[Al_U_Card]

Interesting, as which religion shouldn't make a difference then....but what was that I heard about Obama rama lama ding-dong going to some Madrassa (Islamic school?) when he was a kid?

I remember the "controversy" when Kennedy was elected. Maybe if we can get someone to espouse Santaria or voodoo or ...wait a sec, isn't that Cheney?

[pbleighton]

"Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes. "

First, the question I asked BebopKid was specific to Christianity, not merely to the religious/atheist divide. I await his answer.

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

Peter

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Feb 7 2007, 10:35 PM, said:

>Also, I wish someone would actually cite facts and evidence of crimes or illegal
>deeds by Bush instead of citing their opinions and misrepresentations.

The most obvious example is the illegal wiretapping program that was exposed 2+ years ago. The following articles provides a good summary:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...5121701233.html
http://dir.salon.com/story/opinion/feature...ying/index.html

The following articles contain a more detailed legal analysis

http://www.concurringopinions.com/archives...d_his_powe.html
http://volokh.com/po...135029722.shtml

>And don't post it here, take it straight to Congress. Because if such evidence does
>exist, 2 Democratic houses of Congress will impeach and remove Bush

The Democratic leadership has already announced that they are not planning to impeach Bush for any actions that have come to light so far.

Do you see that last statement? Thats what's referred to as a "fact". You might want to acquaint yourself with these ...

Your statement that the Democratic majorities will impeach Bush...
That's an example of an ignorant conjecture.

[mike777]

Is a bias the same as bigotry? Are you suggesting that voting on the basis of religious bias is the same as bigotry?

If bias is prejudice, bigotry is hatred and intolerance.
If prejudice is damage to one's rights or claims, I would say they are damaged.

[pbleighton]

"Is a bias the same as bigotry? Are you suggesting that voting on the basis of religious bias is the same as bigotry?

If bias is prejudice, bigotry is hatred and intolerance.
If prejudice is damage to one's rights or claims, I would say they are damaged. "

If someone would never vote for an atheist for President, regardless of his/her political views and other qualifications, that person is an anti-atheist bigot.

You can substitute Jew, Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. for atheist in the above. It makes no difference.

Peter

[BebopKid]

pbleighton, on Feb 7 2007, 03:18 PM, said:

"Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

If a position on religion costs millions of votes I would say it is relevant in a practical sense of the word.

Am I suggesting there is a huge bias against an aethist candidate in this country and almost every country, Yes. Is there bias against some religions in some, almost all, countries including the USA, yes. "

First, the question I asked BebopKid was specific to Christianity, not merely to the religious/atheist divide.  I await his answer.

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

Peter

There is no separation of church and state in the USA. (BTW, if you find "Separation of church and state" in the USA Constitution I'll pay you money. Separation of church and state is a misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights that simply forbids the Government to establish a state religion.)

The Judicial Branch of the USA has created a state religion.

That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA.

People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day.

This is one reason why I want to vote for a Christian. Also, if Joseph Liberman were running, I'd consider voting for him.

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues. I can listen to them before elections and after elections and they have the same answers. Generally people without faith tend to track polls and give constituents what they want to hear in order to get elected. This is in no way fact, and in no way can I prove or disprove this.

I did bring up the part about Barrack Obama, because the media did make false claims about his religious background. Since quite a few people were reading this, it was a way to advertise my favorite candidate. Obama never went to Madrassa as the media reported. He went to a public school for 2 years in a Muslim country. This information was easy enough for me to find out.

I guess the media didn't care that it took me 2 minutes to verify that the information about the Madrassa was wrong. So with this said, what information can we believe? Who is telling the truth? Beats me.

[pbleighton]

"That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA."

And your evidence for this is?

"People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA. It started small but is growing bigger every day."

And your evidence for this is?

Peter

[mycroft]

While I think that Bebop is a troll - or at least a supporter of the cult of Murdoch (and no, even as looney-left as I am, I do not equate that with "Republican" or even "people who listen to Fox News"), he has said one thing that I can fully agree with.

Quote

I have no reason to believe that Bush is doing anything differently from what he thinks is in the United States' best interests.

I have no reason to believe anything different either. I think Bush truly believes that what he is doing is in the United States' best interests. Yes, I know what I'm implying.

On the other hand, I wouldn't vote for General Bullmoose, either.

Michael.

[macaw]

I did a google search for "bush lies documented" - it was interesting reading the results

[luke warm]

Al_U_Card, on Feb 7 2007, 03:08 PM, said:

luke warm, on Feb 7 2007, 02:38 PM, said:

taking your definition of ignorance, and defining religion (for the sake of discussion) as the faith based worship of a deity, do you feel that you are ignorant as to the truth of these claims?

Quote

The ignorant have no consideration of others.  Religious ignorance (belief) confers this state to its adherents so that they not only do not challenge the religious authority and structure but they end up not challenging themselves.  A true opiate, as it were.

since i am ignorant (in this narrow sense we are discussing - i freely admit my ignorance of any number of things), you are saying i have no consideration of others... is this assertion based on knowledge? or is it ignorance, itself?

