America doesn’t need more God. It needs more atheists.

[SaltyTiger 7,965]

2 hours ago, homersapien said:

No, if you are going to push me on an obvious statement - how does the bible (Christians) influence US Israel policy- I get to push you concerning an esoteric distinction - without a difference - such as this.  Fair is fair.

Explain to me the "big difference" between worshiping the Bible and believing it is literally the word of God.

While “fair” play is not a requirement I will say the worship Bible stuff is an ICHY accusation that you have picked up on.

The Bible story leads to Jesus and is read, studied, and practiced to lead users in being better Christians. Maybe a better ICHY and correct ICHY term would be Bible obsession. Even Jesus warned us against it. “It is written, but I say to you……”

Edited October 19, 2023 by SaltyTiger

[homersapien 11,553]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

While “fair” play is not a requirement I will say the worship Bible stuff is an ICHY accusation that you have picked up on.

The Bible story leads to Jesus and is read, studied, and practiced to lead users in being better Christians. Maybe a better ICHY and correct ICHY term would be Bible obsession. Even Jesus warned us against it. “It is written, but I say to you……”

I haven't "picked up" on anything. 

I contend that a belief the Bible is literally the "word of god" as practically equivalent to worshipping a book.

So - just like Jesus - ICHY is correct.

Edited October 19, 2023 by homersapien

[AUDub 11,212]

 

[SaltyTiger 7,965]

5 hours ago, homersapien said:

So - just like Jesus - ICHY is correct.

Of course you would agree with ICHY. The reason for the short quick answer to “fair” question. 

[auburnatl1 5,351]

6 hours ago, homersapien said:

I haven't "picked up" on anything. 

I contend that a belief the Bible is literally the "word of god" as practically equivalent to worshipping a book.

So - just like Jesus - ICHY is correct.

Homer, let the word of God thing go.   We’re in an infinite loop. It’s holy to Christian’s, not worshipped.  Next.

[homersapien 11,553]

1 hour ago, auburnatl1 said:

Homer, let the word of God thing go.   We’re in an infinite loop. It’s holy to Christian’s, not worshipped.  Next.

Yeah right, "holy but not worshipped".

[auburnatl1 5,351]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Yeah right, "holy but not worshipped".

Ie. To Catholics, saints are considered holy but not worshiped. Be patient, you’ll get there😎

[homersapien 11,553]

43 minutes ago, auburnatl1 said:

Ie. To Catholics, saints are considered holy but not worshiped. Be patient, you’ll get there😎

Well first, some Christains do worship (pray to) saints.

Secondly, I would think the literal word of God is a category by itself.

For example, why is a bible used for "swearing in" witnesses? Why is it typically used as the basis for worship services? Why is it used to justify sanctifying a people/country as being a part of "God's plan?

The bible - to many people - represents the intent and direction of God.

So bottom line, I don't see much of a substantive difference between "holy" and "worship" other than one is a adjective and the other a verb.

Finally, I don't anticipate "getting there" nor do I care to. Apparently it's not in my nature.

Edited October 20, 2023 by homersapien

[auburnatl1 5,351]

1 minute ago, homersapien said:

Well first, some Christains do worship (pray to) saints.

Secondly, I would think the literal word of God is a category by itself.

For example, why is a bible used for "swearing in" witnesses? Why is it typically used as the basis for worship services? Why is it used to justify sanctifying a people/country as being a part of "Gods plan" (a point I am making)?

The bible - to many people - represents the intent and direction of God.

Bottom line, I don't see much of a substantive difference between "holy" and "worship" other than one is a adjective and the other a verb.

Finally, I don't anticipate "getting there" nor do I care to. Apparently it's not in my nature.

Well if that’s an issue for you, don’t try to understand the trinity - within monotheism.  All is well.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 351]

On 10/3/2023 at 2:23 PM, homersapien said:

Religion is always passed along by indoctrinating children.  That's exactly why countries/cultures are defined by particular religions - including ours.

If Christians were honest with themselves, they would easily recognize the "path to salvation" has more to do with where you were born than it does with any sort of universal truth.

 

 

 

Why is it that atheists always ascribe belief to one's environment but atheism to something else?

I didn't grow up going to church and my parents didn't talk much about spirituality at all.  I used to be an atheist, now I am a Christian.  Is that because of where I was born?

If I had been born in a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) home in which religion was devoutly practiced and had ended up becoming an atheist, would that have been because of where I was born?

