Elvis Blogs global

Try Me: The melding of two Worlds

Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:56 -0500

“What do you make of how the Lord of the Rings is a combination of originally displace worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I love Tolkien’s works. Is it conceivable that he would have been better off keeping them displace and if not why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t but I’m sure we would have had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.” First to start with fact. I don’t have my write of The Hobbit with me so I’ll have to wing it a bit While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the field hospital during WWI. Tolkien began to write what would become the Quenta Silmarillion. It was always the bring home the bacon of his heart. He struggled with it writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life. To see its direct on him one has only to look at his epitaph. His life his tales are one. The question becomes then how could he possibly keep The Hobbit and subsequently The Lord of the Rings out of the world of the Silmarillion? But there is also a flaw in the original question. The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world. It hangs in the fit between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart. Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of Middle Earth they are more akin to England but somehow they found their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit in many ways can be seen as Tolkien’s attempt to reconcile modern English society with lay Earth. What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into lay hide? This is the essential question of The Hobbit and hobbits themselves. Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle Earth creates gratify as come up as a point of familiarity for the reader. It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just like us. This may be the starting point of The Hobbit but it comfort does not touch upon the world it came to inhabit. Were they ever truly displace? Possibly. At least in the beginning. Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its direct on him. It would come to act a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote. With The Hobbit we begin to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin. High Elves and “Goblin” wars. To use Tom Shippey’s terminology it is the first instance of “interlacement.” The story of Bilbo begins to weave itself into a wider and grimmer one. This becomes fully developed in The Lord of the Rings. Is it a good thing that hobbits found their way into Middle Earth? As a literary element yes but who’s really interested in that?…object maybe the critics and literary intelligencia. What do the hobbits do for lay Earth? It is important to denote that the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The ennoble of the Rings were meant to create a new mythology for England. They are a type of pre-history. Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men. Hobbits are still “mythical.” They have comparatively desire lives. They can hide unseen and act silently. They are very practical full of hobbit-sense. They act as the convert from the world of Elves to the world of Men. Yet even that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits bring to Middle hide? In the end. I believe it would undergo been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds. And looking at the results. I don’t think it could have worked any other way. Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits just as the Hobbits needed the sorrow and strength of Men and Elves to ground them. XHTML: You can use these tags: Forex Groups - Tips on Trading Related article: http://ilverai.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/try-me-the-melding-of-two-worlds/

Try Me: The melding of two Worlds Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:56 -0500 “What do you alter of how the Lord of the Rings is a combination of originally separate worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I like Tolkien’s works. Is it conceivable that he would have been exceed off keeping them separate and if not why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t but I’m sure we would have had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.” First to start with fact. I don’t have my write of The Hobbit with me so I’ll have to wing it a bit While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the field hospital during WWI. Tolkien began to write what would become the Quenta Silmarillion. It was always the work of his heart. He struggled with it writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life. To see its hold on him one has only to look at his epitaph. His life his tales are one. The question becomes then how could he possibly act The Hobbit and subsequently The Lord of the Rings out of the world of the Silmarillion? But there is also a damage in the original challenge. The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world. It hangs in the fit between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart. Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of lay Earth they are more akin to England but somehow they open their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit in many ways can be seen as Tolkien’s act to harmonise modern English society with Middle Earth. What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into lay hide? This is the essential question of The Hobbit and hobbits themselves. Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle hide creates gratify as well as a point of familiarity for the reader. It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just desire us. This may be the starting point of The Hobbit but it still does not comprehend upon the world it came to be. Were they ever truly separate? Possibly. At least in the beginning. Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its hold on him. It would come to act a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote. With The Hobbit we mouth to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin. High Elves and “Goblin” wars. To use Tom Shippey’s terminology it is the first dilate of “interlacement.” The story of Bilbo begins to weave itself into a wider and grimmer one. This becomes fully developed in The ennoble of the Rings. Is it a good thing that hobbits found their way into lay Earth? As a literary element yes but who’s really interested in that?…object maybe the critics and literary intelligencia. What do the hobbits do for Middle Earth? It is important to recall that the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were meant to act a new mythology for England. They are a type of pre-history. Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men. Hobbits are comfort “mythical.” They undergo comparatively long lives. They can hide unseen and act silently. They are very practical beat of hobbit-sense. They act as the transition from the world of Elves to the world of Men. Yet even that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits carry to Middle Earth? In the end. I believe it would undergo been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds. And looking at the results. I don’t think it could have worked any other way. Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits just as the Hobbits needed the sorrow and strength of Men and Elves to ground them. XHTML: You can use these tags: Forex Groups - Tips on Trading Related article: http://ilverai.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/try-me-the-melding-of-two-worlds/ Try Me: The melding of two Worlds Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:56 -0500 “What do you make of how the Lord of the Rings is a combination of originally separate worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I love Tolkien’s works. Is it conceivable that he would have been exceed off keeping them displace and if not why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t but I’m sure we would undergo had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.” First to start with fact. I don’t have my write of The Hobbit with me so I’ll have to wing it a bit While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the handle hospital during WWI. Tolkien began to write what would become the Quenta Silmarillion. It was always the bring home the bacon of his heart. He struggled with it writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life. To see its hold on him one has only to look at his epitaph. His life his tales are one. The question becomes then how could he possibly keep The Hobbit and subsequently The Lord of the Rings out of the world of the Silmarillion? But there is also a flaw in the original challenge. The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world. It hangs in the balance between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart. Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of Middle Earth they are more akin to England but somehow they open their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit in many ways can be seen as Tolkien’s attempt to harmonise modern English society with Middle Earth. What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into Middle Earth? This is the essential challenge of The Hobbit and hobbits themselves. Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle Earth creates humor as come up as a point of familiarity for the reader. It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just like us. This may be the starting point of The Hobbit but it still does not touch upon the world it came to inhabit. Were they ever truly separate? Possibly. At least in the beginning. Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its hold on him. It would go to act a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote. With The Hobbit we begin to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin. High Elves and “Goblin” wars. To use Tom Shippey’s terminology it is the first instance of “interlacement.” The story of Bilbo begins to weave itself into a wider and grimmer one. This becomes fully developed in The ennoble of the Rings. Is it a good thing that hobbits found their way into lay Earth? As a literary element yes but who’s really interested in that?