Those Militant Stamp Collectors

The other week I got involved in a debate with a theist in the comments to this Depleted Cranium blog post. Commenter Jason insisted that atheism is a religion, to which I replied with “if atheism is a religion them not collecting stamps is a hobby.”  He replied with this:

If people organised groups around the theme of not collecting stamps, wrote books about the virtue of not collecting stamps and identified themselves as definitely not stamp collectors, while at the same time running around rubbishing stamp collecting as a deluded hobby practiced by idiots, most people would recognize the actions of somebody who has turned “not stamp collecting” into a hobby they have.

Jason’s reply is a fine example of someone who has thought part the way through an issue, but not all the way. It’s pretty obvious what he is missing. I replied that if stamp collectors demanded that people who don’t collect stamps obey their stamp collecting rules, started wars with groups who collected slightly different types of stamps, denied non-stamp collectors rights or discriminated against them, bullied them in school, claimed you had to collect stamps to be a suitable person to run for public office, tried to get stamp collecting taught in schools as science in opposition to real science, demanded that people be killed for printing cartoons that made fun of stamp collectors, claimed that non-stamp collectors lacked moral judgment, made up ridiculous straw man positions they claimed non-stamp collectors took, and then argued against those straw men positions etc etc, - then non-stamp collectors would probably criticize stamp collectors the way Jason suggested. And with good reason. Not collecting stamps would still not be a hobby though.

Thinking about Jason’s argument the next day, I had a feeling I’d heard it somewhere else recently. Then I remembered – I think Jason had been reading Dinesh D’Souza. That explained why his arguments were so lame. The thing is, if religious people just followed their religions without bothering anyone else, didn’t try to get creationism taught in science class, etc, I wouldn’t care over much. I’d still think they were a little silly. On the level of children believing in Santa Claus, perhaps. And I still wouldn’t want to listen to them prattling on about their delusions. (Look, the grownups are talking now. Go over in the corner and play with your bibles for a while.) But I wouldn’t care about it, not really. The problem with religion though, is that they can never just keep it to themselves. They insist that everyone respects their delusions and follows their rules. They are like militant stamp collectors. Join our stamp collecting club or else.  And that's the basic problem with religion.  That, and  the fact that it's mostly nonsense.

The rest of Jason’s arguments were against the convoluted straw man atheist he insisted we all are. Read the whole comments thread only if you are feeling masochistic.

Comments

[verloren]

Actually the hobby comparison has some validity, though not in the way Jason thinks. My wife and I are both atheists. Her atheism is quite 'pure', i.e. she doesn't believe in any gods, but that's it. I, on the other hand, am something of activist in that I take part in religious discussions and all the other things we so enjoy. I'm not doing that because of my 'fundamentalist atheism' however, but because it's an intellectually stimulating hobby :)

[verloren]

Actually the hobby comparison has some validity, though not in the way Jason thinks. My wife and I are both atheists. Her atheism is quite 'pure', i.e. she doesn't believe in any gods, but that's it. I, on the other hand, am something of activist in that I take part in religious discussions and all the other things we so enjoy. I'm not doing that because of my 'fundamentalist atheism' however, but because it's an intellectually stimulating hobby :)

[Paul Crowley]

That counter to the "not collecting stamps" argument is confused in two different ways, and I'm not sure extending the analogy is the best way to bring out the confusion.

(1) Writing about not collecting stamps is not the same as not collecting stamps

The Four Horsemen of not-stamp-collecting may be organised and vocal about it, and indeed you could call it their hobby if you wanted, but it doesn't make it my Mum's hobby. She just doesn't collect stamps.

(2) Once you lift off the blinders of analogy, you realise that you haven't shown that atheism is a religion - you've shown it can be a hobby. Which it can.

[DV82XL]

Points to you Skeptico for sticking to it in that thread for as long as you did. I actually think you managed to convince the fellow to re think his position on atheists, although he wouldn't admit it outright. At any rate you certainly scored a TKO at a minimum.

[Marcus Ranum]

For me, athiesm is a hobby. Making fun of creos is both more ethical and more amusing than pulling the wings off flies.

[Tom S. Fox]

You know, I have another comparsion:
I Atheism is a religion, then unemployment is a job!

