious sermons (christian and Islam and others) it is clearly preached that they are in battle with anyone who does not believe in what they believe to be true!

Battle? War? Yes as I'm sure you know their little soldiers (I like to call them, children) are being programmed to fight to the death. If you accidentally find yourself in one of these battles one day, make sure you fight.

But why start then? When this corruption towards children is happening right now. Why can't I stand up and say that WE DON'T WANT RELIGION IN POLITICS. ? Judges who state they are religious should lose their position immediately. They do not possess the human ability to judge on this Earth. When some send criminals to death, are they possibly thinking that Jesus will judge them, and therefore capital punishment is acceptable? Since this is exactly what they openly believe.

Also note:

  • Who was it that first stood up to black racism? Blacks that's who.
  • Who was it that first stated that women are equal? Women that's who.
  • Who was it that first stated gays have rights? You guessed it, gays.

Atheists have the right to stand up to religious beliefs and fight them. To remove 'In God We Trust' from money; To fully remove anyone of any religious belief from politics and 100% in ALL schools (except as history lessons); To stop religious leaders receiving financial gain and then using this against others; To stop children from being abused through backward, ignorant and hateful people, wherever they receive this.

Freedom of Religion, just like the bible novel, has been twisted and manipulated to attack anyone who is not of their religion. I have freedom too, I believe that religion should be stopped before these fools blow up their not required present world. I happen to like Earth, and respect all its children, and I'm willing to fight for that for the continuation of our life. (This being the opposite to religious beliefs)

Atheists are growing in numbers everyday, since thousands of years old texts are becoming so much of a joke that they make us sick. Sometime early this century lets hope all religious beliefs get what they want and die.

I'm not alone on this.

 


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

kimsland wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The problem with that is there are orders of magnitude more religious websites than atheist websites.

I speak mainly of 'information' Now I also understand that information on the Internet can and has been somewhat scrambled with sp@m and alike.

I also note I joined a government forum some time ago on helping to change the direction of the Internet, I remember that the final decision was to have two main world servers, one for factual information that cannot be added to, unless you're some type of professor, and the other for most of what else you see on the Internet now-a-days.

...

I'm not alone on this.

As they say, yes but ...

First off, despite the annoying prominence and political influence of religion these days it really does not take too much research to see how greatly things have improved over the years. The creationists are one horrible example today which is getting no where rather quickly other than as material for stand-up comics. Prohibition was a religious objective. The slowness in adopting real medical schools and researching disease was because diseases were a punishment for sin. 

Bottom line is science has destroyed the foundations upon which religion existed from prehistoric times. These days when some clown blames a disaster on sin he becomes a laughing stock. Barely two centuries again there was no other explanation and it was taken seriously by almost everyone. Today to be a believer one has to have some rather esoteric idea of what that god is. Two centuries ago every change in the weather was a clear and present demonstration of the power of that same god. Everything was such a demonstration.

Science is doing this. We can comfortably assume religion is as old as human beings and likely existed in pre Homo Sapien species. That god(s) have gone from everything to next to nothing in four centuries is incredibly rapid progress. As the rate of scientific advance increases the gods retreat into smaller and smaller gaps with those who say otherwise looking sillier and sillier. What Newton accomplied on gravity was trivial compared to proving the heavens were no different from the earth. The planets move for the same reason stones fall.

Satan used to use lighting to attack god's churches until Ben Franklin took god and satan out of the picture. Pasteur ended disease as divine punishment. Weather forecasting took storms away from the divine. Long before evolution geology ended creation in 4004BC.

Bottom line is, if we do nothing we continue to win. So other than inciting a riot being a major felony us lazy folks can sit back and just do and promote science knowing it is the proven successful path to eliminating the hold of religion on people.

The US is odd in the west. In most western countries people go to church three times in their lives and in two of them they are carried. The US is starting to come around to that. The more people know about how the world works (which does not require a degree in science) the less use they have for religion. In sickness people are more likely to pray the treatment works than the disease goes away. It is a matter of time before the connection between prayer and cure dissolves completely. People do things because they think it works and one success wipes out the memory of a thousand failures. Doctors give correct reasons why people die instead of retreating to "it was his time" or god's will. The connection is not being made any longer.

So what can an atheist do to help? Simply be secular. Take for example the issue of child sexual abuse in churches.

You tell me which is more productive. 1) Trying to figure out how to make a torch and marching on a church or 2) lobbying the US attorney general to declare the Catholic Church a criminal conspiracy under the RICO statutes. For many reasons 2) is not going to happen. Getting the AG to explain why it will not happen is priceless. (The case would take decades to make due to the legal issues which would be raised and ultimately the responsible person is a head of state with immunity and by the time the case could be made the real perps would also be dead popes.)

I spent many years learning the pre-scientific debating approaches against religion. As I came to realize most of them were overtaken by events in science it became clear to me all of them could be replaced by science. There was no need for any of the classical approaches. In fact engaging in them just gave believers a platform. I am a scientist btw, and an engineer and a computer scientist and a few other things and also retired. So while prejudiced for science I did give the old approaches a try.