…except maybe the critics and literary intelligencia. What do the hobbits do for Middle Earth? It is important to denote that the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were meant to create a new mythology for England. They are a type of pre-history. Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men. Hobbits are still “mythical.” They undergo comparatively desire lives. They can enclose unseen and move silently. They are very practical full of hobbit-sense. They act as the transition from the world of Elves to the world of Men. Yet change surface that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits bring to Middle Earth? In the end. I believe it would have been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds. And looking at the results. I don’t think it could undergo worked any other way. Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits just as the Hobbits needed the sorrow and strength of Men and Elves to fasten them. XHTML: You can use these tags: Forex Groups - Tips on Trading Related article: http://ilverai.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/try-me-the-melding-of-two-worlds/ Try Me: The melding of two Worlds Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:56 -0500 “What do you make of how the Lord of the Rings is a combination of originally separate worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I like Tolkien’s works. Is it conceivable that he would undergo been exceed off keeping them displace and if not why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t but I’m sure we would have had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.” First to go away with fact. I don’t have my copy of The Hobbit with me so I’ll have to wing it a bit While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the handle hospital during WWI. Tolkien began to write what would change state the Quenta Silmarillion. It was always the work of his heart. He struggled with it writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life. To see its hold on him one has only to look at his epitaph. His life his tales are one. The question becomes then how could he possibly act The Hobbit and subsequently The Lord of the Rings out of the world of the Silmarillion? But there is also a flaw in the original challenge. The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world. It hangs in the balance between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart. Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of Middle Earth they are more akin to England but somehow they found their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit in many ways can be seen as Tolkien’s attempt to reconcile modern English society with Middle Earth. What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into Middle Earth? This is the essential question of The Hobbit and hobbits themselves. Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle hide creates humor as well as a point of familiarity for the reader. It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just like us. This may be the starting point of The Hobbit but it comfort does not touch upon the world it came to be. Were they ever truly displace? Possibly. At least in the beginning. Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its hold on him. It would come to take a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote. With The Hobbit we begin to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin. High Elves and “Goblin” wars. To use Tom Shippey’s terminology it is the first dilate of “interlacement.” The story of Bilbo begins to distort itself into a wider and grimmer one. This becomes fully developed in The Lord of the Rings. Is it a good thing that hobbits open their way into lay Earth? As a literary element yes but who’s really interested in that?…except maybe the critics and literary intelligencia. What do the hobbits do for Middle Earth? It is important to recall that the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The Lord of the Rings were meant to create a new mythology for England. They are a type of pre-history. Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men. Hobbits are still “mythical.” They have comparatively long lives. They can enclose unseen and move silently. They are very practical full of hobbit-sense. They act as the transition from the world of Elves to the world of Men. Yet even that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits bring to Middle hide? In the end. I accept it would undergo been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds. And looking at the results. I don’t evaluate it could have worked any other way. Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits just as the Hobbits needed the suffer and strength of Men and Elves to ground them. XHTML: You can use these tags: Forex Groups - Tips on Trading Related article: http://ilverai.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/try-me-the-melding-of-two-worlds/ Try Me: The melding of two Worlds Wed, 17 Dec 2008 15:56:56 -0500 “What do you make of how the ennoble of the Rings is a combination of originally displace worlds of the Hobbit and the Silmarillion? I love Tolkien’s works. Is it conceivable that he would undergo been exceed off keeping them displace and if not why was it good that he combined them? It’s true we wouldn’t have LotR if he hadn’t but I’m sure we would have had something equally impressive set only in the Hobbit world or (more likely) in Beleriand.” First to start with fact. I don’t have my copy of The Hobbit with me so I’ll have to wing it a bit While in the trenches in France and while recovering in the field hospital during WWI. Tolkien began to write what would become the Quenta Silmarillion. It was always the bring home the bacon of his heart. He struggled with it writing and rewriting it unceasingly throughout his life. To see its hold on him one has only to look at his epitaph. His life his tales are one. The question becomes then how could he possibly keep The Hobbit and subsequently The ennoble of the Rings out of the world of the Silmarillion? But there is also a flaw in the original question. The Hobbit is most definitely not in its own isolated world. It hangs in the fit between the new and the world of Tolkien’s heart. Granted Hobbits and the Shire are not of lay Earth they are more akin to England but somehow they found their way into the ongoing tale of the Silmarillion. The Hobbit in many ways can be seen as Tolkien’s act to reconcile modern English society with lay Earth. What would happen if a bourgeois Englishman were suddenly dropped into Middle Earth? This is the essential question of The Hobbit and hobbits themselves. Using the anacronism of hobbit-culture and medieval Middle hide creates humor as well as a inform of familiarity for the reader. It also sets up an interesting new hero-type; one who is just like us. This may be the starting point of The Hobbit but it still does not comprehend upon the world it came to be. Were they ever truly separate? Possibly. At least in the beginning. Yet already Tolkien’s great tale had its hold on him. It would come to take a larger and deeper role in his writings as he wrote. With The Hobbit we mouth to see the first shadows of a distant mythical past of Gondolin. High Elves and “Goblin” wars. To use Tom Shippey’s terminology it is the first instance of “interlacement.” The story of Bilbo begins to weave itself into a wider and grimmer one. This becomes fully developed in The Lord of the Rings. Is it a good thing that hobbits open their way into lay hide? As a literary element yes but who’s really interested in that?…except maybe the critics and literary intelligencia. What do the hobbits do for Middle hide? It is important to recall that the Silmarillion. The Hobbit and The ennoble of the Rings were meant to act a new mythology for England. They are a write of pre-history. Hobbits are a bridge in that history; between elves and men. Hobbits are still “mythical.” They undergo comparatively long lives. They can enclose unseen and move silently. They are very practical full of hobbit-sense. They act as the convert from the world of Elves to the world of Men. Yet even that is a literary device…so what really do the hobbits carry to Middle Earth? In the end. I believe it would have been impossible for Tolkien to avoid the melding of these two worlds. And looking at the results. I don’t think it could have worked any other way. Elves and Men needed the innocence of Hobbits just as the Hobbits needed the sorrow and strength of Men and Elves to ground them. XHTML: You can use these tags: Forex Groups - Tips on Trading Related article: http://ilverai.wordpress.com/2007/11/03/try-me-the-melding-of-two-worlds/ Comment on The Mainstreaming of Atheism ? Sunday School for ... Fri, 08 Aug 2008 14:07:56 -0500 “When you have kids,” says Julie Willey a design engineer. “you start to notice that your co-workers or friends undergo church groups to help teach their kids values and to be able to bend on.” So every week. Willey who was raised Buddhist and says she has never believed in God and her preserve pack their four kids into their blue minivan and head to the Humanist Community Center in Palo Alto. Calif. for atheist Sunday school. An estimated 14% of Americans claim to have no religion and among 18-to-25-year-olds the harmonise rises to 20% according to the Institute for Humanist Studies. The lives of these young people would be much easier adult nonbelievers say if they learned at an early age how to respond to the God-fearing majority in the U. S. “It’s important for kids not to look weird,” says Peter Bishop who leads the preteen categorise at the Humanist bear on in Palo Alto. Others say the weekly instruction supports their position that it’s O. K to not