Another Denier Wakes up and smells the coffee,,

Atheism hasn't made the Communists any better stewards than Christianity. Of course, I should make it clear, I believe atheism is as much a religious belief as any other. And true Christianity is not synonymous with capitalism (except in American evangelical fantasies).

 

This is sometimes known as the "argument from incomprehension." Because YOU cannot comprehend how the world could have happened without a god, you assume that there must be a god. This only demonstrates your lack of imagination.

Atheism is actually the ABSENCE of a religion.

In this we agree entirely! In fact, capitalism is the most UNCHRISTIAN of all possible economic systems. Capitalism is founded upon the profit motive. The "profit motive" is another word for "greed," or in other words, the love of money.

The Apostle Paul, who invented modern Christianity, said "The love of money is the root of all evil." Capitalism is founded upon, and worships, the love of money.

Jesus told his followers to sell all they owned and give the money to the poor. The early Christian communities were communal (which is just a way of saying communist without invoking thoughts of Karl Marx). True communism (not Soviet style state capitalism) is founded upon the philosophy of (in Marx's words) "From each according to his ability; to each according to his needs." Marx was actually a bit of a plagiarist, since Jesus invented, or at least promoted, this concept about 18 centuries earlier. A true Christian would have to be a communist. Not a Soviet-style capital C Communist, but a lower-case c communist, or communalist if you prefer that word, as Christians were before Constantine made it the official state religion and a banner for war and conquest.

 

We will have to agree to disagree. Agnosticism is the absence of religion. Atheism requires belief. Just as you can't prove there is a deity, you can't prove there isn't.

And in context of my point- Communist atheism (with a capital C) is a religion, not just a philosophy. IMHO.

 

Actually, atheism requires DISBELIEF! Atheism is the rejection of all religions. Religion tells you what to believe. Atheists don't believe anything. Therefore atheism is not a religion.

Communism does require belief: Specifically it requires you to believe that humans are good, and will work without being forced, and will take only what they need. I personally do not share that belief, which is why I'm a socialist, not a communist. But to call communism a religion is shoddy thinking. Communism is a philosophy.

If you insist that disbelief constitutes a religion, then is it a religion to not believe there is a unicorn on the roof? Is it a religion to not believe that Elvis Presley was really John F. Kennedy in disguise? Is it a religion to not believe in astrology? Clearly, the assertion that atheism is a religion is preposterous on the face of it.

Let's put it another way. If you come to me and claim that you own the Brooklyn Bridge, and you offer to sell it to me for $25, and I call you a crook, am I expressing BELIEF when I say I don't believe that you own the bridge? Of course not! I am expressing DISBELIEF. And if you then accused me of believing in the RELIGION of you-not-owning-the-Brooklyn-Bridge, I'd be justified in having you committed to the booby hatch. It's not a religion to disbelieve your claim of owning the Brooklyn Bridge, and it's not a religion to disbelieve your crazy story of some guy in the sky who will torture me forever if I don't believe in him.

Calling atheism a "religion" is not only lunatic, it's insulting.

 

It is projection, as Freud coined the term. Republicans are masters, but ignorant Christians are avid practitioners.

F8l summed up my opinions about Christianity and environmental stewardship: Christianity does not demand environmental stupidity, but it does encourage it; while atheism encourages stewardship (since it is a rational choice) but does not preclude stupidity.

 

Bingo!

 

LOL, we have a Creationist err I mean ID proponent in the house. ID has been so thoroughly debunked over and over again. Please some to the table with something new and based on science so we can debunk it again. Irreducible complexity is a tired old idea.

 

Hmm... sure sounds like religious fervor to me. And as an atheist you have been telling everyone else what to believe- that there is no god.
Prove there isn't a god (and yes, if you have to insult those who there is, you do have to prove it).
Is there a god? I don't know and don't care if you believe in one, two, 100, or none. That is the absence of religion.

 

This post doesn't make much sense to me. Perhaps you can have another go at it and provide more clarity.

As for proving that there is no god, obviously that is impossible. Anyone with even the tiniest amount of training in logic or philosophy will recognize this as an assertion provable only in the negative. In other words, it would be possible to prove that god exists if he appears before us, but the converse does not prove the negative: god's absence is not proof of his non-existence. God may exist in some non-detectable form that never interacts with our universe. We would never see any evidence and would therefor likely deduce that god did not exist, but we could never prove it.

On the other hand, if god did exist in some form that never interacts with our world, his existence or non-existence would be irrelevant.

Tom

 

Ah... perhaps we need to define the protocols. And perhaps we need to go beyond the scientific method to getter done? Could that be the box some of us can't think outside of?