Anyway since adopting simply promoting science and knowledge of it even in the simplest terms I find no reason to engage in debate. There is still a long way to go. We do not have a language for discussing evolution that does not imply intent and volition. We need to do better there. We do have a hugely better language for discussing life, death, natural disasters and all the rest. Yes, here the internet is incredibly valuable in that if a person is not looking to confirm some religious preconception then there are much better examples available. As to the search engines it is getting to the point where at least aregligious sites are on the first page and near the top.

Myself I get in hot water even here in concentrating on the science of archaeology to demolish the foundation of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Biblical Israel never existed in bibleland nor did anything remotely like it ever exist. That was quick although as it was a side project it took a few years. After completing that case I started looking at the surviving documents on the subject and discovered they all confirm it was never there. That took a bit longer and I am still in the process. I don't read the original languages and the translations are generally pedantic in their correctness rather than clarity translations. There is a KJV translation about "cast bread upon the waters" which is a clarity translation. The pedantic translation is about soggy bread. You can see the difficulty.

But all this is a specialty market of interest. When science replaces everything the the OT god was credited with and the true believers are even trying to make the miracles scientific you know its time is limited.

Despite an "atheist" attacking me for attacking jewish identity (can you believe it?) there should 26 to 30 million Jews in the world today based on their own numbers and considering holocausting claims. There are only 13 just as there were shortly after the war. The rest of the world and the religions have doubled in population. And of those 13 half are Reform or Conservative which the Orthodox do not consider to be Jews at all. So there are only 6-7 million by the original definition with the Reform differing from the Universal Unitarians as an ethical system with or without Moses.

All that has happened naturally without any atheist lifting a single finger. So why do we not band together an do more?

Also without any atheist effort that I have ever heard of atheism has become the fastest growing "religious" category in the US at something like 12%. 1 in 9 people are atheists. We don't know because Americans (except for Jews in my experience) do not consider religion a part of their personal identity that is worth mentioning. We don't discuss it. Next time you are at the store, 1 in 9 is atheist. How can you know we are winning unless we wear badges?

But can we call it winning when the main reason is religion has become almost completely irrelevant? That is the most likely reason. After churches installed lightning rods they dropped the prayers to save them from Satan's lightning. One less thing to pray for.

And I do not mean science as a science per se but in how it has made modern science. Take WWII. Certainly there were exhortations to pray for victory. There were huge government organized campaigns to buy war bonds for victory. There are only so many hours in a day. What do you think people attributed victory to? Prayer or war bonds that would pay dividends which prayer did not?

But even here science ruled the war. German wonder weapons against American scientific prowess were all the talk with prayer an afterthought at best. After the war the TV series' explaining victory never mentioned prayer. People may have remembered praying during the war but their knowledge was solidly in the strategy and tactics and concrete events.

Another major change is that churches out of self interest were loyal to their host governments. In time of war god was always on both sides. In Britain the news was controlled by the government agency the BBC. There is an infamous letter to the heads of churches in England to support the war by not talking about the rape and pillage of the Red Army as it advanced into eastern Europe. What most do not see is that the churches were part of the government public relations effort. Once there is a free media churches lose their political utility and governments lose interest in supporting them. Just last week the Irish government turned against the Catholic Church over child abuse. Maybe the local archbishop thinks Satan can work miracles.

What should atheists do? Look at what is happening all around us and try to imagine how to do more than is already happening on a grand scale while we do nothing but be ourselves. We are part of a future that started centuries ago with Galileo.

The best thing I can see would be for an atheist political party but in the US new parties are a waste of time. And besides organizing atheists is up there with getting libertarians to agree and cat herding as a waste of our precious bodily fluids.

As a political movement you say get religious people out of public office. First you have to amend the constitution to get rid of that pesky "no religious test" clause. If you think that is going to be easy consider the entire oath of office on a bible thing which is a matter of personal choice has to be eliminated to. A leader must have the confidence of those he leads. As long as using the bible increases rather than decreases confidence it staysuntil atheists are the majority. A government cannot rule contrary to the wishes of the majority. Granted democracy is a very imperfect way to express those wishes but absent a better method we use it.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:kimsland

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

kimsland wrote:

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

The problem with that is there are orders of magnitude more religious websites than atheist websites.

I speak mainly of 'information' Now I also understand that information on the Internet can and has been somewhat scrambled with sp@m and alike.

I also note I joined a government forum some time ago on helping to change the direction of the Internet, I remember that the final decision was to have two main world servers, one for factual information that cannot be added to, unless you're some type of professor, and the other for most of what else you see on the Internet now-a-days.

...

I'm not alone on this.

As they say, yes but ...