Hi J. Sorry to have touched a nerve.

al, no nerve was touched, honestly... if i was any calmer i'd be comatose

Quote

Religion for me has little to do with faith/belief in a diety and much more to do with an organized process of intellectual impoverishment that seeks the control of those that adhere to the particular belief structure.

ok, but almost all definitions of religion i've seen use the word "belief" (i.e. faith) in them... while your definition might differ, there does need to be some general agreement on the terms we use

i was objecting, possibly because i'm too quick to go into 'debate' mode, to some of your assertions that seem to be based on personal views rather than fact, such as "Religion is the ultimate refuge of the ignorant" ... and when i asked the subject of this ignorance, you said "Everything important"... i do object on personal as well as philosophical grounds to statements such as those, and i think an objective examination would show me to be warranted in that objection...

now i'm not above that sort of thing, we each enter almost any discussion with our own presuppositions, based on our own particular worldview... but i do try to be extra careful not to make an assertion without at least attempting a proof (not that i'm always successful)

as far as ignorance vs. knowledge, that's a slippery slope... it's quite possible for a highly intelligent person to misstate the nature of knowledge...

mike said:

Peter you are joking yes? Perhaps it should NOT be relevant but show me a viable candidate who says they do not believe in a God? In our lifetime I doubt it.

this is in response to peter's question "...Why is the religious status of a President or Presidential candidate relevant to anything?..." and mike rightly points out that the religious status of a candidate is of paramount relevance, if the aim is to get elected

Quote

Second, are you suggesting that the popularity of anti-atheist bigotry provides an excuse for it?

assuming such a thing exists, mike was not suggesting any such thing... he was merely showing that the religious status of a candidate is indeed relevant

[Winstonm]

Hey, Jimmy, on this issue of religion - and I'm not trying to speak for others who post here but IMO a lot of us who have trouble with the concept of religion are speaking of organizational religion and not spirituality - there is a significant difference.

Spirituality has to do with personal belief and personal relationship with a higher being; religion has to do with man-made interpretations of the will of god; a spiritualist believes this unnecessary as he can receive the will directly from the source with no need for middle man to translate.

And this is also not implying that there are no spiritualists within organized religions, but when a religious doctrine is supported without question (and doctrine meaning the man-made interpretations) then you have what might be called a type of ignorance due to lack of investigation - or closing one's mind to any other potentially valid reasoning.

It is obvious from your posts, you are not of this type. And I think everyone here respects your religious views more because of that.

[luke warm]

thanks winston... i'm not an overly religious (in the sense you mean it) person, although i do think it's important that christians gather together, mainly for edification purposes... it's the nature of things that this gathering together is done from within the framework of religious custom... in any case, i'm pretty sure not all christians would agree with all i have to say on the subject, and i'd be disappointed if they did

[Winstonm]

Quote

In my opinion, people who practice strong faith generally do not waver on issues.

BeBop:

This I think is an accurate statement; however, have you considered the reason for the unwavering resolution is due to the nature of the Wesleyan theology of "salvation/hellfire-brimstone" that is the heart of so many protestant religions and leads to a black and white world view? You are either saved or you burn in hell - You are either with us or with the terrorists - do you see any connection?

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

A world view based on faith is not a house built on granite, nor even sand, but only the thinnest of stands of hope that if ever broken leads to chaos within the self.

And clinging to a delusion in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary can only be defined as insanity - not stubborn resolve.

[hrothgar]

BebopKid, on Feb 8 2007, 01:30 AM, said:

There is no separation of church and state in the USA.  (BTW, if you find "Separation of church and state" in the USA Constitution I'll pay you money.  Separation of church and state is a misrepresentation of the Bill of Rights that simply forbids the Government to establish a state religion.)

The Judicial Branch of the USA has created a state religion. 

That state religion, Atheism, is the largest practiced religion in the USA. 

People of all faiths other than atheism are persecuted in the USA.  It started small but is growing bigger every day.

Bebopkid's assertions about Separation of Church and State are a textbook example of the religious right misinterpretating the US Constitution. Rather than bothering to write my own refutation, I'm simply going to link to the followig URL: http://atheism.about...hs/a/phrase.htm

Thats right: Bebopkid's line of argumentation is so cliched that there are multiple web sites already written that refute his thesis.

In a similar fashion, his assertions that atheism is the largest religion in the US is completely delusional. The following URL links to the best survey regarding religious identification in the United States. In 2001 when the survey was conducted, the proportion of US citizen that claim no religious self identifcation was a mere 14%

http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_br...ey_findings.htm

I want to make a minor change to my earlier conjecture

Option 1: Bebopkid is a troll
Option 2: Bebopkid is completely delusional

In either case, he can pretty much be ignored.

[hrothgar]

Winstonm, on Feb 8 2007, 04:18 AM, said:

The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith.

I'm not sure that I agree with this...

I make a habit of reading Andrew Sullivan's blog on a daily basis. I don't always agree with Sullivan (hell, I rarely agree with Sullivan), however, he writes well and seems to have a fairly open mind. I think he also has a really ugly self-destructive stream, much like his compatriot Christopher Hitchens, however thats a different story.