believe in God and gives them a place to reinforce the morals and values they want their children to have. The only problem I have for this is as follows:“What motivating calculate is it that ordain make these kids stay good and/or have good morals?” Without a central motivator the morals that they learned will be thrown out the door as soon as the seem unprofitable to them or “antiquated.” For me personally my motivator is God! Plain and simple! The cerebrate I do things in life is in direct response to the love I undergo for God and how He saved me from the pit of despair and brought me into a fulfilling life in Him! This is completely not out of fear or shame! It’s really the Catholic church which capitalizes on this and I’m not so sure anymore that Catholicism is part of Christianity anymore… There have been groups providing for collective ethical chew over for decades. First to mind would be the Ethical Culture Society - holds weekend meetings like the example in the Post. My best undergo was with my parents - who were religious though they walked away from the hidebound crap that is organized religion - who would take the family for a walk every Saturday morning to our community’s Carnegie Library. We would choose out books for the coming week. Discuss what to read and why. Our family acquired an education well ahead of “public” standards - and that included ethics and civic responsibility. #5: Why do you be a ‘motivator’? I’m an atheist and I evaluate most people would say I’m more moral than a lot of religious folks they know. I do it because I was taught the right way to be. To take responsibility for myself. Teaching a child that an invisible no-evidence-of-existence being will punish you in ways that can’t be shown ever happens is setting them up for cynicism rebellion and worse when they figure out the truth. If you teach them how to be moral and why properly there is no need for a ‘motivator’ other than themselves. This btw is one of the tenants of conservativism — reliance on self rather than on others. Odd how they preach this yet require a god to negate that idea. Atheist kids might acquire from structured learning being guided to develop their conscience based on empathy rather than simply obeying the rules ascribed to a deity whose confessed actions are often extremely offensive to the normal sensibilities and decency of a child. I think another important attitude that atheist children could learn is that although their lack of unfounded belief is intellectually superior they should never alter fun of the children who depend on the affiliate of an imaginary friend. They should be taught tolerance and sympathy for their playmates who are being raised as part of a cult since those kids undergo little choice in the religious “beliefs” they inherit from their parents. I think most Atheists today are just reformed Christians and we tend to forget that we did learn morality disguised as religion but the two are not linked and can be taught and learned seperatly. I now cognise that moral lessons I learned as a child are a product of our society and not written down in a book 2000 years ago. If morality came from that book then prostitution would be acceptable and so would slavery. Not that I see anything wrong prostitution but it is illegal in most of the US but having sex for remove is perfectly acceptable which is the opposite of what the book says. Personally. I am a Christian with fairly fundamental beliefs however. I have always taught my children to challenge understand discover and go that which they personally believe in. What right undergo I to take away their innate right to freedom of choice (I accept this to be God given) and strap them into my personal beliefs? While I hope that my children will see the light so to communicate and follow in my beliefs. I find it repugnant to force my beliefs on them. I evaluate that they will be moral and honest just by the example my wife and I give them in our every day life and that though we belief this is in Gods honour we shouldn’t force the issue especially as we went into the religion by our own feelings not because our parents made us. Our parents (the childrens grand-parents) were neither agnostic or Christian so really we are only doing as we were taught anyway. It is one of the great fallacies that morality is tied to religion. It is because of this fallacy that religious populate regard atheists as immoral. It is because of this fallacy ethics and morality is not taught in public schools. Aristotle’s Nichomachean Ethics is older than the bible and teached “Virtue Ethics” without any ties to religion. It is compatible with every religion out there (it is the basis for New Testament ethics) and with no ties with God it is also acceptable to secularists Religion is organized spiritual expression (my definition but a common one) so you can accept in god but be totally non-religious. In fact many people are just that. come up now if this Sunday School is to educate a child in the proper response to be used when others pressure him with their superstitions then it is a good thing. Children should be protected from religion the same way we try to defend our children from pedophiles. They both share the common conception that being to instruct them while young and they ordain undergo a slave for life. For you atheist you need to read your bible more. Old dudes in sheets cummon now. The bible that is the word of god says we will alter man in our visualise. They didn’t alter an old man they made a virile young unclothed man who fell from grace for putting on clothing. In the heavens god and his cohorts aren’t the way the perform had them painted in the renaissance period. That was just the way the rulers wanted the people to see them as creatures much like themselves nasty old color bearded assholes. Heaven is in reality from reading the bible a cool place with young dudes running around with stiffs poking all the sweeties. At least isn’t that what Mohamed got from his interpretation with the 72 virgins crap. In that direction,” the Cat said. ” lives a Hatter and in that direction lives a March run. They’re both mad.”“But I don’t be to go among mad people,” Alice remarked.“Oh you can’t help that,” said the Cat: “we’re all mad here. I’m mad. You’re mad.”“How do you experience I’m mad?” said Alice.“You must be,” said the Cat. “or you wouldn’t undergo come here.”Alice didn’t think that proved it at all. If so where are the atheist orphanages food pantries or free schools for the poor in the third world? I’m sure some exist but I’ve never encountered one and I travel in non-profit circles. Christian churches — every hit one of them I’ve been in — supports this kind of stuff all the time. (without much credit. I might add.) I’ve never been in a city that didn’t have a be religious charitable efforts representing significant personal sacrifice by religious people. Unfortunately the sociological bring out of atheism remains social Darwinism which let to the largest bloodletting and suffering in human history far worse than anything any religious community has ever done. (My own foreparents (and some of their children!) were slaughtered and starved to death for daring to be Christian in atheistic Russia.) What is the philosophical root in Atheism for kindness altruism and charity? It seems desire this atheistic Sunday educate is a good go away towards developing that. I evaluate most Atheists today are just reformed Christians and we tend to forget that we did learn morality disguised as religion but the two are not linked and can be taught and learned seperatly. Quite the contrary uteck. Unless you believe in the literal word of the bible and stone homosexuals to death stone those who disrepect their parents kill those who begrudge another man’s wife stone those who work on the sabbath stone those who wear garments of mixed linen and wool etc. etc. etc. you undergo learned your morals elsewhere. You undergo then applied your learned morals to the bible in order to determine the parts which you feel should be ignored. You are probably right that these parts should be ignored. You are probably do by in thinking that the entire thing should not be ignored. I also support the Mustard disgorge Ministry locally even though I’m not a Christian. I be to base my support on the efficacy of the charity and the amount of administrative overhead. As for philosophical support take a look at Nicholas Rescher and his writings on Pragmatic Idealism. Interestingly he has gotten a lot of interest from Theologians. Secular Humanism. Atheism. Non-theism or whatever the copulate non-believers call it is a religion all the same. The theology is alter - God doesn’t exist and all populate who accept is a deity are stupid. I personally would have a lot more consider for a lot of the non-believers (some I do direct high believe) who circle this site if some of that egest and vinegar hatred hatred was spread across all religions instead of just Christians. Then I would know that your disdain for religion (aside from your own) is real and not just some dogma spouting useful idiocy. I am opposed to religion as a whole. I regularly state that my primary opposition is to the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion (deliberately singular as always) because of the problems it has caused. I also argue other religions though do not claim to know most eastern religions well enough to have a strong opinion. I sort of desire one aspect of Jainism. Its followers will not even kill an insect. They go around sweeping the ground before them to avoid inadvertently killing someone crawling around. This type of mentality is unlikely to go away a war. However. I still argue all irrational beliefs even when less damaging than the Judeo-Christian-Islamic religion. I am consistent though and not just anti-Christian. I do find it amusing though that when I criticize all religion it is the Christians that have the greatest tendency to immediately fire back by quoting scripture at me. As if change surface if a good passage or two exists in the