[tipsykw]

I am unconvinced. It does not look like you refuted his argument, it looks like you just showed that over time, those who are involved in religion have forced atheism into becoming a religion.

If you put a 3rd group of people into the analogy--people who do not care about stamp collecting or not stamp collecting (because you know there are always people who do not care)--you can see that this 3rd group is definitely not enjoying a hobby of NSC or SC. They just don't care to take part in the book writing and group forming, etc. The people who label themselves as NSC choose to speak out and write books and form organizations because they care, and they want to be heard and explain their ideas to others. Compared to the apathetic 3rd group, NSC is by far much closer SC on the hobby spectrum.

So I'd say it depends on the person. Just like people who are Catholic, but never attend church. They are Catholic, which is a religion, but they are not themselves religious. I'd say that Atheists who often speak out and get together and write books are a bit religious, which would make Atheism a religion. But you can choose to define religion any way you like. Many people define it in just this way. Many people do not.

[Skeptico]

tipsykw

Re:"I'd say that Atheists who often speak out and get together and write books are a bit religious, which would make Atheism a religion. "

If you define religion in such a broad way, the word "religion" ceases to have any real meaning.

[tipsykw]

You're right. That is a little vague. In most definitions, a belief system is required, which qualifies atheism. I thought that was implicit, but looking back over it, it's really not. Now looking at it this way, the democratic and republican parties could be seen as religions, which I think is OK--in many ways they are very similar to current religion.

If you want to exclude them, you could include the qualification that the belief system requires a belief *about* some form of diety, which includes atheism.

Or you could make the requirement a belief *in* some form of diety, which excludes atheism. Like I said--it's all how you define it. But, come on, can you say they're not similar at all?

[Benjamin]

tipsykw:

By its definition, atheism is not a belief system.

I think this whole debate confirms Sam Harris's point that we should just be rid of the term atheism all together. It's not like there is a word for someone who doesn't believe in ghosts, faeries, goblins, etc. The "-ism" in atheism implies a belief system.

[Yojimbo]

"But, come on, can you say they're not similar at all?"

I suppose there could be cases where they might be similar, if you ere dealing with someone who says "I know there are no gods". There is a bit of "leap of faith" in that stance. But I think such people are very rare. Generally those I think of as athiests are the ones who say they have seen no good reason to believe in dieties. Finding some aspect of religion in that stance stretches the definition past the breaking point.

[~chris]

"The "-ism" in atheism implies a belief system"

No, it doesn't. The word isn't athe-ism, i.e. "a belief in Athe." It's a-theism, i.e, "not a belief in god(s)."

[Benjamin]

Chris, I agree with you. All I meant is that often when people see "-ism", they think of belief systems. And I think that is where a lot of the confusion is coming from here when people relate atheism to a belief system.

[~chris]

Ah, OK. It’s sad that such a simply-defined word isn’t simple enough for anti-atheism simpletons to understand. *sigh*

[Skeptico]

Tipsykw:

Lots of things have some similarities with aspects of some religions. That doesn’t make them the same. If all that it takes to be a religion is that people are enthusiastic about something, write books or whatever, then just about any hobby or recreation is a religion. Of course, I don’t generally have a problem with people who just speak out about something and get together and write books. The problems I have with religion are:

1) They are not based on fact or any reasonable evidence commensurate with the claims they make. And in many cases, the claims they make are plainly absurd and are actually contradicted by the evidence.

2) Religious proponents demand respect, and adherence to their delusions from unbelievers. This despite (1) above.

Those are the aspects of religion that I object to. Clearly atheism doesn’t fit either 1 or 2 above, so it is nothing like any of the religions I object to. And I would say, unlike anything generally thought of as a religion.

[pv]

I think the problem of certain theists asserting that atheism is a religion really lies in their own ignorance of the meanings of words "theism" and "atheism". There are many theists who know perfectly well that atheism isn't a religion, but they also tend not to be Creationists, biblical literalists or religious terrorists.
The idea that the position of not believing in any God nor subscribing to any religion could in any way itself be regarded as a religion is, to put it bluntly, appallingly thick or appallingly dishonest. But then, when were dishonesty and religion not constant bedfellows.