First off, despite the annoying prominence and political influence of religion these days it really does not take too much research to see how greatly things have improved over the years. The creationists are one horrible example today which is getting no where rather quickly other than as material for stand-up comics. Prohibition was a religious objective. The slowness in adopting real medical schools and researching disease was because diseases were a punishment for sin. 

Bottom line is science has destroyed the foundations upon which religion existed from prehistoric times. These days when some clown blames a disaster on sin he becomes a laughing stock. Barely two centuries again there was no other explanation and it was taken seriously by almost everyone. Today to be a believer one has to have some rather esoteric idea of what that god is. Two centuries ago every change in the weather was a clear and present demonstration of the power of that same god. Everything was such a demonstration.

Science is doing this. We can comfortably assume religion is as old as human beings and likely existed in pre Homo Sapien species. That god(s) have gone from everything to next to nothing in four centuries is incredibly rapid progress. As the rate of scientific advance increases the gods retreat into smaller and smaller gaps with those who say otherwise looking sillier and sillier. What Newton accomplied on gravity was trivial compared to proving the heavens were no different from the earth. The planets move for the same reason stones fall.

Satan used to use lighting to attack god's churches until Ben Franklin took god and satan out of the picture. Pasteur ended disease as divine punishment. Weather forecasting took storms away from the divine. Long before evolution geology ended creation in 4004BC.

Bottom line is, if we do nothing we continue to win. So other than inciting a riot being a major felony us lazy folks can sit back and just do and promote science knowing it is the proven successful path to eliminating the hold of religion on people.

The US is odd in the west. In most western countries people go to church three times in their lives and in two of them they are carried. The US is starting to come around to that. The more people know about how the world works (which does not require a degree in science) the less use they have for religion. In sickness people are more likely to pray the treatment works than the disease goes away. It is a matter of time before the connection between prayer and cure dissolves completely. People do things because they think it works and one success wipes out the memory of a thousand failures. Doctors give correct reasons why people die instead of retreating to "it was his time" or god's will. The connection is not being made any longer.

So what can an atheist do to help? Simply be secular. Take for example the issue of child sexual abuse in churches.

You tell me which is more productive. 1) Trying to figure out how to make a torch and marching on a church or 2) lobbying the US attorney general to declare the Catholic Church a criminal conspiracy under the RICO statutes. For many reasons 2) is not going to happen. Getting the AG to explain why it will not happen is priceless. (The case would take decades to make due to the legal issues which would be raised and ultimately the responsible person is a head of state with immunity and by the time the case could be made the real perps would also be dead popes.)

I spent many years learning the pre-scientific debating approaches against religion. As I came to realize most of them were overtaken by events in science it became clear to me all of them could be replaced by science. There was no need for any of the classical approaches. In fact engaging in them just gave believers a platform. I am a scientist btw, and an engineer and a computer scientist and a few other things and also retired. So while prejudiced for science I did give the old approaches a try.

Anyway since adopting simply promoting science and knowledge of it even in the simplest terms I find no reason to engage in debate. There is still a long way to go. We do not have a language for discussing evolution that does not imply intent and volition. We need to do better there. We do have a hugely better language for discussing life, death, natural disasters and all the rest. Yes, here the internet is incredibly valuable in that if a person is not looking to confirm some religious preconception then there are much better examples available. As to the search engines it is getting to the point where at least aregligious sites are on the first page and near the top.

Myself I get in hot water even here in concentrating on the science of archaeology to demolish the foundation of Islam, Christianity and Judaism. Biblical Israel never existed in bibleland nor did anything remotely like it ever exist. That was quick although as it was a side project it took a few years. After completing that case I started looking at the surviving documents on the subject and discovered they all confirm it was never there. That took a bit longer and I am still in the process. I don't read the original languages and the translations are generally pedantic in their correctness rather than clarity translations. There is a KJV translation about "cast bread upon the waters" which is a clarity translation. The pedantic translation is about soggy bread. You can see the difficulty.

But all this is a specialty market of interest. When science replaces everything the the OT god was credited with and the true believers are even trying to make the miracles scientific you know its time is limited.

Despite an "atheist" attacking me for attacking jewish identity (can you believe it?) there should 26 to 30 million Jews in the world today based on their own numbers and considering holocausting claims. There are only 13 just as there were shortly after the war. The rest of the world and the religions have doubled in population. And of those 13 half are Reform or Conservative which the Orthodox do not consider to be Jews at all. So there are only 6-7 million by the original definition with the Reform differing from the Universal Unitarians as an ethical system with or without Moses.

All that has happened naturally without any atheist lifting a single finger. So why do we not band together an do more?

Also without any atheist effort that I have ever heard of atheism has become the fastest growing "religious" category in the US at something like 12%. 1 in 9 people are atheists. We don't know because Americans (except for Jews in my experience) do not consider religion a part of their personal identity that is worth mentioning. We don't discuss it. Next time you are at the store, 1 in 9 is atheist. How can you know we are winning unless we wear badges?