 

I've been going at my basement for a year. I also foamed the rim joists, 2" XPS and great stuff around edges. I understand that international building code ALLOWS up to 3.5" uncovered foam only in the joist area, but you could confirm. My inspector didn't care, though. I know that he did about the walls, which I also XPSed and will cover with drywall.

The joist bays were an epic pain. If I had to again I'd buy a $300 two-component kit and do it myself with spray foam.

I used to think this, too and nobody seemed to address it, but it is addressed in Romans 13-16; a pigmy in the middle of nowhere who's never heard of the bible does not appear automatically damned based on reading that.

The ones I've encountered seem very much to believe in themselves and their own human knowledge and reason.

No it hasn't been. Science cannot use a scientific approach to debunk something that by its very nature is supra-scientific. And this assumes science has debunked ID, which it hasn't. Science deals with theories. It has an extremely dubious one about the origination of life on the planet, one that has no historical backing nor can be reproduced as yet in any lab situation. And I'm not talking about evolution, but rather the origination of life. Proponents of evolution have artifacts they have studied but the lightning-bolt muck simply goes backward well past the point of any real data and makes a guess, so I can't say that debunks anything.

 

I have never asserted that there is no god. As Tom points out, this cannot be proven. Further, I have stated over and over again, that the question of whether or not there is a god is a matter of BELIEF, not of KNOWLEDGE. It is the religious extremists who assert over and over again that they "know" there is a god.

Second, I have never told anyone what to believe. I have pointed out the logical inconsistencies in a few of the more popular religions, and a few of the contradictions and outright errors in the Bible, which some folks cite as an authority for their religious beliefs.

I have even pointed out a few religions which are internally consistent, unlike Pauline Christianity. And I have pointed out religions which I respect, for the way they treat the world and their fellow creatures, even though I do not share their belief.

Is there some fervor in my anti-religious feeling? Definitely! When a religion serves as the basis for justifying war, when a religion is used to justify denying people their basic human rights, when preachers cry from the pulpit that little children are damned and will be tortured forever in hell for a murder that took place nineteen centuries earlier, when a church institution uses threats of torture to silence a scientist, when all manner of atrocity is committed in the name of religion, then, yes, I become fervent in my opposition to religion. When little children are brainwashed into illogical beliefs and forced to accept circular logic and threats as reasons to believe in the irrational, and thus rendered incapable of the kind of logical thinking which would allow them to see through the rantings of demagogues, then yes, I become fervent in my opposition to religion.

Science is the opposite of religion. When people learn to think logically and understand the world based on evidence rather than myth, they can begin to solve problems, rather than compound them with religious bullshit.

For most of my life, it was considered rude to say that irrational and nonsensical beliefs were irrational and nonsensical. If you tell me that the moon is made of cheese, I am allowed to say "No, it's not." But if you tell me that the world was created by a man who loves me so much he'll torture me forever if I don't believe in him, I'm supposed to "respect" that as a religious belief. Well, I'm done "respecting" crap when that crap is used to force bigotry into the public arena. When religious "authorities" preach hatred and homophobia and war, I damn well am going to call it crap.

I'm not telling you what to believe. But if you choose to believe crap, I'll call it crap. If you choose to believe in a religion that harms nobody (Wicca, or Buddhism as just two examples) then I'll just say I don't share your beliefs.

 

To the best of my knowledge no argument thrown together by the big proponents of ID has held any water and has been falsified by real science. ID was an attempt by creationists to invoke science to verify their opinion on the origin of everything. The fact is that they have failed at every attempt to use science to prove their point. I realize that there are huge gaps in our scientific knowledge base and our attempts to explain the beginning of life or even the universe are at best based on proven mathematics (with incredible accuracy) or at worst just educated guesses, but to use that as leverage to throw god into the gaps and say "see there ya go, science can't explain it so it musta been an intelligent designer" is rather naive. Michael Behe, William Dembski and Kent Hovind (creationist) have ever come up with a compelling argument that has not been falsified with real science. Although I will congratulate Behe for trying to use some scientific examples instead of outright fabricated lies.

 

Wow.. look what you guys have started

 

So what will you use to fasten the rock to the XPS to concrete? That was my biggest issue not using the method.

 

I just put it out there for a discussion point. Since I think this is a fascinating approach, I will be more research on the topic.

p.s. Anyone want to fund my year long sabbatical say in Hawaii?

 

Actually it's more unreligious fervor.

Only in the most broad definition of religion can atheism be considered religion. Atheism merely holds that gods do not exist and have never existed. Other than that it's a free-for-all.

Atheists, in my experience and view, do not vehemently oppose unjustified belief or practice, they oppose unjustified theocracy.

 

OP? Was there an original post? I believe this thread was put in place whole to look as if it evolved over time.

Tom