You can't have it both ways.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 351]

On 10/19/2023 at 1:54 PM, homersapien said:

 

I contend that a belief the Bible is literally the "word of god" as practically equivalent to worshipping a book.

 

Then you probably better let someone know when you're ready to discuss the issue seriously.

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 351]

On 10/3/2023 at 9:40 AM, CoffeeTiger said:

(NOTE: THIS ARTICLE IS PRO-ATHEIST AND IS ANTI-THEIST IN NATURE AND MAKES SOME NEGATIVE CLAIMS AND OBSERVATIONS ABOUT RELIGIOUS PEOPLE AND BELEIFS IN AMERICA. IF YOU WOULD BE OFFENDED by that OR DO NOT WANT TO READ SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE THEN DO NOT READ THIS ARTICLE OR DISCUSSION.)

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/10/03/kate-cohen-atheism/

@homersapien Wanted to especially point this article out to you. As It really resonated with me, and we were kind of discussing this in the other topic on the political smack forum). As probably 90%+ of all the posters on here are pretty committed Christians I don't expect much discussion or interaction on this post, but I wanted to put it out there all the same as it made me think more about my own beliefs and religious journey. 

I think it's a good article for anyone who wants a deeper look into the thoughts and mind of an American atheist who's trying to navigate the world as it is. This is an interesting counter to the thousands of articles we've all read from religious sources who write about how more God and more religion is the answer to improving America and the worlds ills and nastiness, and this is just the flip side of that coin. 

Here's the article in its entirety if you don't have a WAPO sub. 

 

 

There are plenty of logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions in the article.  Just how much discussion were you looking for?

[AUDub 11,212]

10 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

There are plenty of logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions in the article.  Just how much discussion were you looking for?

I’m interested in your eye for fallacies. 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 351]

36 minutes ago, AUDub said:

I’m interested in your eye for fallacies. 

I am at work, so I will have to reply in small chunks, but I would start with this:
 

The basic premises of the article are:

1.  There are far more atheists in America than those who admit to being atheists.  Plus, the number of atheists who will admit to being atheists continues to grow. I believe the author said that this year‘s poll included the lowest number of people polled, claiming that they believed in God.

 

2.  Atheists are better citizens, because they vote more often, are more politically active, and basically more effective at shaping society.

 

3.  American society is supposedly currently devolving into a theocracy.
 

If you can’t see the inherent, self contradictions already, then I will point them out.
 

Atheists are supposed to be the movers and shakers shaping society and causing change for “good.”  And there are more of them than ever before.

So why is society supposedly devolving, then? If it is true that atheists are better, more effective citizens and the number of them continues to grow, why wouldn’t more atheists necessarily equal more “progress” in society?  How can we be going to wrong way if both of those premises are true?

Speaking of which, all of the “evidence“ that atheists are better citizens is predicated upon the percentage of atheists who will admit they are atheist.

What about that 26%, most of whom are atheists who will not admit they are atheists?  

In the context of the evidence links, those people are currently being counted among the religious, not among atheists.  Even the author of the article says so.

So how reliable is the evidence speaking to the supposedly superior behavior of atheists?  A larger group of atheists than the ones considered to be engaging in the superior behavior are contributing to the statistical totals of the religious, who are supposedly engaging in less ideal behavior.

There’s more, but that should get it started.
 

 

 

 

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,259]

1 hour ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Why is it that atheists always ascribe belief to one's environment but atheism to something else?

I didn't grow up going to church and my parents didn't talk much about spirituality at all.  I used to be an atheist, now I am a Christian.  Is that because of where I was born?

If I had been born in a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) home in which religion was devoutly practiced and had ended up becoming an atheist, would that have been because of where I was born?

You can't have it both ways.

 

Where did anyone say that ones environment doesn't have any influence on if they become an atheist? Of course your chance of developing a belief in atheism is heavily influenced by where you grow up, just like the religion you adopt/are brought into is. 

East Asia is among one of the most irreligious parts of the world. China, Japan, South Korea, etc all have large numbers of the population who identify as atheist or non-religious, and if you were born in that part of the world you would more likely be unreligious too, and your chance of adopting or believing in Christianity is very, very low. 

In terms of the rest of the world, while some exceptions do exist, by and large the more advanced a nations economy and the more educated a population of the country is, the higher percentage of the population of self identifying atheists  there are. You're chance of choosing to become an atheist in the United Kingdom is much greater than it is in Eastern Europe, South America, or the Middle East. 