But can we call it winning when the main reason is religion has become almost completely irrelevant? That is the most likely reason. After churches installed lightning rods they dropped the prayers to save them from Satan's lightning. One less thing to pray for.

And I do not mean science as a science per se but in how it has made modern science. Take WWII. Certainly there were exhortations to pray for victory. There were huge government organized campaigns to buy war bonds for victory. There are only so many hours in a day. What do you think people attributed victory to? Prayer or war bonds that would pay dividends which prayer did not?

But even here science ruled the war. German wonder weapons against American scientific prowess were all the talk with prayer an afterthought at best. After the war the TV series' explaining victory never mentioned prayer. People may have remembered praying during the war but their knowledge was solidly in the strategy and tactics and concrete events.

Another major change is that churches out of self interest were loyal to their host governments. In time of war god was always on both sides. In Britain the news was controlled by the government agency the BBC. There is an infamous letter to the heads of churches in England to support the war by not talking about the rape and pillage of the Red Army as it advanced into eastern Europe. What most do not see is that the churches were part of the government public relations effort. Once there is a free media churches lose their political utility and governments lose interest in supporting them. Just last week the Irish government turned against the Catholic Church over child abuse. Maybe the local archbishop thinks Satan can work miracles.

What should atheists do? Look at what is happening all around us and try to imagine how to do more than is already happening on a grand scale while we do nothing but be ourselves. We are part of a future that started centuries ago with Galileo.

The best thing I can see would be for an atheist political party but in the US new parties are a waste of time. And besides organizing atheists is up there with getting libertarians to agree and cat herding as a waste of our precious bodily fluids.

As a political movement you say get religious people out of public office. First you have to amend the constitution to get rid of that pesky "no religious test" clause. If you think that is going to be easy consider the entire oath of office on a bible thing which is a matter of personal choice has to be eliminated to. A leader must have the confidence of those he leads. As long as using the bible increases rather than decreases confidence it staysuntil atheists are the majority. A government cannot rule contrary to the wishes of the majority. Granted democracy is a very imperfect way to express those wishes but absent a better method we use it.

Get rid of "no religious test"? I've heard some bat shit insane crap, but this takes the cake.

Really? You empathize with the plight of Muslims, or some at least, and do you know what some Christians did when Muslim Keith Ellison sore in on a Koran, and not a bible? They fucking blew a gasket and demanded he swear in on a bible. Fortunately because of "No religious test" Ellison was not obligated to do so.

You remove "no religious test" in our Constitution and you will merely end up with a Christian Iran with mob rule by vote. Atheists still cant get elected in some locals because of their states unconstitutional litmus tests still on the books that do not match the Constitution. And you'd be fine with that exclusionary test as a atheist?

Way to hand a loaded gun to your opposition. NO wonder you swim in the swill of your needless conflict. It is PRECISELY because of litmus tests that humanity gets divided.

That law in the oath of office was a way to prevent personal religion from becoming political law. While it has been ignored in many cases, it also has prevented this country from backsliding into the sectarian crap that existed before the revolution. It has worked and over time has allowed other people once considered minorities to become part of the mainstream.

"No religious test' is an anti-trust law that prevents absolute power. Without it the majority could quite easily squash dissent.

I am seriously glad you had no hand in writing our Constitution. While no human written law is perfect. "No religious test" Was ground breaking for ANY government of it's time. And it is why we have Jews, a Muslim and even atheist Pete Stark in our congress. It may have taken a long time for them to be accepted and ellected. But without that anti-trust law, our society would have stagnated in Christian sectarian crap.

I am not about to hand Christians the ability to silence me. If you removed "No Religious test" the people above mentioned would not be able to serve.

 

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:
Get rid of "no religious test"? I've heard some bat shit insane crap, but this takes the cake.


I can only suggest your literacy needs to improve as that was a statement as to the major problem her idea would have. Any literate person can read that. If you have an issue address it to Kim(sland) who proposed the general idea. I only proposed the major problem with which you and I agree.

Tool city here.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Brian37

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Get rid of "no religious test"? I've heard some bat shit insane crap, but this takes the cake.

 

I can only suggest your literacy needs to improve as that was a statement as to the major problem her idea would have. Any literate person can read that. If you have an issue address it to Kim(sland) who proposed the general idea. I only proposed the major problem with which you and I agree.

Tool city here.

Now, ok. Here is something I can do that you have a huge problem with. I was wrong. I DID think you said that. I was on auto pilot.

Try that yourself. It really is ok to admit when you are wrong.

I misread it.

Glad we agree on something. Now, try finding common ground with those "Jews". I promise you that there ARE those in Israel whom, if it were not for the powers that be, want to support Palestine. But that cannot happen unless you and they skip the labels.

If Palestine wrote a new constitution that protected the rights of minorities and used the same anti-trust law "no religious test" I would fully support them. Unfortunately that would not be what they would set up. Now, if you are saying I am wrong. believe me, I would love nothing more than to be proven wrong. If Palestine really does want to be pluralistic and inclusive, nothing would thrill me more. It would also take the wind out of the sail of Israel.