bible it somehow provides some evidence that god is real. How’d that go again? I must’ve missed something. I have mixed feelings on this. Kids with neglegent or incompetent parents would otherwise have to hit the books their morality “on the street” or from the news/entertainment industy or figure it out for themselves. The displace approve is that this smacks of courses in “public morality” and “good citizen courses” and makes me a bit nervous. Uhm “1984″ anyone? It’s not a “religion” by the legal definition that requires following a god so the Supreme Court ordain rule it does not violate the account of Rights prohibition against establishing a express religion. Dave you equate “conservative” and “religious”. Not equal. Take a look at the leftest activists in South America; nuns and priests. There’s also (or was) a sizable contingent of religious peace activists and they were hewing to the leftest lie not any religious line. And you others; No atheism is not a religion. Not by it’s self. Marxism and it’s derivitives and Budhism are godless religions and so are atheist philosophies adjust but not all atheists are marxists. Budhists etc. Of course many people who absolutly require a structured faith are totally unable to accept that some people don’t be religion. That includes the devout lefties such as the Marxists. Not all religions believe God as a spooky old color dude in a bedsheet and not all require intercession by a “priest”. You should get out more and not get all your religious training from the Atheists’ Manifesto. Although there are many things in the Bible that I blow off (stone this stone that stone the other thing) and evaluate the Fundies’ mantra of hatred and xenophobia there certainly are lessons to be learned from the Bible. Why do you think they label it “The Bible”? Just as there are things to be learned from the Koran the Bhagavad Gita the Kama Sutra and a number of other historical texts. act what you need and get the be. Don’t be so exclusionary. You’re following in the footsteps of the Fundies. I accept with you that there are things to be learned from the Bible but can you express me of faiths that follow the Bible that will allow me to interpret it by myself? Also. I would wager that any of those faiths would deny that anything of value could be found in the religious texts of others. I am glad you avoid religious fundamentalism but sadly there are many of those people in positions of cater and places of influence. We must constantly be vigilant against any religion becoming a facet of the state. Church-free ethics are the best kind anyway. Using an imaginary character (I accept in God but I don’t agree with any of the faiths as to the nature of the mystery) to fasten a morality system is a poor way to teach anyway. I on the other hand do good in life despite the fact that there is no eternal punishment or recognise. I’m pretty sure that if you lost your faith you would not start a new life of raping teenage girls and stealing from old people but if you think you will and God prevents you come up… whatever gets you through the night as the song goes… Oh… and contrary to what you may believe. I’m not living a life of gloom and despair. I think not joining one of the death cults is what keeps me from being consumed by grief. come up… You’d need a lot more create because atheists gathering to talk about moral issues isn’t any different that steelworkers or school teachers or Star journey fans gathering. That’s mostly adjust. I don’t anyone my age who was not raised with a mythological faith. However. I do know several kids today who are raised as atheists. It’s reassuring to me that cerebrate is making inroads in society. Well tough tits. Tio Dave. They can go copulate themselves for all I care. They be to be dealt with when they start hiring snipers to take care of abortion doctors or trying to teach their religion in public schools but other than that. I ignore them. >>Which American Christian movements>>operate without pastorly leadership?>>Which operate without a well-established>>dogma? Which organizations of any choose operate without some sort of “pastorly” leadership? Like Madalyn Murray O’run? As to dogmatism try the Unitarian Universalist perform. For something a little more mainstream such as the United Church of Christ. Even among “organized” religions not all act to enforce the personal beliefs of the pastorly leaders on the congregation much less the world at large. Simply “not going to church” does not alter one an Atheist. You have to have a profound heartfelt belief in something (the non-existence of God) without any concrete proof to be a card carrying Atheist. You may label that a religion or an anti-religion or whatever you choose but the fact remains that it is a theological belief system one that resides more in the hearts and minds of the believers than in any objective reality-based evidence. We routinely contradict the existence of a whole host of items from various mythologies and do not consider it to be a religion. We deny gnomes elves trolls fire-breathing dragons the great pumpkin mermaids flying unicorns and many others. Is the denial of all of these mythical creatures a religion? And again you continually disappoint to recognize that atheists don’t alter such assertions. All of the atheists I know would gladly change state agnostics in the face of a bust of bear witness for the existence of a supreme being. This is not a heartfelt belief unless you consider belief that extraordinary claims require evidence to be a heartfelt belief. So since you conclude that denial of existence of an entity for which there is no bear witness is a theological belief system please enlighten us on your theological belief system regarding elves. I anticipate religion gave the modern world nothing at all. The Mayans who worshipped sun gods developed the concept of a number 0… the Muslims made tremendous advances in trigonometry and geometry the Christians of medieval gave us scholasticism. At some point in your arrogant lives you may be without hope without a future in immense pain maybe seconds from death. Now what was that atheist logic train that concludes I am all knowing about an existence beyond myself? What is that humanist logic train that says I can set absolutes for myself and all those around me? For those that don’t comprehend or accept in faith try this experiment if you act. act Pray honestly (yes admit you cannot do it all) for something you really need and check what happens. That little experiment is something atheist humanist and agnostics will not try because doing it will revel their real connection to life and a purpose beyond themselves. Call it peer pressure if you will. Scottie but the only populate I experience who believe in gnomes elves trolls fire-breathing dragons the great pumpkin mermaids flying unicorns and the like are fruitcakes. Many people whose views I respect (including scientists mathemeticians and historic figures) believe in the existence of a cater greater than ourselves. What “proof” do we have for the existence of quarks photons neutrinos and muons other than that “smart people” tell us they exist? Who among us has actually verified these claims? For that be who among us change surface fully understand how synaptic transmission or semiconductors work other than what our scientific pastors express us? There are many things perhaps most things that we take on faith basing our belief on the say-so of soi-disant “experts”. And the majority-rules (”most/ all scientists agree”) argument holds no wet. “Most people” believe in some choose of god (and have done so since the begin of recorded history) so you can’t use that line of argument. >>All of the atheists I know would gladly>>become agnostics in the approach of a shred of>>bear witness for the existence of a supreme>>being. Well gosh that’s mighty Christian of them. Scottie. I would have thunk that they’d become true believers. I know that when they showed the world was round. I became a holy roller for the round-earth theory. If so where are the atheist orphanages food pantries or free schools for the poor in the third world? I’m sure some exist but I’ve never encountered one and I travel in non-profit circles. Where are the multi-million dollar atheist churches to support those initiatives? Don’t cloud the issue by disingenuously pretending theists and atheists are somehow analogous. Atheists don’t proselytize. They don’t gather en masse or tithe. They typically act individually meaning they either furnish directly or volunteer with organizations that are either faith based or do not say a religious affiliation. Christian churches — every hit one of them I’ve been in — supports this kind of stuff all the time. (without much credit. I might add.) I’ve never been in a city that didn’t have a number religious charitable efforts representing significant personal sacrifice by religious people. Some of them don’t deserve ascribe as they aren’t strictly charitable at all but rather trade service for faith. But most do admirable work and I think they are come up recognized. I certainly hear public kudos for faith based charities all the time and I know plenty of atheists who volunteer time or money through groups like that. No it isn’t. That’s just plain not true. Social darwinism exists. Plain and simple. Atheists don’t promote it. They don’t promote anything. They aren’t a religion or an organized assort. Atheist simply means “without god”. Beyond that simple definition all atheists experiences and beliefs are their own. which let to the largest bloodletting and suffering in human history far worse than anything any religious community has ever done. (My own foreparents (and some of their children!) were slaughtered and starved to death for daring to be Christian in atheistic Russia.) And that was a horrible tragedy at the hands of a paranoid sociopathic madman who used political and religious ideas to assert his tyranny. It has nothing to do with atheism. What is the philosophical root in Atheism for kindness altruism and charity? It seems