[paul]

Nice post, Richard. I like the way you turned his argument back on him. I have used a slightly different analogy in my writing about atheism. I said that atheism is a religion in the same way that sobriety is an addiction.

[Skeptico]

Actually Paul, I think your sobriety analogy is better.

[Kevin]

I would probably say instead If you consider black a color, then atheism is a religion

[AndyD]

If atheism is a religion, where's the tax breaks?

[JPC]

I read a great comment about this a while ago. This person said "if theists are atheistic about all religions other than their own, they have multiple religions." (given that atheism is a religion)

[JPC]

Oh yeah, atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color.

[Rich]

My first time on this site, but it appears that it is a gathering place for those given to groupthink. Your arguments are valid because you all share them. How in the world could you ALL be illogical? Well... here is the answer. Religion is man's way of explaining how we all got here, and how we will deal with that. The overwelming number of religious practitioners in this world (those that think about how we got here) believe that there is at least one God that created this world, then their particular religion attempts to explain how and why that God or gods did so, and what our response should be. That religion requires some level of faith in that explaination, and some level of faith to live our lives based on that explaination. Furthermore, there is usually some type of religious practice, acts or the like that make them feel comfortable with their beliefs and secure in their choices. Atheism is unique in that it believes that there is no God or creator, but is requires the same, if not more, faith to hold its beliefs and live by them, which makes it a belief system for explaining how we got here and what we will do with it. Logically, one must have more faith to believe in atheism (that we got here without some type of intelligent design), than to believe in a God or gods. So you do not believe in God... OK ... So we non existance just suddenly became existance, then became so well organized on its own (without any prior existance or example of organization) that galaxies, solar systems and perfectly balanced ecosystems evolved thus producing not only life but intelligent life. That is not only bad science, but completely illogical. Real science teaches us that everything in nature breaks down into its simplest form by nature. It does not advance into higher forms or take on more complex structure. How can an impersonal universe, that appeared on its own, and therefore has no inteligence of its own, become organized and have order? That is not logical. I write all of this not to preach, but to make the point that to believe that there is no God (when logic is applied), requires a larger amount of faith in one's beliefs than any member of any other world religion, therefor, I would argue that atheism is a belief system based soley on faith, making it a religion. The huge point that the posters prior to me have missed is that atheism is also a religion because it worships something. It worships the act of avoiding and often hating God. It is a belief system that is rooted in worshipping self out of some anger toward or dissagreement with basic teachings of God. Man comes to the conclusion that God wants to cheat them out of some type of fun that they want to have, so in the finite wisdom, they decide that if they remove God from the equation, then all of His overbearing rules are also non-existant, thus freeing man to be their own god and set their own rules. Illogical and foolish: yes!, but all too common.The white elephant in this room is the question, why are you an atheist? If you stop lying to yourself, and really answer the question, it is because you are clinging to the hope that there is no God, and that if there is no God, then you are free to do whatever you want for the few years that you are on this planet, which is a sad hope. Because if there is no God, then this truly is all we have to look forward to and those that suffer horribly have had a truly horrible lot in life: suffer and die. It also means that those who do good (or at least what we as humans have therefor defined as good) are fools that should have put more effort into enjoying the short life that they had rather than wasting it trying to help others. The even larger group of fools would be those that gave up their lives (in battle or service) to save others because without a source of good (God) there is no garrantee that good would result for anyone that would survice or come later, and they have therefor given their life foolishly in that theirs is now forever over with no secure hope that good would result. Do you see what a hopeless belief you are clingling to? A sad and miserable existance. This begs the next question: Is whatever thing you are choosing over a belief in God worth the tradeoff? REALLY??? Logic says no. The final question would be: If you are truthful and logical, you will find that there has to be a God, so what are you going to do with that? Answer: Choose Jesus. I have written for too long already, and am not trying to be religious, as religions (including atheism) fail people. I am talking about recognizing Jesus for Who He is, and having a real relationship with Him, and thus knowing The God that created us, and enjoying eternal hope and life. Thy Him out, I guarrantee He will not let you down. There are many websites for finding out more info. I would recommend northridgechurch.com or northpoint.org as fantastic sources that cut through the religion and get to the facts and relationship.