 

 

 

[Shoney'sPonyBoy 351]

13 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

 

Where did anyone say that ones environment doesn't have any influence on if they become an atheist?

Here's the quote I was responding to:  "Religion is always passed along by indoctrinating children.  That's exactly why countries/cultures are defined by particular religions - including ours."  (Emphasis his).

Almost any time you use the word "always" (and bold it, no less), you're going to be wrong.  Because all it takes in that scenario is one example to prove you wrong.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child, was an atheist, and yet here I am now a Christian.  Game over on that particular exchange.

In general, sure, it takes exposure to an idea to have a chance of inculcating that idea.  And the more you're exposed to it the more likely it is you'll have sufficient exposure to it for the logic of it to make sense to you.  Sure.  It's self evident that that goes for becoming an atheist, a Christian, a Mormon, a Jew, a Republican, a Democrat, someone who is certain that Van Halen was better with David Lee Roth vs Sammy Hagar, or an Auburn fan vs an Alabama fan.

But that self-evident principle is very frequently used by atheists as proof (albeit usually tangentially implied, as in this case) that a theistic viewpoint is false and unsupported by evidence (which was the strong underlying implication in this conversation).  I don't ever see it accepted as a reason that atheism is false or unsupported by evidence.

You do?

The logical truth of the matter is that it isn't really relevant in either case.  There's either sufficient evidence to support the viewpoint or there's not, regardless of how popular the viewpoint is.

[CoffeeTiger 5,259]

50 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

I am at work, so I will have to reply in small chunks, but I would start with this:
 

The basic premises of the article are:

1.  There are far more atheists in America than those who admit to being atheists.  Plus, the number of atheists who will admit to being atheists continues to grow. I believe the author said that this year‘s poll included the lowest number of people polled, claiming that they believed in God.

 

2.  Atheists are better citizens, because they vote more often, are more politically active, and basically more effective at shaping society.

 

3.  American society is supposedly currently devolving into a theocracy.
 

If you can’t see the inherent, self contradictions already, then I will point them out.
 

Atheists are supposed to be the movers and shakers shaping society and causing change for “good.”  And there are more of them than ever before.

So why is society supposedly devolving, then? If it is true that atheists are better, more effective citizens and the number of them continues to grow, why wouldn’t more atheists necessarily equal more “progress” in society?  How can we be going to wrong way if both of those premises are true?

Speaking of which, all of the “evidence“ that atheists are better citizens is predicated upon the percentage of atheists who will admit they are atheist.

What about that 26%, most of whom are atheists who will not admit they are atheists?  

In the context of the evidence links, those people are currently being counted among the religious, not among atheists.  Even the author of the article says so.

So how reliable is the evidence speaking to the supposedly superior behavior of atheists?  A larger group of atheists than the ones considered to be engaging in the superior behavior are contributing to the statistical totals of the religious, who are supposedly engaging in less ideal behavior.

There’s more, but that should get it started.
 

 

The 26% was a guess from one study the article mentioned, and was mainly making a point about how there are very likely many more atheists in America that don't self identify as such. But even if the guestimate from that study was accurate than 26% is still a small minority. That would make the rest of the 74% of the population religious in some way and affecting policy and government based on those ideals. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,553]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Why is it that atheists always ascribe belief to one's environment but atheism to something else?

I didn't grow up going to church and my parents didn't talk much about spirituality at all.  I used to be an atheist, now I am a Christian.  Is that because of where I was born?

If I had been born in a Christian (or Muslim, or Jewish) home in which religion was devoutly practiced and had ended up becoming an atheist, would that have been because of where I was born?

You can't have it both ways.

First, I didn't know "atheists always subscribe belief to one's environment".  (What BS. )

Secondly, I would think that childhood cultural indoctrination as a way to promote and preserve religious belief is rather obvious.  Even an unstudied, cursory evaluation of comparatively religious societies would suggest that. 

Apparently, it just doesn't "take" with some individuals - possibly more individuals than we assume. 

Likewise, some individuals apparently have some degree of inherent proclivity toward religious belief (what I semi-jokingly refer to as the "God gene").  Perhaps you fall into that category.  So, I am not trying to "have it both ways" (whatever you meant by that).

I suggest you try not to be so absolutist in your interpretation of statements. It hinders understanding.
 

[homersapien 11,553]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Then you probably better let someone know when you're ready to discuss the issue seriously.

Then tell me the practical difference.  Seriously.