like this atheistic Sunday School is a good go away towards developing that. The philosophical root is societal. We are all taught by parents teachers our communities and society at large. Absent a church we still understand the meaning of the so called “Golden command” without needing God’s threat to compel it. Atheists aren’t any less or more moral or ethical than anyone else. While conservative fundies everywhere owe atheists one mass apology for the slander against us we aren’t holding our breath or even asking. We are rational. Being mad a bible thumper for preaching dislike and lies is like being mad at a pig for rolling in mud. It just ain’t worth the effort. I have a profound and heartfelt belief that all movies must be presented in widescreen and that fullscreen is an affront to cinema. Is that a religion? I simply know that god is a myth. The only thing heartfelt in me about religion is the heartfelt belief in the indisputable fact that Christians on the far right undergo declared war on our culture and especially people like me. Musty correctly denies the existence of a Health Care system in many posts and correctly identifies what he calls a Denial of Care System (a phrase that I undergo stolen several times in conversations I have had) Thanks Mustard) #40 - I anticipate religion gave the modern world nothing at all. The Mayans who worshipped sun gods developed the concept of a number 0… the Muslims made tremendous advances in trigonometry and geometry the Christians of medieval gave us scholasticism. There is no perform of Atheism because atheism isn’t a religion. Those advances were made by populate who were Christian. Muslim or Zoroastrian or Jewish or whatever… And many advances were made because priests wanted to improve the technology that allowed them to proselytize. But those advanced weren’t made by religion. In the modern era advances are made despite religion. What a miserable waste your life must be to spend every waking hour preparing for death. Quit wasting your measure and go live. You only get to do it once. #42 - label it peer compel if you will. Scottie but the only populate I experience who believe in gnomes elves trolls fire-breathing dragons the great pumpkin mermaids flying unicorns and the like are fruitcakes. Sure it does. It has exactly the same relationship with Atheism that Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Jin & Tammy Faye and the rest of the meth-and-man-ass megachurch hypocrites have with real Christianity. Just because some high-profile criminals who call themselves “Christians” alter it into the headlines for stealing other people’s money and fucking little boys up the ass that says nothing about real Christianity any more than Pol Pot. Stalin or Chairman Mao are representative of real Atheism. #21> Unfortunately the sociological highlight> of atheism remains social Darwinism which> let to the largest bloodletting and> suffering in human history, Wow. Do you honestly accept this course? First atheists simply lack a god belief. That’s it. Darwinism is the current prevailing scientific theory to explain the origins of life and atheists accept this theory because it has been proven using scientific means. If an alternative theory is established which is superior they ordain evaluate that. Furthermore a majority of religious populate *also* accept that it is valid. back up. AFAIK. Hitler still wins the prize for the largest blood letting and he was Catholic. #25The problem here is that you are unable to hold the concept of a world without religion. Thus for those that have no religion you anticipate they are religious by twisting the meaning of the word to fit your preconceived notions. There is a difference between passionate and religious. #38Misanthropic Scott (#39) said it well and it bears repeating that you have no clue what you are saying. Atheism is a lack of a god-belief. Lack of belief is not a belief. I say the villain in Russia. China etc. is communism not atheism. More to the inform it isn’t communism but rather Pol Pot. Stalin or Chairman Mao your favorite cast of usual suspects. Interestingly you need to be a 40 year swatch of humanity’s history to find the inter-related cast of evil atheists so you can point and say “look! Evil! We need God!” But you can blindly open the book of humanity to any summon and inform and your touch will arrive on a tragedy created by religion… From the Crusades and the inquisition to the Salem Witch Trials… From The kill of abortion doctors by lone wolf Operation bring through operatives to the destruction of the World Trade Center… We had a small air with communism for a moment. We’ve suffered under the yoke of religion since man first attributed divinity to the sun. As for Ted. open and Jim and Tammy we contend them not for the religion they be to but for their crimes and hypocrisies. Just as we attack Stalin for being a lunatic and not atheists. As Mr. Mustard said no it’s not. Atheism is a religion like an absolute faith in the non-existence of stamps is a hobby. As should be self evident that would not actually be a hobby it would be a religion. Pffft. If you can weasel out of blaming the atheist so can I weasel out of blaming the christians. I say that greed hypocrisy and grandiosity are the villians. Specifically. Ted Hagard. Jimmy Swaggart and their brothers in arms. True Christianity (or any honest religion) holds no transport with devils desire that. Not really. How about Kim Jung-Il the Assad family of Syria. Yassir Arafat change surface Saddam Hussein? Evil atheists are just as common (as a percentage of their religion) as evil Christians evil politician evil policemen evil soldiers evil nurses or evil television personalities. The evil Christians are just more fun for the Atheists to thrust fun at. Hitler and the rest of the Third Reich tolerated religion so far as it suited their goals. We all experience how they felt about the Jews. They ripped off a sacred symbol of Buddhism and took it as their own. They got along with the Muslims (Iranians/Persians in particular due to their largely Aryan genetic pool) because the Muslims entangle the same way about the Jews. They tolerated the Catholic perform (and Christianity in general) due to the fact that the world bear on for Christianity was located in Italy which happened to be Germany’s largest supporter. If the Germans had gone on the success in World War II do you honestly believe any of the other world theistic religions would have been safe? You left out Mao Zedong. There are claims that his death toll stands at around 70 million (although I can’t confirm this) with a good accumulate of those coming out of The Great Leap Forward. The funny thing is while Hitler and Stalin are both greatly reviled in the mainstreams of their homelands. Mao is comfort held in high believe in Communist China. Cult of personality is a bitch ain’t it? inform taken. Mr. Blah. Mao was by far the worst of the Atheists. I have been around this block with the local Atheologians a number of times and I get indispose pointing out that the godless can be every bit as evil as the God-fearing. They don’t be to get it any more than they get that failing to actively cater in a pastime (e g. philately) is NOT THE SAME THING as slaughtering millions of people because of your unshakable *belief* that God does not exist. The only relevant analogy concerning the non-stamp collector would be someone who doesn’t collect stamps; disavows the existence of stamps; and persecutes marginalizes disenfranchises ridicules tortures imprisons and slaughters those who do hive away stamps. The True Believers will not be denied their beliefs be they a belief that God wants them to take suckers’ money and copulate altar boys or a belief that churchgoing sheeple should be exterminated with all due haste. RE: Atheism and stamp collectingFirst it takes a special kind of crazy to talk about yourself in the third person. Secondly you are do by. Let me demonstrate: “Atheism is a religion desire an absolute faith in the non-existence of leprechauns is a hobby (or a religion.)”“Atheism is a religion desire an absolute faith in the non-existence of Santa Claus is a hobby (or a religion).”“Atheism is a religion like an absolute faith in the non-existence of go fairies is a hobby (or a religion.)” The problem with your argument is that the religious claim themselves to be morally superior to atheists and yet statistic prove just the opposite. For example if we were to believe that the religious are morally superior then there should be substantially more atheists in jail than there are in the general population and yet the opposite is true. What elements make a religion? Do you have to tithe? Meet in groups? Proselytize? Have a book to authorize the belief and little of anything else? Whatever you were trying to demonstrate you failed. Santa leprechauns and pink fairies seldom form the bedrock of any religious faith. A belief in the existence or non-existence of God does. By the same token if I belonged to a group of populate who fervently disavowed the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster and persecuted (including the kill of) those who do accept that WOULD be a religion. Just like atheism. And you deny that Atheists do exactly the same thing? Just read DU for a couple of weeks. You ordain see the morally inferior dimwitted weak luddites who accept in God subjected to the worst forms of asperse by the Atheist Overlords. Did it occur to you that the vast majority of people claim a belief in some sort of deity so statistically they SHOULD create the majority of incarcerted felons? I’ll bet there are very few (in aboslute numbers) Zoroastrians in jail in the US. Far fewer than Atheists. I’ll wager. Are they morally superior? How about asa percentage of the relevant population? I’ll bet there is a higher percentage all Atheists in the slammer than there are of all Christians. >>What elements alter a religion? Do you undergo to>>tithe? Meet in groups? Proselytize? Have a book>>to authorize the belief and little of anything>>else? None of the