[Skeptico]

Skeptico replies to Rich

Re: Well... here is the answer. Religion is man's way of explaining how we all got here

Actually, it is man’s way of making up an explanation of how we got here. But I’m glad you agree it is “man’s way” of doing this – not divinely inspired.

Re: That religion requires some level of faith in that explaination

Yes, it requires belief without evidence, and/or in the teeth of contradictory evidence. Why would you want to do that?

Re: Atheism is unique in that it believes that there is no God or creator, but is requires the same, if not more, faith to hold its beliefs and live by them, which makes it a belief system for explaining how we got here

No, it is not a “belief system for explaining how we got here” – it offers no such explanation. Atheists mostly accept that we just don’t know. As opposed to the religious, who instead make up an explanation.

Also, atheists don’t “worship” anything. Don’t be silly.

Also atheists don’t “hate god”. How can we hate something we don’t believe in? Your argument here is called “projection”.

Your next arguments relies on the logical fallacy Appeal to consequences, followed by a hint of the absurd and widely discredited Pascal’s Wager.

Rich, if you want to pretend to have a relationship with a non-existent invisible sky fairy, that’s your business, but your arguments for doing so are unconvincing.

[Bronze Dog]

Rich accuses us of groupthink, and yet he vomits up a stream of centuries-old canards without bothering to know anything about how we've dealt with them.

Try doing your homework, Rich, instead of parroting chain emails.

Also, Rich, on that 'you hope there's no god' crap, it's my experience so far that atheists generally more moral, and it's "corruption" by secular morality that's what makes some religious people moral. When I look to religion itself, I see nothing but a bunch of rationalizations and excuses for being evil.

I've met far too many trolls who believe as you do that inevitably end up trying to convert me to moral relativism or convince me that torture and murder aren't wrong. Their main cause of failure is that they try to appeal to my selfishness. It never seems to occur to them that anyone could care for anything other than themselves.

[Jimmy_Blue]

Rich:

First and foremost, let me make one thing clear. I'll be damned if I'll take logic lessons from someone who can't use basic grammar and spelling. Try the occasional paragraph, it works wonders.

Now, let's get to what I suppose you consider was the meat of your post.

My first time on this site, but it appears that it is a gathering place for those given to groupthink.

I'm going to take a swing at this. You don't have much of a feeling for irony do you? What do you think religious people are if not prone to groupthink? Let's take a look at a definition of groupthink shall we?

n. The act or practice of reasoning or decision-making by a group, especially when characterized by uncritical acceptance or conformity to prevailing points of view.

No, doesn't sound like a 2,000 year old belief system based on group ritual practise, gatherings, chanting, singing, reasoning, conformity, uncritical acceptance and with over 1 billion group members alive today. No, not at all.

And the ones who are groupthinkers? Why the skeptics and atheists who are always in the minority, who nearly always struggle against prevailing opinion and have no belief system, scripture or orthodoxy to adhere to.

Do yourself a favour. If you are going to accuse people of groupthink with everything this implies, don't be a part of the biggest form of groupthink yourself. You'll look stupid.

Your arguments are valid because you all share them.

What? No, what makes an argument valid (in the non-philosophical sense) is that it is supported by evidence and is consistent. The number of people who adhere to it is meaningless to its validity.

How in the world could you ALL be illogical? Well... here is the answer.

We're not. Oh wait, your going to tell us how we are. This should be good.

Religion is man's way of explaining how we all got here, and how we will deal with that.

Wrong. Religion is ancient, primitive, tribal, ignorant and unsophisticated man's way of trying to understand what he couldn't at the time. Religion then went on to be man's way of controlling, oppressing, excluding, dominating, persecuting and killing what he still didn't understand. Or didn't like. Or couldn't have sex with. Or could have sex with but wanted to make subservient.

Why do you think religion almost always without fail oppresses women or some other group Rich?

That religion requires some level of faith in that explaination, and some level of faith to live our lives based on that explaination.

Wrong. That religion requires complete faith in that explanation because there is no concrete evidence for that explanation at all.

Furthermore, there is usually some type of religious practice, acts or the like that make them feel comfortable with their beliefs and secure in their choices.