But as it stands now, both sides are stuck in a dogmatic deadlock over tribal boarders and tribal politics. "no religious test" will never rid society of labels, but it most certainly keeps sectarian beefs to a minimum.

I promise you, if Palestinians wrote a Constitution reflecting the protection of pluralism and protection of dissent, I would be thrilled to support them. Work on that instead of bitching. PROVE ME WRONG. If you do, it would bring peace and stability to the region AND it would put the the theocrats on both sides on the ropes and marginalize them to the point they cannot create trouble.

But in this case, I was wrong. I DID misread what you said. Sorry about that.

So let me aim my fangs at the right target.

ANYONE suggesting that we remove "no religious test" is bat shit insane. Sorry my bullets hit you.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


kimsland
atheist
kimsland's picture
Posts: 32
Joined: 2011-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Thanks

Thanks A_Nony_Mouseespecially and also to Brian37 actually I see now why some 'religious laws' do exist.

Thus answering my first post as well on why ask for more overseas or here.

It may have seemed insane for arguing such a point originally, but quite obviously it is working in our favor in stopping the religious stronghold in our society.

By the way, I'm not actually in the US, but be very clear that the US is seen as a very religious country in Christianity, so although statistically 1 in 9 may be atheist (likely in real life much more, but people tend to tick the Christian box even though they may not practice religion whatsoever) Generally in the rest of the western world most people don't go to church on Sundays, and therefore since they are not praising the lord, they are religiously expected to go to Hell. Quite obviously its more like 80% or possibly 90% of people are not religious but just don't know it yet Lol.

Also note if someone took to the streets and was loud enough to have others stand beside them, holding up signs saying Religious Ridiculous and much more, I'd still be very proud. For as the saying goes if you can save one (from ignorance and barbaric beliefs) it would be all worth it. The concern is that its easy to be religious, it takes more effort (and common sense intelligence) to be an atheist. I say we were born that way! And society has made us lazy minded  (obviously again).

A worthy topic. Thanks.


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:A_Nony_Mouse

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
The best thing I can see would be for an atheist political party but in the US new parties are a waste of time. And besides organizing atheists is up there with getting libertarians to agree and cat herding as a waste of our precious bodily fluids.

As a political movement you say get religious people out of public office. First you have to amend the constitution to get rid of that pesky "no religious test" clause. If you think that is going to be easy consider the entire oath of office on a bible thing which is a matter of personal choice has to be eliminated to. A leader must have the confidence of those he leads. As long as using the bible increases rather than decreases confidence it staysuntil atheists are the majority. A government cannot rule contrary to the wishes of the majority. Granted democracy is a very imperfect way to express those wishes but absent a better method we use it.

Get rid of "no religious test"? I've heard some bat shit insane crap, but this takes the cake.

I do not see how it is possible to read that paragraph and think I am advocating it. Please explain.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

kimsland wrote:
Thanks

A_Nony_Mouseespecially

and also to

Brian37

actually I see now why some 'religious laws' do exist.

Thus answering my first post as well on why ask for more overseas or here.

It may have seemed insane for arguing such a point originally, but quite obviously it is working in our favor in stopping the religious stronghold in our society.

By the way, I'm not actually in the US, but be very clear that the US is seen as a very religious country in Christianity, so although statistically 1 in 9 may be atheist (likely in real life much more, but people tend to tick the Christian box even though they may not practice religion whatsoever) Generally in the rest of the western world most people don't go to church on Sundays, and therefore since they are not praising the lord, they are religiously expected to go to Hell. Quite obviously its more like 80% or possibly 90% of people are not religious but just don't know it yet Lol.

Also note if someone took to the streets and was loud enough to have others stand beside them, holding up signs saying Religious Ridiculous and much more, I'd still be very proud. For as the saying goes if you can save one (from ignorance and barbaric beliefs) it would be all worth it. The concern is that its easy to be religious, it takes more effort (and common sense intelligence) to be an atheist. I say we were born that way! And society has made us lazy minded  (obviously again).

A worthy topic. Thanks.

You are on the right track. I've been into atheism for half a century, literally. Don't let anything I post discourage you. Take it for what it is worth to you and come up with something productive to do. Us old farts don't come up with the really new ideas. Our major value is, been there, done that, this is what happened. It is often difficult to recite the what happened part without appearing discouraging. That is never the intention.

I've had more than one person tell me I am an idiot in my life. I did not by Microsoft stock when it went public because I was convinced such a retarded operating system could never be successful. I have a lot more such stories. If I ever post anything discouraging think of me as the guy with cataracts and dentures.