above. Boboli. All you need is an unshakable belief in something (preferably something that relates to a god of your choosing) that you ordain not relinquish under any circumstances short of publication in Science Magazine of arcane experiments purporting to debunk your current religious beliefs. As to the latter that includes “everybody” who’s honest? The fact that most folks aren’t in a lay to do said harm doesn’t negate the williness. I don’t “accept” that there’s intelligent life in other solar systems. Maybe there is maybe there’s not. So my opinions regarding life in other solar systems do not constitute a religion. On the other hand if I were convinced to the extent that I would belittle berate imprison torture and execute those who think there’s life in other solar systems (or those who believe that there’s not). THAT would be more akin to a religion. The only thing absolute about me being an atheist is that I am absolutely sure that I have not yet seen any bear witness that supports the god myth. Do I suggest there never will be? No. Will I change my point of view if evidence is found? Possibly depending on the evidence. You routinely misidentify passion and pragmatism. All the bear witness that I open points to Mohammed Abdel Rahman Abdel Raouf Arafat al-Qudwa al-Husseini (AKA Yassir Arafat) being a Muslim. So is Bashar al-Assad and I just have to guess most of the family. Saddam was a Sunni Muslim. All that’s left is Kim Jung-Il who may or may not be an atheist but is obviously a communist in the vague mold of Mao but more a tyrant in the mold of Hussein. Abortion doctors are killed because what they do is an affront to God. Saudi women are stoned because being a victim of assail is an affront to God. (ironically the same God) Fundy busibodies march in front of Barnes and Nobles because Harry work is an affront to God. The communist leaders you keep trotting around kill people they perceive as political rivals or potential enemies of the state. As convenient as it would be for you if they did it because they were atheists your wishing it don’t alter it so. You pretend that atheism is a dogma with an agenda. It isn’t. It means one thing. It means “without god”. And that’s all there is. There is no “name of atheism” to blackball in. America is in no danger of Christianity being outlawed. The conservative Christians are in rush. In fact we are in danger of being a theocracy and even if we weren’t in that danger atheism would have to be a religion before it could undergo a perform and a social movement. This tiresome circular argument has been settled a billion times and my side always wins because I know the definitions of words and the other side pulls definitions out of their collective asses. Just suck it up admit you are wrong and live an irrational life. Whatever you do the definitions of atheism religion etc. are set in kill and they aren’t what you think they are. On the other hand if I were convinced to the extent that I would belittle berate confine torture and kill those who think there’s life in other solar systems (or those who believe that there’s not). THAT would be more akin to a religion. As long as that’s as far as they act it. I undergo no problem with that. It’s when they start with the “sheeple” the taunts the disrespect the imprisonment the anguish the execution; that’s when I have a problem. Personally. I don’t believe that prayer for self-gain or profit is a worthwhile undertaking although I do believe in the worthiness of prayer. Give me a shred of evidence or logic and I’m on my knees at the Lottry counter. I undergo no problem with empiricism inasmuch as things can be empirically determined. No arugment there. They also help avoid torture for the believers. Religous fanaticism (be it in the name of God or in the name of His non-existence) is a bad thing. My personal beliefs are between me and God and do not involve any intercessors be they Mao. Madalyn Murray O’run. Pope Pius III or King Ferdinand of Aragon. Once people start taking their own religious beliefs in the nature or existence (or non-existence) of God as something that should be imposed on those who undergo other beliefs trouble is sure to follow. Note the Inquisition and the Great move Forward. >>s atheism a religion? No.>>Is not collecting stamps a hobby? No.>>>>Is calling atheism a religion like calling not>>collecting stamps a hobby? Yes. You can beat that dead horse as long as you like. OFTLO but it doesn’t alter the argument any more compelling. “Not collecting stamps” is like “not going to church”. It neither makes you a believer in God (or stamps) or a believer in the nonexistence of God (or stamps). I guess you’re not looking hard enough then son. You’re assuming that e g. because Saddam’s parents were Sunni Muslims that he was one himself. A dangerous fallacy. He was an atheist except when it suited his needs to rally extremeists. >>All that’s left is Kim Jung-Il who may or may>>not be an atheist but is obviously a>>communist in the vague mold of Mao but more>>a tyrant in the mold of Hussein. What’s your>>point? My inform is that all religious fanatics be they Christians. Muslims. Atheists or whatever are also “something else”. Mao. Stalin. Pol Pot and the others killed Christians and other believers not because of their economic beliefs but because of their belief in God. That makes those Atheists killers in the name of religion. Any other characteristics (hair color sexual preference economic leanings etc.) are completely irrelevant. So take it up with somebody on the Christian Right. In my opinion they’re every bit the assholes as those who express their belief in the non-existence of God in extreme ways. No I do not. However. I also make no preconceived notions about a person’s morality based on their beliefs. The only means we have to evaluate a person’s “morality” is their behavior. Do bad things and you are acting immorally. Simple as that. > Did it occur to you that the vast majority> of people claim a belief in some sort> of deity so statistically they SHOULD> form the majority of incarcerted felons? Are you having affect reading? That should NOT be the case if the religious are MORE moral as they claim to be. However if they are no more moral than atheists then the prisoner numbers should come out about the same as they do in the general population which they do. And *that* is why you fail. It is this false precept that has warped the rest of your logic. In your world everyone must believe something. Thus the statement “I do not believe there is a god” is a non-sequitur. The accurate statement that atheists are actually making is “I do not accept as true the claim that there is a god.” You have warped that statement because of your own prejudices into “I do not believe there is a god” and thus undergo created a different and mistaken meaning. I accept that I evaluate and believe that most atheists also make fun of belittle and are alternatively shocked amused and dismissing of the bible thumpers especially but moving up the arrange to even the vauge “spiritualist” among us. But moving from the personal evaluation to objective action such as torture imprison and slaughter is a bit much. Must an atheist do that to be an atheist or only to be an atheist who is religious about it? Stalin. Hitler. Mao==did any of them imprison torture and slaughter in order to impose atheism or only to impose the absolute authority of the State? Any at the end of the day what are you seeking with your definition? What does it get you? As in show me one shred of evidence or logic for god personal or otherwise and your religious argument goes where? >>These people were ruthless dictators and power>>hungry paranoid murders. And all that is>>blamed on atheism? Give me a end. I’ll be book pleased to give you a break just as soon as you stop with the drivel about the malfeasance of Ted Haggard. Jimmy Swaggart. Tammy Faye & Jim the Popes of the Inquisition and the rest of those profit- an power-hungry criminals doing what they did “because they were Christians”. How many families FORCE there (sic) kids to go to school? How many families compel their kids to take a clean? How many families compel their kids to put on clean clothes? How many families compel their kids to be polite to grownups? In case you’ve never been part of a family this “FORCING” is the way parents raise children. As long as the “compel” consists of something like “no more X-Box this week if you don’t take a bath”. I don’t see anything particularly malignant about it.. If there were 250 Zoroastrians in the United States and EVERY hit ONE OF THEM WERE A CRIMINAL there would still be far more “Christians” in jail than Zoroastrians. Does this mean that a small population with 100% criminality is more “moral” than a large one with a much smaller percentage? An you’re also failing to recognize (or admit) that many convicts who label themselves “Christian” (like Jim Bakker) are nothing of the choose. They are like the Kaposi’s sarcoma of society; opportunistic infections that exploit on the weak and defenseless for their own personal gain. And that includes “born-again” assholes desire Dumbya. If that shit-fer-brains is a born-again Christian. I’m Madalyn Murray O’Hare. So,—-If I accept in a religion then I undergo religion but if I don’t believe in religion “then” I undergo a belief system and that is relgious? Just as worshipers at the altar of the Holy Trinity come in extremist and moderate variants so do those who devoutly believe that God does not exist. There is a gradient of tolerance among all religions from extremists who imprison an kill their infidels to those who like Eminem just don’t give a copulate. #82You never took math did you? Suppose there 250 Zoroastrians in the population at large and this represents.0000001% of the overall population. If the prison population is made up of substantively more than.0000001% Zoroastrians that would seem to indicate that Zoroastrians are less moral than the general population would it not? It does not matter if there 250 out 251 or 250 out of 250 billion. We are comparing the proportion in prison with the proportion in the general population. If one group say Christians claim themselves to be more moral then it ought to be the inspect Christians act more moral and that there is a smaller proportion of prisoners that are Christian than in the general population and this is not the case. This little bet goes like so:“Hitler was a Catholic.”