Look at that, you got something right. Yes, religion makes you feel like you are part of a group and this gives you a warm fuzzy feeling.

Atheism is unique in that it believes that there is no God or creator, but is requires the same, if not more, faith to hold its beliefs and live by them, which makes it a belief system for explaining how we got here and what we will do with it.

And we are back to being wrong again. You are an atheist too, we just go one god more than you. It would help if you tried to understand that.

It requires no faith to have no belief in gods. Unless you believe it requires faith to have no belief in unicorns. Or faith to have no belief in Hobbits. Or faith to have no belief that there was a being called Sauron who tried to control the One Ring.

There are no atheist beliefs to live by.

Atheism does not try to explain how we got here. At all. Ever.

Atheism does not have anything to say about what we should do with existence.

You really should at least try and understand what atheism is before you try and sound clever about it. Otherwise, you might end up looking clueless.

Logically, one must have more faith to believe in atheism (that we got here without some type of intelligent design), than to believe in a God or gods.

Wrong, wrong, wrong. Explain the logic you refer to. Show your working in traditional philosophical notation if you want. It's been a while but I still have my text books and should be able to decipher it. Since you can state categorically what is logical, I can only assume that you actually understand what it means to say this. I'm sure you wouldn't be just trying to sound smart.

But, there's more. Atheism has nothing to say about how we got here, but you did reveal your bias. Evolution, Big Bang Theory and atheism are not the same, and one does not require any or all of the others. However, you obviously believe that the intelligent designer is a god, so I guess you won't be making any arguments that intelligent design is not a religious position. Do you admit that intelligent design is religion and not science?

Please explain why it takes more faith to believe that something for which there is no evidence does not exist than to believe it does.

For instance. If I tell you about a tiny Norwegian spotted tiger called Claus Lundkevarm who is responsible for the existence of the universe (he designed it one night after the pub on the back of a beer mat) and who rides to work on a bike made from all the missing pen tops, does it take more faith to believe Claus does not exist, or more faith to believe that he does exist?

Since there is no evidence for Claus or gods, what is the difference?

So you do not believe in God... OK ...

We're so glad you approve. Now take your religion out of our state affairs, education and faces and bugger off.

So we non existance just suddenly became existance, then became so well organized on its own (without any prior existance or example of organization) that galaxies, solar systems and perfectly balanced ecosystems evolved thus producing not only life but intelligent life.

You really don't know much about the Big Bang or evolution, do you? I'd suggest that before you embarrass yourself any further you go and try reading a book on these subjects. A proper scientific book, not a religious one.

I mean, do you really have this idea that protons, neutrons and electrons were going around and saying to each other:

"Well I haven't seen this before, but it looks to me like those uppity Joneses have created something called organisation and have formed some new thing called hydrogen. How about we show them how its done and form some helium? I don't really know what it will look like but let's give it a shot."

Look Rich, nothing about physics makes any real sense at all without the Big Bang. There is a large amount of physical evidence for it. If you want to deny it, then please stop using the fruits of it and turn off your computer, leave your home, and go live in a cave.

The fact that we are here is proof that yes the universe did begin to exist, that yes it did become organised (in whatever way that can really be said to make sense in this context) and that yes, intelligent life did begin. We even know the mechanisms by which this happened. It does not mean that the universe exists for us though. If you want to base your understanding of the universe on the beliefs of primitive tribes people writing thousands of years ago, go right ahead. That would be the christian thing to do after all.

That is not only bad science, but completely illogical.

You're an idiot. You think that the whole of modern physics, chemistry and biology is illogical bad science. You are an idiot. There isn't really any reason to be polite about it. I admire Skeptico's and Bronze Dog's restraint for not saying it earlier.

But, let's play your game.
1. Why, exactly, is it illogical?
2. Why, exactly, is it bad science?

Show your working, we can handle it.

Real science teaches us that everything in nature breaks down into its simplest form by nature.

Oh please do tell us what real science is, and where it says this. Then explain what is happening in a star. Or what happens during conception, gestation and birth.

It does not advance into higher forms or take on more complex structure.

Right. So spermatozoa and ova never ever do anything then? You're quite certain that nothing in nature ever advances to a higher form or more complex structure. That evolution has never actually been observed in anything?