What us old timers can do is talk about what we have learned. I am still constantly surprised to learn how deeply embedded religion was in our culture just a few years before I was born in 1945 as the replacement for WWII as a lover once said about by BBS style. When atheism first hit me after reading some Philip Wylie books at age 13 or so I thought it was hopeless also. The more I learned over the next few years about the world the less concerned I was. What I have come to realize is how rapidly it has been collapsing after WWII and just how bad it had been before I arrived to save the world from itself.

I haven't seen the point of the current bloom of social media and think it will fade away. That likely means it will become of permanent feature of society so I would look for opportunities there. We don't wear badges but atheist friends might help us to know just how common we are. There is a huge segment of the population which does not have the self-respect to exist without social support. Being able to friend atheists should drastically increase that one in nine. They would be the waffling agnostics afraid to be alone with no place to go.

And then, regardless of the feelings of friends and relatives, start using the correct semantics about religion. Screw giving them the benefit of the doubt and showing fake respect. Priests and preachers are parasites who can't earn an honest living. No matter how nice they come across they are still parasites. Say so. They survive sowing fear of the unknown by telling stories they know are lies.

In my research into ancient texts one thing I know for a fact is that by themselves they inspire atheism. Another thing I know is priests and preachers are taught these things and thus I know they do in fact knowingly lie and misrepresent solely to keep their jobs.

Never mince words, never be polite, inspire others to use at least some of the same words. Work to make correct descriptions common. Actually don't work. Just make friends and have fun but simply use the correct words. Spread the new sematics. That is what I have been doing with the Israel/Palestine issue. I test drove it here. I have started spreading it and I have detected some use of it already. Not nearly as blunt as mine but much better than the jewish narrative. It works. If you are more correct then people will start using it.

OK, you are not an American. No one is perfect. But your English is indistinguishable from American so there is no need to mention that again. People will assume you are. The US is the 300+ million population prize. 1 in 9 of 300 million when it only counts adults is a lot. A cascade effect is waiting to happen. By demographics of 18 years is an adult, 20% of 300M are not counted so it is 1 in 9 of 240M. A smaller total number but more like 1 in 7.5 adults. That is not only an avalanche waiting to happen but a voting demographic that will get religion out of politics.

Public demonstrations by atheists at the moment lacks a reason to be a group and a cause to be against. Politicians have religion. So what else is new? A lot actually. I my current project there are literally tens of millions of disloyal Americans who put the interests of a foreign country ahead of the interests of the US. Disloyal is the correct term despite the obvious ease of attacking its use. And despite all the rhetoric, politicians will turn on Israel and turn on religion on a dime if their handlers say it harms their election chances. Sounds cynical but do you want a politician with principles or one who effectively represents his electorate regardless of personal opinion? Of course we want both at the same time ... Eye-wink

Don't leave boards like this. You will need them no matter what you go on to do. Your interest in being active is refreshing and pleasant to hear. I am one perspective over 50 years. Five perspectives of 10 years each is much more valuable. It is a smorgasbord. Take what works, discard what does not. No blame. Success is its own reward. It is the only reward. Do what makes you feel good. None of us are going to be remembered after we are dead. The world does not have the memory space. While we are here we make the best of a totally indifferent world.

 

 

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
Quote: The world does not

Quote:
The world does not have the memory space. While we are here we make the best of a totally indifferent world.

While it is true this planet will die and the universe will continue without us, you seem to do the opposite of the good advice you give here. I don't think pissing contests help humanity. I do not see that as "making the best of it".

I also think that you do what theists do and twist this good advice to be an excuse to remain in your blind loyalty in the "here and now" forgetting, that although we die, there are people who will survive us and be left to deal with what we do now.

So, "make the best of now" does not mean be selfish and only care about your own agenda.

The best thing you can do now, is build cooperation, equality and inclusion. The best thing you can do now is see your fellow human as such. The best thing you can do now is to stop repeating that which causes problems to fester.

Politics Ideology and religion are great at causing division and great tools to justify selfishness. Equality only comes when we accept that our own point of view is not the only one in the world.

The here and now is all we have. Labels allow us to be distracted from that which allows us to squander the opportunity to become closer as a species.

THE most important goal, is not to rid the world of those who disagree with us. The most important goal for humanity is to look beyond our differences.

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The world does not have the memory space. While we are here we make the best of a totally indifferent world.

While it is true this planet will die and the universe will continue without us, you seem to do the opposite of the good advice you give here. I don't think pissing contests help humanity. I do not see that as "making the best of it".

I also said do what makes you feel good. Opposing religious tyranny in occupied Palestine does that. I don't know why exactly and don't care. I know it supports US traditions of self-determination. I know US support of tyranny should be anathema.

You should know by now such an obvious ploy response won't get you anything but a platform for my further posts. Your boss? Or are you the same person posting?

Quote:
I also think that you do what theists do and twist this good advice to be an excuse to remain in your blind loyalty in the "here and now" forgetting, that although we die, there are people who will survive us and be left to deal with what we do now.

So, "make the best of now" does not mean be selfish and only care about your own agenda.