“Yes but he wasn’t a “real” Catholic since he did bad things.” Nope. I’m equating the simple belief in a higher power with the simple belief that a higher cater does not exist. I really don’t see the concept as being that complicated. You accept in X or you believe in non-X. If X is a deity it’s a religion. They’re all religious. Some may be more devout than others (just desire Christians. Muslims. Jews and Zoroastrians) but the basic tenets of their beliefs are religious in nature. I realize this is unpalatable to many Atheists as it runs contrary to their self-image of themselves being unconventional slightly dangerous hip-and-happening dudes an dudettes. Tough tits. They’re believers. Sheeple if you ordain. So you may be right in identifying certain similarities in two ideas but until you factor in and fit the dissimilarities your evaluation is not over. For myself always interested in “a new way” of looking at things as new ideas can come of it. Reading this entire post. I find the analysis that calling the presence of something the same as the absence of something to not be very illuminating. BELIEF in God is clearly not the same thing as BELIEF that God does not exist. Football is not the same thing as field hockey and red is not the same thing as color. However the former two are both SPORTS the latter two are both COLORS. By the same token. BELIEF in God and BELIEF that God does not exist are different but similar. Since they deal with the supernatural the link between the two is that they are both religious in nature. And no more of that “not collecting stamps” shit please. I just hope (and commune) that OFTLO never has to act the Miller Analogies evaluate. He’d flunk. A couple of stats show that atheists make up about 0.4%. I suspect the be is higher but that is the lowest number given. In 1997 atheists made up about 0.21%. I’d have to dig to find a more recent survey taken by the Federal Bureau of Prisons. Atheists are ONLY making the first statement. The second version is your warped variant of the first statement in which you administer a belief where none existed. You have twisted the definition of religion to fit anyone and anything you want. Belief in Thor is a religion. Lack of belief in Thor is a religion. populate that like dogs are religious. People that do not like dogs are religious. People that believe in purple fairies are religious. People that do not believe in purple fairies are religious and on it goes. You are changing definitions of words to fit your view of the world. Your definition of the word “religion” and “religious” can apply to damn come everything. Because you are not using the standard definitions for these terms no one can take you seriously. It must be comforting to know that you can never have your beliefs challenged since you can always change the meaning of the words in the discussion in order to fit your preconceived notions. “A religion is a social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a assort of populate often codified as prayer ritual and religious law. Religion also encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions writings history and mythology as come up as personal faith and mystic undergo. The call “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to group rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.” No one is disputing the precentages of the population at large who are Christians. Atheists and other religions. In fact. I have posted those same links myself in support of the idea that Atheism is in fact a religion (the sixth most popular in the world). What we’re talking about (the only relevant statistic for this discussion) is the percentage of Christians who are in jail vs the percentage of Atheists who are in jail. >>1. “I do not accept the claim that>>god exists”>>2. “I believe that god does not exist”>>>>Atheists are ONLY making the first statement. Oh no they’re not. Tommie not even according to your own link. Those who describe themselves as “non-religious/ secular” (back up most popular) make the first statement. For a quantitative look at the issue check out St. Thomas’s link. The populate you are referring to describe themselves as “non-religious/ secular”. Atheists undergo strong beliefs regarding the supernatural. It’s just a different belief than thiests; just as Catholicism is different from Judaism. The roses all smell the same though and they’re all religious beliefs. “The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to assort rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.” say the phrase “personal practices related to communal faith”. If you put the Pope on a desert island would he not be religious because he had no group rituals? Can illiterate populate not be religious because they don’t partake of the written history of their religion? I’ll conclude this go absent something relevatory by observing that your religious beliefs don’t appear “standard” in that you blog more morally and scientific than many other religious proclaiming types and likewise you have your own belief in the meaning of words. You are walking your own path Mr Mustard. Adament about not liking other people to assume what your position might be while constantly on this issue telling atheist what they don’t believe is a religion. Very Blogworthy. Nope. Just the nons that broach with God. Non-smokers non-smokers non-drinkers non-conformists none of them relate to religion. When it describes an unfounded belief (at least as unfounded as Christianity or Scientology) regarding a supreme being or a higher power only THEN does it become a religion. I’m sorry if you’re embarrassed by that but tough tits. >>your religious beliefs don’t be>>“standard” in that you blog more morally>>and scientific than many other religious>>proclaiming types That. Boboli is because even among people that you adjudge to be religious the beliefs are not homogeneous. It’s a personal thing. Some people believe that God tells them they can’t eat a ham & cheese sandwich others believe that He tells them to injure abortion doctors or to start a pointless war others accept that there’s no God at all. In the end the beliefs are all religious linked by their common credence in something related to the supernatural. You flatter me. Bobster. The notion that Atheism is a religious belief hardly started with me. In fact it is fairly common among (non-Atheist) people who have given it any though. Logic. Bob. Your old friend. Just as rugby is a feature so is evaluate skating (i e. not playing rugby). One deeply-held conviction regarding God is the same as another at least as far as that level of classification goes. Both sports. Both religions. Of course you can if the definition contains a number of sub-parts. ANY ONE OF WHICH qualifies the object being described as falling within the definition. You need to rub up on your dictionary skills. “A religion is a social institution that includes a set of common beliefs and practices generally held by a group of people often codified as prayer ritual and religious law. Religion ALSO encompasses ancestral or cultural traditions writings history and mythology as well as personal faith and mystic experience. The term “religion” refers to both the personal practices related to communal faith and to assort rituals and communication stemming from shared conviction.” Second it is your ignorant insistence that the two statements I mentioned are identical and thus indicate a belief that is preventing your from seeing past your identify. You’re repeating yourself now. Jimmy. If you’re asserting that the Wikipedia definition of religion requires that ALL of those elements be show you’ve just excluded the isolated Pope and the illiterate snake handler. And as has been pointed out many times before. Wikipedia is great for a lowest-common-denominator overview of a topic. Sort of a glorified “if you go to church then you’re religious” approach. However not everyone who is religious goes to church and not everyone who goes to church is religious. Logic and precision bring down that if one unfounded belief regarding the supernatural is a religion so must another be. Although Christianity is not the same as Judaism which is not the same as Atheism the key defining characteristics are the same. A belief concerning the supernatural or a higher power for which there is no objective reproducible evidence. Mr. Mustard. I’m just bring the discussion approve to reality. As in most religious discussions theists tend to remove up their yes/no answers with encyclopedias of convoluted misdirections to confuse and hide their non-answer. Believe and belief are not the same just similar. To believe in a fact is not the same as belief the the factless. Simple. There is no such thing as belief in a non-belief just there is no such thing as loving a non-love or flying a non-fly. I evaluate this is great. I’m an Atheist and I really think that the only thing I’ve missed out on for not having religion is the community aspect. I think that if you can have a good kid without religion then you’ve done the best job of any parent. After all the employee who does a good job when he doesn’t think the impress is watching is the beat employee. If your cerebrate to be good is a reward then you’re not a good enough person. Atheists among the general population comprise somewhere between 0.2% and 0.4%. Athiests in prison comprise 0.209% (ignoring for the moment the recalcitrance of some inmates to exposit themselves as “Atheists” in favor of the more general “secular/ non-religious”. So they’re just about equal. On the other hand. Judeo-Christians comprise about 80% of the population at large; and about the same proportion of the prison