How can an impersonal universe, that appeared on its own, and therefore has no inteligence of its own, become organized and have order? That is not logical.

That's funny. I was thinking something along these lines about your post.

Once again though. Why is that not logical? You see, I understand that in religion merely pronouncing something is enough to make it true for those hearing the pronouncement, but we prefer things like reasoning, evidence and logic. And we actually understand what they are. So stop merely pronouncing and give us your workings.

Please explain why it is not logical.

I'll give you a hint to get you started. Just because you don't understand something doesn't mean it isn't logical.

I write all of this not to preach, but to make the point that to believe that there is no God (when logic is applied), requires a larger amount of faith in one's beliefs than any member of any other world religion, therefor, I would argue that atheism is a belief system based soley on faith, making it a religion.

Oh, you had a point.

You have not shown any evidence of applying any logic. You have not even shown evidence that you know what logic is. You have not shown that you require more faith to be an atheist than a believer, you merely pronounced it. Therefore, you've made no argument.

The huge point that the posters prior to me have missed is that atheism is also a religion because it worships something. It worships the act of avoiding and often hating God.

Wrong. Please demonstrate where, how and why this is the object of worship for atheism. The huge point that you seemed to have missed is that you know absolutely sod all about atheism other than what ever the idiot pastors, preachers, speakers or fellow believers you listen to have told you.

Nevermind all of that though, you can't even get your own bloody story straight. If atheists don't believe in gods, how can the object of their worship be the avoidance and hating of them? A good sign that you don't have a clue what you are talking about is when you start contradicting your own points.

It is a belief system that is rooted in worshipping self out of some anger toward or dissagreement with basic teachings of God.

And you have proof of this you would be happy to present to us?

they decide that if they remove God from the equation, then all of His overbearing rules are also non-existant, thus freeing man to be their own god and set their own rules.

Well, there have been times my children frustrate me. And disobey me certainly. Maybe I should follow gods rules and kill them both. You're right, his rules are much better. You are completely devoid of any sense of logic, compassion, reality and common sense.

Illogical and foolish: yes!, but all too common.

Best summation of religion I've ever seen.

The white elephant in this room is the question, why are you an atheist?

Because there is no evidence for the existence of gods. Why don't you believe in Claus?

If you stop lying to yourself, and really answer the question, it is because you are clinging to the hope that there is no Claus, and that if there is no Claus, then you are free to do whatever you want for the few years that you are on this planet, which is a sad hope.

Because if there is no God, then this truly is all we have to look forward to and those that suffer horribly have had a truly horrible lot in life: suffer and die.

And if there is a god, he lets them suffer horribly and die. If he exists, you can keep him. He's a jerk, no better than a kid pulling the wings of flies.

It also means that those who do good (or at least what we as humans have therefor defined as good) are fools that should have put more effort into enjoying the short life that they had rather than wasting it trying to help others.

You know, when it comes down to it, this is why the religious make me so uncomfortable. The only thing, and they admit this quite openly as Rich has here, the only thing keeping them from being rapists, murderers, selfish gluttons and hedonists is their tenuous grasp on some tepid morality promoted by their baseless belief in foundationless spirituality and myth. Take away god from these people, and they become monsters. You people are scary.

I on the other hand base my morality on the common and greater good, I carefully consider my actions and way up their potential for harm to others. Who is the more moral? I'll give you a clue Rich, it's not you. You are one church visit away from being despicable apparently.

I help people because I want to, you do it because you feel you have to. I know who sleeps better at night, I guarantee it.

The even larger group of fools would be those that gave up their lives (in battle or service) to save others because without a source of good (God) there is no garrantee that good would result for anyone that would survice or come later, and they have therefor given their life foolishly in that theirs is now forever over with no secure hope that good would result.

This is, in short, complete crap. First, prove gods are the source of good. Then come back and try again. You know, some of us do good because it is the right thing to do, because there are high ideals existing outside of religion. Apparently religious people do it because they believe there is something in it for them. That is not morality Rich, by any stretch of the term.

Do you see what a hopeless belief you are clingling to?

Please don't project your fears on to us.

A sad and miserable existance.