The best thing you can do now, is build cooperation, equality and inclusion. The best thing you can do now is see your fellow human as such. The best thing you can do now is to stop repeating that which causes problems to fester.

Politics Ideology and religion are great at causing division and great tools to justify selfishness. Equality only comes when we accept that our own point of view is not the only one in the world.

The here and now is all we have. Labels allow us to be distracted from that which allows us to squander the opportunity to become closer as a species.

THE most important goal, is not to rid the world of those who disagree with us. The most important goal for humanity is to look beyond our differences.

You appear to be ignorant of the fact we are a predator species which enjoys mass murder. We have been trying to suppress that because the weapons of mass murder have become more effective than our instincts can deal with. We are trying to institute laws of civilized behavior to prevent future outbreaks of mass destruction.

Among them are self-determination and freedom from oppression even if it is jewish oppressoin.

Why do you object to such objectives and intentions other than your boss won't pay you if you deviate?

 

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13817
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is onlineOnline
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:Brian37

A_Nony_Mouse wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Quote:
The world does not have the memory space. While we are here we make the best of a totally indifferent world.

While it is true this planet will die and the universe will continue without us, you seem to do the opposite of the good advice you give here. I don't think pissing contests help humanity. I do not see that as "making the best of it".

I also said do what makes you feel good. Opposing religious tyranny in occupied Palestine does that. I don't know why exactly and don't care. I know it supports US traditions of self-determination. I know US support of tyranny should be anathema.

You should know by now such an obvious ploy response won't get you anything but a platform for my further posts. Your boss? Or are you the same person posting?

Quote:
I also think that you do what theists do and twist this good advice to be an excuse to remain in your blind loyalty in the "here and now" forgetting, that although we die, there are people who will survive us and be left to deal with what we do now.

So, "make the best of now" does not mean be selfish and only care about your own agenda.

The best thing you can do now, is build cooperation, equality and inclusion. The best thing you can do now is see your fellow human as such. The best thing you can do now is to stop repeating that which causes problems to fester.

Politics Ideology and religion are great at causing division and great tools to justify selfishness. Equality only comes when we accept that our own point of view is not the only one in the world.

The here and now is all we have. Labels allow us to be distracted from that which allows us to squander the opportunity to become closer as a species.

THE most important goal, is not to rid the world of those who disagree with us. The most important goal for humanity is to look beyond our differences.

You appear to be ignorant of the fact we are a predator species which enjoys mass murder. We have been trying to suppress that because the weapons of mass murder have become more effective than our instincts can deal with. We are trying to institute laws of civilized behavior to prevent future outbreaks of mass destruction.

Among them are self-determination and freedom from oppression even if it is jewish oppressoin.

Why do you object to such objectives and intentions other than your boss won't pay you if you deviate?

 

If anyone is forgetting that it is you.

The rise of the Soviet Union and fall of the Soviet Union happened for the same reason. What Hitler did to the Jews happened for the same reason.

There will always be a backlash when lives and resources are threatened.

You are being threatened, like and reacting like any other species would.

WHERE you get in trouble is you do not see it as a humanitarian issue, you see it as an label issue. Yes we are predatory, but we are also capable of cooperation, that too is also part of our evolution, the part you chose not to focus on. Which is why you stupidly think "virtue of the oppressed" is a valid argument.

The Germans thought they were "oppressed" and they did have nothing after WW1, they were desperate and hungry and anytime you create that situation that population will fight back. THAT however DID NOT nor ever will justify Germany turning to a madman to gain the resources they lacked.

If the German people had, instead of turning to guy selling them utopias, the second World War might not have happened.

My point is, until you get over the blame game, and until you get over the labels, and until you stop your attitude of "they started it" you will never be able to focus on the cooperation that ALSO drives our evolution.

So it all depends on what you value. Do you value fighting or cooperation? Fighting is easy, cooperation is much harder. Fighting and cooperation are both part of our evolution.

NOW where you also get lost is that they, your "enemy" see you as "predator". You can claim you are not all you want, and no matter how irrational it may be, they do. So it all goes back to what each side chooses to focus on. Fighting or cooperation?

The fighting hasn't worked and will not work. It may be part of our species, but it does not have to be the focus. 

BOTH sides are self centered and both sides are stuck on labels. Solutions will only come when the focus is on cooperation when the issue is no longer a label issue, but is a humanitarian issue.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


A_Nony_Mouse
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
.

Brian37 wrote:
A_Nony_Mouse wrote:
Brian37 wrote:
Quote:
The world does not have the memory space. While we are here we make the best of a totally indifferent world.

While it is true this planet will die and the universe will continue without us, you seem to do the opposite of the good advice you give here. I don't think pissing contests help humanity. I do not see that as "making the best of it".

I also said do what makes you feel good. Opposing religious tyranny in occupied Palestine does that. I don't know why exactly and don't care. I know it supports US traditions of self-determination. I know US support of tyranny should be anathema.

