Assume Nothing

I don't care if people believe in Santa, or the Tooth Fairy, or Big Foot. But when Santa tells these believers to discriminate against non-believers and homosexuals, to kill in the name of Santa, or to do generally immoral acts, then I have a problem. That's why I see religion as a problem; that's why I'm anti-theist.

You'd probably have to put effort into getting an argument out of a non fundamentalist. And the non-fundamentalists certainly do exist. The Church I belong to is also known to some people by the name 'the thinkers religion', because it is very much about allowing and encouraging people to find their own faith, not telling you how to live your life or what to believe. My Church does not consider the bible to be literal, but rather a very important story book. And for me, that's really where you draw the line of fundamentalism. To me, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that their story book is the literal true word of their deity(s). On that note, how long has it been since I said I hate it when people try to push their personal religious beliefs on other people (this applies to atheists too) :evil: How does an atheist push religious beliefs if they hold none? "God doesn't exist" is a religious view. Athiests wouldn't be cool with me pushing the existence of god on them any more than I like people pushing his non existence on me. I am more than happy to talk about why people might or might not believe in a God, but a flat out 'your wrong, god doesn't exist, your a moron' really doesn't fly with me. I don't give a flying [bleep] what you believe, as long as your polite about it :D I'd say it's more of an irreligious view more than a religious view, but that would be an argument of semantics. It seems that you imply atheism is the assertion that 'God doesn't exist' - am I interpreting you correctly?

I couldn't wake up from a fire alarm. If you grant that I was ill at the time, it wasn't that bad...

You'd probably have to put effort into getting an argument out of a non fundamentalist. And the non-fundamentalists certainly do exist. The Church I belong to is also known to some people by the name 'the thinkers religion', because it is very much about allowing and encouraging people to find their own faith, not telling you how to live your life or what to believe. My Church does not consider the bible to be literal, but rather a very important story book. And for me, that's really where you draw the line of fundamentalism. To me, a fundamentalist is someone who believes that their story book is the literal true word of their deity(s). On that note, how long has it been since I said I hate it when people try to push their personal religious beliefs on other people (this applies to atheists too) :evil: How does an atheist push religious beliefs if they hold none?

>Presumption that beliefs don't matter.

I don't see how you could be a moderate Christian or whatever non-fundamentalists are. The theists I tend to dispute with have a tendency to be fundamentalists, who I have little hope for.

Unless they know for a fact the person they're saying it to isn't a believer and they aren't a fairly sarcastic Christian. :razz: It's all in the intent, I think. I'm an outspoken atheist, so they can be pretty certain I don't follow their beliefs. If a deity really existed and was anything like the portrayal in the Bible, I'd prefer to worship the Devil - he seems to be the nice guy in that book, but I digress.

I assume you're talking about spaghetti bolognese. If not, then hell no.

'I shall pray for you' 'May God watch over you' How would Christians feel if a Satanist told them 'May the dark lord watch over you'?

House elves. But it's a secret, so don't tell anyone. :-$ I don't remember any house-elves last I checked >.> On the topic of the actual articles; I liked the data gathered in the Tip.it survey. When's the next one being conducted?

Thank you for giving us the other side of the efficiency debate. The EP is full of writers and editors, none of us are very efficient. :P If you're implying that the efficiency of the Tip.it Times Panel is poor, then how do you guys publish your works on time? :sarcastic:

I don't see the merit in Blyaunte's article, in all honesty. Where's the revelation, i.e. promoting something we don't already know? I don't see it as beautifully articulated, eloquent piece of art either.

I dig that hair.

Here's a mini compilation of questions for Christians and theists alike; If God is so loving, why would he punish those who don't believe in him? If God is merciful, would he be just? If you pray for something, and it's not in God's divine plan, would God grant your prayer? If it's his bidding/will, why pray in the first place? If God is the creator of the Universe, who created the creator? If a God exists, why doesn't he present himself in a way that's observable? How do you tell the difference between a natural remission with a miracle, if you're Christian? Is there any difference between a world where no God exists and things occur naturally, with religion invented to keep people in line, to our current one? If all else fails, would Pascal's wager be a sound argument for religion? Does the benefits of religion outweigh the drawbacks, and is there no alternative? Feel free to pick apart only a few of the above to elaborate more deeply. I struggle to believe in the Christian God because of the many logical inconsistencies it has.