Sullivan published a book titled "The Conservative Soul" which he has been shilling for almost non-stop. From what I can tell, his central thesis is that true conservatism is defined by doubt and skepticism. Sullivan extend this philosophy to his own religious faith. Here's a representative quote:

>If God really is God, then God must, by definition, surpass our human
>understanding. Not entirely. We have Scripture; we have reason;
>we have religious authority; we have our own spiritual experiences
>of the divine. But there is still something we will never grasp, something
>we can never know - because God is beyond our human categories.
>And if God is beyond our categories, then God cannot be captured for
>certain. We cannot know with the kind of surety that allows us to proclaim
>truth with a capital T. There will always be something that eludes us. If
>there weren't, it would not be God.

Personally, I have the uncomfortable feeling that Sullivan may be deluding himself. He clings to an illusion of doubt, but ultimately sccumbs to blind faith. However, I haven't completely made up my mind. For anyone seriously interested in this topic, there's a good debate between Sullivan and Sam Harris available at

http://www.beliefnet...tory_20904.html

[mike777]

This is really an ongoing discussion in mainline Christianity.

God is knowable
God wants us to know him
Ultimately God is unknowable
Blessed are those who have not seen Him but accept Him by faith.

Then there are gnostics who believe in hidden knowledge. Not mainline.

If all of the above sounds confusing, I agree. I lean more towards God is knowable and wants us to know and understand him.

[mike777]

As for the Sullivan debate, it appears they use the term fundamental religion and the danger it poses. I note Joe Lieberman in a recent article thought this was a great and personal danger to his family.

I continue to disagree, the problem is radical, not fundamental religion.
But then I find the future of tech after 2050 scary too. .

[Impact]

From a different nation and continent, notwithstanding travelling and living in USA for a year, I always discounted the references to religious zealots as representing only 10-15% of US population.

That was based on living in Manhattan, and even when travelling tending to mix with professionals (not bridge players), and avoiding social solecisms such as the discussion of religion.

Richard Dawkins' book THe God Delusion is worthy reading no matter which side of the fence you sit on.
Dawkins (THe Selfish Gene etc) is an eminent (perhaps pre-eminent) biologist and his training in that area and expansion on Darwinian theory is well-written. By contrast, his refutation of criticism made of him, tends towards being precious and/or carping.

I was familiar with the logic of the position he advocates - and perhaps it was alittle like "preaching to the converted" in part but my unfamiliarity with New Testament writing meant that his references to that material was new, and the position of the contradictions in the gospels (both between them and with events of undoubted historical authenticity and certainty of date) made edifying reading.

Returning to the original point, what did come as a surprise to me was Dawkins' indication of just how religious (at least in terms of both espousing a stated religion and the degree of credence given to say creationism) the US appeared to him.

Again, I accept the fact that Dawkins had an axe to grind and is not a completely disinterested observer, but if the figures he cites are remotely accurate, i am concerned.

In Oz, no enquiry is made of church-going habits of politicians unless they volunteer it themselves.

By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!

It is not necessarily that we are more atheistic (albeit we probably are) but that there is a healthy scepticism if not cynicism in the Oz citizen that does not believe that any God would take such direct interest in politics, and the certainty of conviction to amount to absolute faith is frightening!

regards

[mike777]

"By contrast with the US, any politician who addressed the nation and attempted to invoke God on his side - or even tto bless the country/nation would invite ridicule and electoral defeat!"


You are joking of course, many countries outside of Europe do this, even Chavez in South America. See India, Africa, South America, Mexico, Indonesia, etc.

Yes funny enough the USA is considered the most church going country in the world, who would have thunk.

In any event I think if Oz land allowed more immigrants from its very near neighbor it would be much more religious. Instead it seems to fear them and shut them out from a land that is water poor but land rich.

[Winstonm]

Quote

QUOTE (Winstonm @ Feb 8 2007, 04:18 AM)
The problem with faith is there is no room for self doubt. When confronted with overwhelming evidence to the contrary, one with faith has nothing to cling to but that faith. Because to accept the evidence means being wrong, and being wrong unravels not only the world view but unravels self - and we find there never was a self - only faith. 


I'm not sure that I agree with this...

I did not spell out well what I meant - it was intended to be in keeping with the concept of indoctrination by Weleyan theology, of a wrathful and punishing god, everlasting torture, and salvation.

What I was trying to say is that if you are indoctrinated thoroughly in the Wesleyan doctrine in the early years of life up through early adulthood, you do not form a concept of self other than one of being unfit for the kingdom of heaven - and if you are unfit, you will burn for eternity in fire and brimstone - and the only thing that can make you worthy is repentence and salvation. So your only self image is constantly teetering on the brink of eternal damnation. If that faith is cracked, there is nothing left of a self-image, as a real and positive self image has been destroyed - without that faith there is only a void - the faith actually defines and becomes the person - they are inseperable. It is the faith in this ideology that I tried to show. I am not speaking here of moderate religious groups, but the hard core evangelicals that attempt to frighten into conversion.

That's why I said no room for doubt - it is black and white - and so is the world view.

I hope I said this better this time around.