You should know by now such an obvious ploy response won't get you anything but a platform for my further posts. Your boss? Or are you the same person posting?

Quote:
I also think that you do what theists do and twist this good advice to be an excuse to remain in your blind loyalty in the "here and now" forgetting, that although we die, there are people who will survive us and be left to deal with what we do now.

So, "make the best of now" does not mean be selfish and only care about your own agenda.

The best thing you can do now, is build cooperation, equality and inclusion. The best thing you can do now is see your fellow human as such. The best thing you can do now is to stop repeating that which causes problems to fester.

Politics Ideology and religion are great at causing division and great tools to justify selfishness. Equality only comes when we accept that our own point of view is not the only one in the world.

The here and now is all we have. Labels allow us to be distracted from that which allows us to squander the opportunity to become closer as a species.

THE most important goal, is not to rid the world of those who disagree with us. The most important goal for humanity is to look beyond our differences.

You appear to be ignorant of the fact we are a predator species which enjoys mass murder. We have been trying to suppress that because the weapons of mass murder have become more effective than our instincts can deal with. We are trying to institute laws of civilized behavior to prevent future outbreaks of mass destruction.

Among them are self-determination and freedom from oppression even if it is jewish oppressoin.

Why do you object to such objectives and intentions other than your boss won't pay you if you deviate?

If anyone is forgetting that it is you.

The rise of the Soviet Union and fall of the Soviet Union happened for the same reason. What Hitler did to the Jews happened for the same reason.

Don't forget what the Jews have done and are continuing to do to the Palestinians.

Quote:
There will always be a backlash when lives and resources are threatened.

You are being threatened, like and reacting like any other species would.

How do resources fit into the examples you gave?

Quote:
WHERE you get in trouble is you do not see it as a humanitarian issue, you see it as an label issue. Yes we are predatory, but we are also capable of cooperation, that too is also part of our evolution, the part you chose not to focus on. Which is why you stupidly think "virtue of the oppressed" is a valid argument.

I see the end of tyranny and liberation has humanitarian issues. It is your constant refusal to condemn the perps that amuses it.

Quote:
The Germans thought they were "oppressed" and they did have nothing after WW1, they were desperate and hungry and anytime you create that situation that population will fight back. THAT however DID NOT nor ever will justify Germany turning to a madman to gain the resources they lacked.

You do not know much about the geopolitics of WWII either. They turned to Hitler to end the Depression in Germany which he did in two years. Also to get rid of the communists which he did in less than a year. Where do resources come into this?

Quote:
If the German people had, instead of turning to guy selling them utopias, the second World War might not have happened.

The end of the Depression and getting rid of communists is hardly selling a utopia. He succeeded where no other country in the world did although Italy was a close second. Italian Americans were returning in droves during the Depression. The issues around WWII are much different than Winston/Orwell worked to portray them. But still resources do not fit in.

Quote:
My point is, until you get over the blame game, and until you get over the labels, and until you stop your attitude of "they started it" you will never be able to focus on the cooperation that ALSO drives our evolution.

Why should criminals not be blamed for their crimes? Are you proposing we should abolish our criminal justice system too?

In the case of Palestine Jews clearly did start it. No one forced them to go to Palestine. Please do not require me to repeat my correction of the nonsense idea WWII had anything to do with it.

Quote:
So it all depends on what you value. Do you value fighting or cooperation? Fighting is easy, cooperation is much harder. Fighting and cooperation are both part of our evolution.

How does cooperating with criminals end their crimes? We know for a fact criminals have no interest in cooperating. We know for a fact violence is just about the only way to stop criminals from being criminals. Why does Israel think talking like this will make people forget their innumerable crimes?

Quote:
NOW where you also get lost is that they, your "enemy" see you as "predator". You can claim you are not all you want, and no matter how irrational it may be, they do. So it all goes back to what each side chooses to focus on. Fighting or cooperation?

Does one negotiate with a thief over how much he can keep? No. Does telling a woman to cooperate with her rapist stop rape? No. Why would you think Jews would cease their crimes if no one mentions their crimes as is done today? When they are called settlers you cover the fact they war criminal squatters. When you let the Jews refer to the military government of the West Bank instead of totalitarian military dictatorship people don't get react as they would to any other criminal dictatorship.

Quote:
The fighting hasn't worked and will not work. It may be part of our species, but it does not have to be the focus.

What do you think the city fathers of Carthage might say about that idea? What did Hitler think of the idea? What did Mussolini say about it before the bullet went through his head?

Quote:
BOTH sides are self centered and both sides are stuck on labels. Solutions will only come when the focus is on cooperation when the issue is no longer a label issue, but is a humanitarian issue.

In this case one side is completely criminal and at fault and the other side are the victims in every respect. One side is in violation of the Geneva Conventions and the other side is in total compliance with the Geneva conventions.

Incorrect labels have been much of the problem. There is nothing redeeming about the jewish side of this equation.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml