Central Scrutinizer

I was echoiing his point, not refuting it. So... yeah.

If our pursuit in life is the basic questions: "who am I?" "why am I here?", anything that brings us closer to that answer is the goal, and brings us comfort (unless the answer is "42"). Damn, bob(2) and I had you in the pool.

You have to consider the basis of the old testament. It was an oral history of a people, told and retold until it could be written down (and written down and revised, and argued over). As a "god-breathed" document, I would personally find hard to buy, knowing how people like to muck up the works. But it is a historical record of a people, and their morality (and immorality, woo hoo!) and how they exist and thrive). There's no science experiments. There's no big bang recipe. Trying to apply science to it is like trying to put rabbit ears on a duck.

"Science is fueled by curiosity, not ego." Gee, the top research universities, the top tech firms and countless patent holders can wrap themselves up in that one.

"God is a concept, by which we measure our pain. Say it again ..." It was poignant. So I repeated it.

I learned that when I reached puberty. Damned sheets...

Amen, brother. More Kool-aid?

MY (insert deity) you are sooo angry about this. I think the point some pretty fair-minded people are making about this is that your beliefs -- or lack of them -- are your own. Getting militant about your beliefs because someone somewhere did the same to you doesn't sound like a rational argument. There are all kinds in the world. What they believe shouldn't bother you as much as it appears to. Is there not a deeper issue for your reaction?

"beliefs are foisted on those that do not share them."

... let me repeat that ... "unanswerable questions." O.K., go on ... "Without exception"? False. As in not true. Dogg, you misspelled anthropological. I spelled it right 99.44 percent of the time, and yes you misspelled more than your share too, but then I'm trying to see beyond those to hear what you're saying, and you're preaching away whatever you're trying to sell me on. Your arugments de-evolve into attacking generalities in response to your generalities, but then you follow up with additional generalities. Do you need a book to thump while you're making your points?

Exactly! The "evangelical" implies those who are confident that "atheism" is the answer to the question, and want to bring other to the same conclusion. I think it was a clever choice of words for that very reason. Ironical, ain't it?

"truth" in your sense is a strictly philosophical term and does not address theology. So the pursuit of "truth" cannot be done with respect to others' viewpoints? Can't be "moderated" as in a free exchange of ideas within an acceptable format? Your last paragraph is heifer dust, since you set out to define the basis of all religions. A lot of the approaches of "athiest" is a lot of anthropological double-talk. You can't observe a society and judge upon it when you are part of the society. Your approach is skewed.

Lately that's getting to be like worshipping buddah.

Oohhh .... do not tempt him!! Let us all take one shoe like him and in the say way shove it into our mouths!

Cledus is dead. Wait ... Paul is dead. Palin is to McCain as the Bandit is to Cledus. Cledus is dead ... McCain is Paul!!

I think many try to -- Jim Wallis is a great example of someone with a moderate view -- but they never seem to be heard because of the baggage that's dumped on them. I think that has been demonstrated in attempts within the thread and previous ones like it. Again, it's not strictly a Christian, Jewish, Muslim or Hindu thing.

Imagine being stuck i the middle of that then. Religious evangelicals, despite popular view, are a narrow but vocal vein. I can't speak for them so I can't defend myself against those things which I do not believe. If the problems come from polarity, they have to be broken down, but from both sides of the wall.

When you atheists meet, do you have a contemporary service too?

Then don't do it.

That is a perfectly understandable approach and premise. Again, I think caliber hit the nail on the head. There are those who believe what they believe, who conceive what they conceive and there are those that proselytize: "to recruit someone to join one's party, institution, or cause." The myopic approach has been meant only to show how the opposite can be true; that the "argument" is in approach, and preconceived notions that the true debate and discourse may never begin. Repeated for emphasis and agreement: I merely search for answers that may or may not include a creator.

The above should be carved in stone as an example of how an "atheist" just doesn't get it. This is strictly bias of thought. Every religion has "absence" of humility?!? You take your little myopic view of "religion" and you say "this is what everyone thinks." Just out of curiosity, what specifically are you looking into and when should we get back with you?

I didn't because I'm not debating the belief vs. non-belief here. That hasn't been the point. It's interesting to read. The rest that you list, the premises and the differences are all created and detailed from the perspective of an atheist. It would seem to me that atheism is neither a relgion nor an absence of religion but that all of life must be viewed from the perspective of precluding any aspect of religion (except possibly "supernatural beings" which would have to be explained -- is this Freud or DC Comics superman?). And given the existence, development and growth of mankind (and all

His quote is based on *having* to argue. The point is, it's a pursuit, in which all should be welcome, each person has an equal stake because we don't know and we only do what finds support and comfort in our minds, in our beliefs and in the way we lead our lives. It's not the word "athiesm" that has connotations. It is the practicioners who hand out the moniker, and their behavior which create stereotypes, just as those who reinforce religious stereotypes. Building the same wall from different sides.