[homersapien 11,553]

2 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

There are plenty of logical fallacies and erroneous assumptions in the article.  Just how much discussion were you looking for?

Whatcha got?  

[icanthearyou 4,465]

Some people cannot separate god from religion.  They cannot separate following Jesus from, being "christian".

Religions are man made.  Religions have their own agendas.  Christianity has deviated from the message of Jesus.

 

[CoffeeTiger 5,259]

8 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Here's the quote I was responding to:  "Religion is always passed along by indoctrinating children.  That's exactly why countries/cultures are defined by particular religions - including ours."  (Emphasis his).

Almost any time you use the word "always" (and bold it, no less), you're going to be wrong.  Because all it takes in that scenario is one example to prove you wrong.

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child, was an atheist, and yet here I am now a Christian.  Game over on that particular exchange.

In general, sure, it takes exposure to an idea to have a chance of inculcating that idea.  And the more you're exposed to it the more likely it is you'll have sufficient exposure to it for the logic of it to make sense to you.  Sure.  It's self evident that that goes for becoming an atheist, a Christian, a Mormon, a Jew, a Republican, a Democrat, someone who is certain that Van Halen was better with David Lee Roth vs Sammy Hagar, or an Auburn fan vs an Alabama fan.

 

Yeah, I see your point, and I wouldn't use the word "always" because nothing is ever absolute. You can grow up in an atheist or unreligious household and still become devoutly religious later in life. It's rare, but its certainly possible.  Religion is a very complicated topic and can't be boiled down into absolute statements, but there are clear and present  trends regarding religions and religious beleifs that we can identify and acknowledge. 

 

8 minutes ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

But that self-evident principle is very frequently used by atheists as proof (albeit usually tangentially implied, as in this case) that a theistic viewpoint is false and unsupported by evidence (which was the strong underlying implication in this conversation).  I don't ever see it accepted as a reason that atheism is false or unsupported by evidence.

You do?

The logical truth of the matter is that it isn't really relevant in either case.  There's either sufficient evidence to support the viewpoint or there's not, regardless of how popular the viewpoint is.

But an atheist in America isn't much different in belief or belief system than an atheist in Italy, or in Afghanistan, or in Japan, etc. While where you are born can greatly influence your chances of being exposed to or choosing to believe in Atheism, Atheism itself is pretty consistent the world over. 

On the other hand, a very common belief among most religions and religious people is that "their" version of religion and their version of God is the true and correct one while all others are false and man-made. Religious people commonly use 'personal experiences' as their proof of why they know their religion or belief is correct. This personal experience can be anything from a vision, a dream, warm fuzzy feeling inside, or life events happening that they contributed to a God or to prayer, but many religious people the world over believe their God is doing things to them or influencing them or their lives in some way, which in their mind supports their beliefs. 

This is true for all religions the world over no matter how different the Gods or beliefs are. Either that means that All religions are correct and that God doesn't care what religion or what version of God you believe in as long as you believe in some form of him, and he rewards all religious people the world over equally.......or else it means that these feelings and visions and inspiration and prayer fulfillments that all these people the world over attribute to religion are simply placebos in their minds and are based on what they believe they are supposed to feel or experience.. 

 

To my mind, the idea that the place and culture a person is born into influencing what religion they choose to believe in sort of undercuts the idea of any one God or any one Religion being any more "true" or "real" than any other out there. 

 

 

 

 

[homersapien 11,553]

On 10/23/2023 at 2:55 PM, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Here's the quote I was responding to:  "Religion is always passed along by

I wasn't indoctrinated as a child, was an atheist, and yet here I am now a Christian.  Game over on that particular exchange.
 

Well, in your case religion wasn't "passed" along.  Obviously, you were born with a strong inclination for religiosity. 

You picked up on Christianity because you live in a predominately Christian culture.  Had you been born in Saudi Arabia with non-religious parents - you would probably be Muslim.

But you are correct in picking on my use of "always".  I should have used "typically" or usually. I was thinking more in a cultural sense instead of a personal one. 

Regardless, it was careless of me. 

Edited October 26, 2023 by homersapien

[Leftfield 2,758]

6 minutes ago, CoffeeTiger said:

...nothing is ever absolute.

[homersapien 11,553]

3 hours ago, Shoney'sPonyBoy said:

Why is it that atheists always ascribe belief to one's environment but atheism to something else?

 

BTW, that makes us 1 and 1 regarding the use of "always".