I think it operates slightly differently in Canada. In contrast, I'm pretty certain that Christian churches in America does indeed endorse anti-atheist views and thus condemn them in not only verbal damnation, but sometimes by influencing the legal system. I would agree that if religious practices did not interfere with others, there would be little problem in the concept and it could be brushed off to be 'trivial'. It's unfortunate that it's not true - religion is such a prevalent concept that religious ideas imposed do affect others, directly or indirectly, since for a large part of society, the Bible acts as a moral code - what it endorses for Christians will ultimately have an effect on a Christian society, such as affecting the bills being passed in a democratic state. I think you have yet to grasp the vast social effects, both good and bad, religion has. It's one of the reasons why these debates are such a 'hot' topic. If what I've said is currently unclear, it's because it's 5am and I'm failing miserably at articulating my thoughts.

The problem with quoting an article without any additional information would be the fact that the ideas the quoted author holds says nothing about his own opinion until he responds and confirms/denies. It may be silly to respond to the argument, if nothing can be accomplished from it (a rational person is unlikely to defend a belief that they don't hold, should they not hold said belief). That's why I prefer thoughts to be clearly articulated as opposed to copying large sections of the Bible, or any other source in an attempt to persuade readers to accept a position. I still hold that religion is no longer necessary in our society, and therefore it should be a social aim to abolish what's considered the religious wrongdoings - examples being: the condemning of non-believers and homosexuals, misogynistic views, genocidal acts such as war, scientific and medical oppression, racial/gender discrimination, condoning of non safe-sex, and 'brainwashing' (fear of God, suppressing one's feelings, preventing children from accessing information, being a cause of guilt in regards to normal sexual behaviours, disrespect of non-believers...) etc.

Losing money on roulette. Especially when you've covered 5/6 of the table.

Why are you using Islam and religion interchangeably? Islam is one religion, not equal to religion in general. On the James quote: 1. He makes a false dilemma between materialism and theism. 2. He quotes the theory of his time on how the universe would end according to cosmographers. Now there are many theories as to what might happen, rendering his interpretation outdated. 3. His assumption that man's need for eternal moral order, while clearly stated as an assumption by the compositor of the quotes, is not only not an assumption that I share, but it doesn't even seem that tenable. 4. Interestingly, the belief in a recurring physical universe, such as one with enough matter to contract into a big crunch leading into another big bang, does seem to result in an "eternal moral order" without requiring theism. I should have clarified that the video on Islamic religions are only an example of religious condemning of non-believers. Apologies for any misinterpretations. EDIT @Duff It's not saying much to assert that 'not all of them' condemn non-believers, considering that the most widely practiced ones, which include Christianity (I think it's approx 60% of the United States alone) and the Islamic (which covers much of the Eastern world) most certainly do.

Could you post your own thoughts, as opposed to quoting large sections of philosophical texts? It's difficult to read and it's disputably more difficult to see the connection between your point and what you've copied and pasted. I don't understand why religion has to condemn those who don't believe though - Here's a quick video on the islamic penality for apostasy; If the moral values of religion is good, then why do they condemn non-believers to hell, or worse - an actual death penalty? EDIT - I think this may be useful

In short; a feeling of spiritual revelation - unexplained epiphanies attributed to an invisible, intangible being that's almighty. Is it really necessary though? How does religion benefit society as a whole?

Should atheists celebrate Christmas?

You don't see any practical use for misinformation? I guess you're right...I'm just glad you don't know where I live, in case you find out why you didn't get that last job...and why that tall handsome dude Delapaz got the job instead. I've said too much Oh, that. I guess I was viewing it from a different angle - there's personal benefits, but no real social benefits.

I don't see any practical advantages of gossiping, given that it's far more prone to misinformation. I guess an identifiable advantage would be the sheer speed - although, it'll probably be quickly outpaced by future technologies that we could only speculate upon.

Gossiping. It's especially unbearable if it's unprovoked - why should a stranger care about someone else's personal life, should they have no affiliation whatsoever?

Banned for assuming so - despite it being implicit within my display name.