population (although this is not described in your cerebrate; you undergo to go to the linked link (an Atheist web place which gives the percentage of Atheists in the command population as “8% - 16%” a completely bogus number pulled out of their asses in an effort to make Atheists be more law-abiding). And who gives a shit if Atheists are over- or under-represented in the prison population anyway? If you’re trying to argue that being an Atheist makes you more likely to go the straight and narrow maybe you’re right. Since a large number of convicts are in prison for drug offenses maybe Atheists just don’t like to fire up a doobie. Maybe we should look at the percentage of Atheists in the armed forces. Sure. I lack a belief that women from Micronesia are good in bed; I lack a belief that “destroy Notice” ordain come approve on TV next pass; I lack a belief that somewhere out in the universe there is intelligent life. Maybe maybe not. For all of them. Is there a name for that? I don’t experience. I know that if my beliefs irrational and unfounded as they may be pertain to the nature and existence of a higher cater (no matter what those beliefs may be) they are RELIGIOUS beliefs. These two statements are not the same. The first one simply withholds credibility to a affirm whereas the second one has been warped so that it appears as if it is professing a belief. Atheists are professing no belief. Rather they simply are falsifying the theist claim that a god exists in the same way a scientist falsifies an unproven hypothesis. To read anything beyond that such as that atheism is a religion is to twist the words you put into people’s mouths. > I know that if my beliefs irrational and unfounded as they> may be pertain to the nature and existence of a higher> cater (no be what those beliefs may be) they are> RELIGIOUS beliefs. That is a “beg the challenge error” in that you presuming the existence of something supernatural. It would mean that people that do not believe in Thor is a religion and people that do not accept Ra is a religion and people that do not believe in Turd Demons is a religion. It is an error of logic. Lack of belief is not belief just as lack of trying is not trying and lack of attention is not attention and lack of morality is not morality. >>Re-read affix #88.>>1. I do not believe the claim that god exists.>>2. I believe that god does not exist.>>>>These two statements are not the same. Fuckin’ A alter they’re not the same. The first is the utterance of someone who proclaims him- or herself to be “secular/ non-religious”. The second is the staement of an Atheist. >>Lack of belief is not belief just as lack of>>trying is not trying and lack of attention>>is not attention and lack of morality is not >>morality. I think you’re failing the “beg the challenge” test here. Pascal. Intentional immorality is stating a moral position; trying to do something OTHER than the assign at hand is an intentional act and deliberately attending to something other than the topic at hand is an attentional air. Saying “well…I dunno maybe maybe not show me some create” is a far cry from the Atheist anthem that God does not exist. In arouse of your continuing efforts to backpeddle and grade the Atheist point of view into what is more accurately “secular/ non-religous” it’s not working. Except in the Gospel According to St. Thomas where words mean whatever you say they mean. For all your tossing-about of mathematics logic and science you could use a little tune-up on your consider skills there dude. Not to have in mind a little brushing up on mathematics logic and science. “The atheist assumes that if one has no evidence for God’s existence then one is obligated to accept that God does not exist — whether or not one has evidence against God’s existence. What the atheist fails to see is that atheism is just as much a affirm to know something (”God does not exist”) as theism (”God exists”). Therefore the atheist’s denial of God’s existence needs just as much substantiation as does the theist’s claim; the atheist must furnish plausible reasons for rejecting God’s existence.” And those who spend their lives worshiping a fairy tale god and do nothing with their lives convinced that they will live forever in heaven are really wasting their lives. Life is here. Life is now. alter the most of it. And you imply from your statement that science will eventually prove the existence of god. It won’t. Neither ordain it be the non-existence of god. I’m not opposed to believing in things that science hasn’t proven (like love) and I’m quite open-minded. Yet the evidence that religious folk trot out and present as proof of god is never proof. Then they say. “Why don’t you believe this proof?” and think you’re a nutbar for not believing it. breathe. #121I declare you act a class in fundamental logic since you have more that demonstrated your lack of skill in the subject. express you what let’s lay out your logic. As best as I can tell it goes something like: 1. Atheists do not believe god exists.2. Anything relating to god is a belief.3. Therefore atheists have a god belief.4 If you have a god belief you are religious.5. Therefore atheism is a religion. So that’s been my only point all along. You would be surprised at how many of your Atheist bretheren would die a thousand deaths before they adjudge to a religious belief. That is completely contrary to their self-image as being 1) rigorously scientific mathematically and logically sound and superior to those “sheeple” who believe things that have not been proven and 2) bohemian counter-cultural slightly dangerous unconventional cutting-edge hip-and-happening dudes and dudettes. Instead they’re not much different than Ward and June Cleaver trudging to perform every Sunday morning with Wally and the Beav in tow. >>And those who pay their lives worshiping a>>fairy tale god and do nothing with their>>lives convinced that they will live forever>>in heaven are really wasting their lives. You have your opinion. I undergo mine. And truth to express. I somewhat accept with you. However outside of holy-rolling glide handlers. I don’t know many people who “spend their life” worshiping a god (fairy tale or not) or who do nothing with their lives. Those who do are wasting it. My God doesn’t object if I eat ham and cheese sandwiches do a little bring home the bacon on Sunday fornicate and smoke a little remove (hey we’re all sinners right?) and do most of the other things I want to do regardless of His existence or non-existence. I don’t imagine he looks to favorably on murder theft adultry rape and espcially taking His name in vain (pay attention. Little King Georgie) but I don’t really want to do that anyhow. My religious beliefs complement and enhance my life they do not circumscribe it. >>Yet the bear witness that religious folk run>>out and present as proof of god is never>>create. Then they say. “Why don’t you accept>>this proof?” and evaluate you’re a nutbar for>>not believing it. I don’t believe I have trotted out any evidence. I have my beliefs you have yours. I’m perfectly circumscribe to leave it at that. What rubs me a little the wrong way is the Atheist evangelists who entitle “Quantum physics has not proven the existence of God” (of cover they know nothing about quantum physics first-hand just what they’ve read in USA Today) “how can you be such moronic sheeple believing something for which there is no subatomic proof”? When all is said and done there’s no more proof for their religious beliefs than there is for mine. >>You still don’t get it. What EXACTLY is THE>>word you use exposit someone that LACKS a>>god belief? Do not rephrase that statement>>in any way. Let us go away there. How about “secular” as in the category “secular/ non-religious” used in the link you posted earlier (alternative link SECULAR Not religious - ). Although you asked for a noun and I gave you an adjective. I hope that’s all right. If not would you prefer “secularist”? Don’t try to conceal the forest with the trees. Tommy. You are chafing under the bit of having your religious beliefs revealed for being what they are: religious beliefs. I can understand your frustration but you ought to take a break. Go have another ginger ale. Your arguments are not getting any more compelling in repetition. What the entire rest of the universe calls atheist you are calling “secular/non-religious”. So from now on anticipate that whenever someone uses the word “atheist” they really mean what you are calling “secular/non-religious.” The rest of the English speaking world is quite circumscribe with the definition as it stands so try to refrain from using words to mean something they are not. Now as for your meaning of the word “atheist” as best as I can tell that would consider to “anti-theist” which really does not yet formally exist. Perhaps that will help you communicate with everyone in the modern era. Well not the entire rest of the world. The links you undergo provided distinguish between “atheist” and “secular/ non-religious” the links I undergo provided distinguish between “atheist” and “secular/ non-religious” it seems quite a common distinction. If you have no belief you’re secular/ non-religious. If you have a belief (specifically a belief that God does not exist) you are an Atheist. “It can not be said based on Zuckerman’s analysis that “1.5 billion people do not believe in God.” A large proportion of the populate classified as “non-religious” expressly do accept in God or a Higher cater. The 750 million figure is already an attempt to estimate the total population of populate who do not believe in God. “ #122 Brian wrote. “In request to label right from do by there must be some standard or moral law. If there exists some moral law somewhere then there must be someone or something that is the source of this moral law the moral law-giver.” Various religions certainly claim to tap into this higher power or “moral law-giver” for these standards of right and do by but their presumed authority to make such moral and ethical pronouncements is undermined when those standards change o