If you think that a happy existence is only doing right because you think a god has commanded you to, and to be servile and limited because of them, then I pity you.

Is whatever thing you are choosing over a belief in God worth the tradeoff? REALLY??? Logic says no.

Honestly, only the most limited and ridiculous religious person uses Pascal's Wager still. Good grief.

Logic actually would say yes. But please, explain your logic.

The final question would be: If you are truthful and logical, you will find that there are no gods, so what are you going to do with that? Answer (with a nod to John Hodge - link is NSFW): choose life.

I have written for too long already, and am not trying to be religious, as religions (including atheism) fail people. I am talking about recognizing Jesus for Who He is, and having a real relationship with Him, and thus knowing The God that created us, and enjoying eternal hope and life. Thy Him out, I guarrantee He will not let you down. There are many websites for finding out more info. I would recommend northridgechurch.com or northpoint.org as fantastic sources that cut through the religion and get to the facts and relationship.

I thought you weren't preaching or trying to be religious.

I mean really, that was your best shot?

[Jimmy_Blue]

Sorry for double posting.

Going back to god existing or not and the suffering of people.

Rich, you really should study the bible a lot more carefully and see what it says about suffering, people and god.

I guarantee it isn't what you think it says.

For those interested, Bart Ehrman's book "God's Problem" is well worth a read.

The answer is, 9 times out of 10, god sent the suffering.

LOL.

I always like when someone comes here and tries to foist 200 year old bad arguments. I wish they would just bother to read the rebuttals before writing their 'oh so smart' diatribes. Thanks BD for pointing him to talk origins. (BTW, is there a response somewhere to T.O. or is that currently the end of the debate?)

I'm just going to say this little thing that really irked me:

The overwelming number of religious practitioners in this world (those that think about how we got here) believe that there is at least one God that created this world

Here is why i think that Appeal to Numbers (argumentum ad Populum) is wrong. I'll break it down for you.

Historically, the great majority of the worlds population believed that the earth stood on the center of the solar system. now it is a belief thankfully only shared by a few wakaloons.

Historically most of the world's population believed in many gods. But now apparently one god has conquered all the roman, Greek, Egyptian, and norse gods (I'm not sure how Allah and Yahweh are getting along though)

Historically, Most people believed that with the right chemical reactions, you could make gold. But as it turns out, it would take a much bigger machine and understanding of particle physics in order to be able to do that (my particle physics is bad, I am thinking of smashing a proton into palladium, much like how they make the synthetic elements above 104).

But that was a long time ago, right? we don't believe those things any more.

Right now most of the world's population believes that one race is better than another. This is despite all the scientific evidence that skin color is no different than hair color with respect to a human beings performance.

Right now most of the world's population believes that nanotechnology is immoral. And ye they are happy to use the result of that very technology.

medicine is filled with things that most of the world considers wrong or immoral despite the fact that they have no problems using the results of those experiments or work.

So unless you actually come up with the logical reasoning as Jimmy asked, you are going to have to excuse us while we snicker at your appeals to popularity.

[Techskeptic]

always trouble with typekey :(

-tech

[Techskeptic]

I would recommend northridgechurch.com or northpoint.org as fantastic sources that cut through the religion and get to the facts and relationship.

LOL!

So I went to your links. Are you even aware that you are just getting money sucked out of you?

Where are all these so-called 'facts'? All I see are books for sale, talks to attend, and of course your mandatory bible lookup.

Where exactly are these so-called facts that are there to cut through the religion? All I see are things that require a credit card. What a joke.

Want to see a list of facts? Go to Bronze Dog's link. THAT cuts through nonsense, its free, and doesn't ask anything of you except to just read.

Yes, humans need community, they need family and tradition. All these things are great, and churches rely on this need as an income generator.

Of course other things provide this also without requiring its members to believe the unicorns (or Claus). Book clubs, hiking clubs, a good circle of friends, burning man. take your pick.

we can celebrate life, celebrate our similarities and differences, celebrate our successes and mourne our failures and losses. We can (and do) give to charities. we can do all these things, bringing ourselves together as communities all without requiring a belief in a sky daddy. We can do all these thing without imparting xenophobia based on something non-existent. We can do all these things without subjecting parts of our population to second class citizenship.