Argue that it's true

[_LCD2YOU]

Perhaps a better description then for a atheist/agnostic would be a "Humanist"? As a theist believes in a god or gods, as I believe in humanity, I'd like to be called that instead.

I for one believe that humanity will one day cast off the notions of personal gods, althought the idea of god or gods could continue as abstract entities that really don't know we exist (or care), and the sectarian strife that has consumed this planet will largely stop.

Then humanity will take our rightful place in the stars and continue on.

[_Moniker]

Perhaps a better description then for a atheist/agnostic would be a "Humanist"? As a theist believes in a god or gods, as I believe in humanity, I'd like to be called that instead.

I for one believe that humanity will one day cast off the notions of personal gods, althought the idea of god or gods could continue as abstract entities that really don't know we exist (or care), and the sectarian strife that has consumed this planet will largely stop.

Then humanity will take our rightful place in the stars and continue on.

Well I am a secular humanist. Yet, not all atheists/agnostics are. I think the term atheist only means "lack of belief in god" and we can't contribute a world outlook to anyone that has that lack of belief in a deity.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I am a Polybius Cicero-ian pietist.

I am the cement that keeps Rome alive.

[_karl61]

When I started to put the pieces together and realized that the Joseph Smith likely made up all the stories, that evolution and environmental forces brought man into being, it was like a light bulb was turned on ...I was sadden that the dream of going back to the church died because if there was a true church, it was not the church that existed in 1800's and if it was not the true church in the 1800's then it is not now. But then once realizes how special the time is when you are here. You know very little about the future except that death is eventually in everyone's future. You also can also realize that given the history of the earth and history of civilization that living in America in the year 2000 really is a silver spoon.

[_The Nehor]

Nehor, I haven't seen you attack atheism. You know you're not the only one on these boards. ;)

I'm just saying it's a little disconcerting to have to repeatedly tell people that I do care about my fellow man. I am charitable. I do find meaning in my life. I have a sense of eternal (that is in the way of my children, grandchildren that I may have one day, etc.. and humanity in general), and that I find joy, wonder, and awe in life.

Do you not read the threads on MAD where the pigeonholes are often put? And this is in the community at large (where I live) that atheists are nuts and are lunatics that want to destroy society and strip away all morality.

There's a cultural war being waged right now in our country. Where have you been? ;)

And, gotta say, I'm JUST as irritated by those that are atheists attacking theists as if they're all nasty, irrational idiots as well. The intolerance can be seen in both camps.

I think the main axis of the attack on atheism in that area comes from atheists having no rational basis for charity and meaning. While there is some truth to this argument, theists have no rational reason to prefer heaven over hell either. Yet they do. It's something in the makeup of our species that in my opinion defies logic. And as I said, humans are not rational or logical creatures.

--------------------

Your claim here is so ridiculous as to be laughable. It is exactly a “rational basis” for charity to observe human misery and tragedy with a desire to alleviate that misery and tragedy. Atheists or agnostics can see suffering as it is presented to them (documented). And the desire of atheists/agnostics to mitigate and ameliorate that situation is demonstrated by works.

On the other hand, religious pundits appear to be more concerned about their selfish ends. It may be their fear of hell that motivates their good works. Or, they may be out trying to proselytize others trying to enrich their own religious denomination. The appeal for money from religious groups is generally quite self-serving. It is not generally out of “charity” for others. A food basket to the poor once a year (Thanksgiving) is hardly sincere “charity.” While some religious groups do much more than that, others do just about that much.

As for “humans are not rational or logical creatures;” there is irrefutable evidence for that and especially in religious groups. Religion is irrational. Medical science, on the other hand, is based on rational (reasoned) discovery and application of reasoned conclusion.

“Charity” for one’s fellow humans can be well founded outside religion. Medical science is, at a practical level, about “charity.” And medical science is generally atheistic nor agnostic as it pursues truth entirely outside God boxes of religion.

Your argument that atheists have no rational basis for charity is wrong. There is rational basis for “charity.” Historically, religion has not been much on “charity.” It has been big on punishment and sin and irrational beliefs (as particular religions make claims which are irrational).

JAK

What the HELL? How many times do I have to say this is not my argument?

JAK, please learn how to read.

It's obnoxious to have to wade through your strange posts.

[_Doctor Steuss]

I am a Polybius Cicero-ian pietist.

I am the cement that keeps Rome alive.

I just had to take a second look at this rather brilliant post that both provides an argument of one particular aspect of why religion is “true” as well as potentially how a lack of piety can bring down a civilization (depending upon the historian of course).

Enigmatically, yet subserviently yours,
Doctor “Deuteronomy 23:1 will keep me out of heaven” Steuss

<---- *Reading Cicero’s Considering the Response to the Soothsayers in the corner while using Polybius’ Histories as a foot rest*


--------
As a side note, I don’t know if my posts are making any sense at all. Having a bad day today in regards to audible hallucinations, so it’s kind of hard to think. So, if they don’t make sense, I’m sorry.

[_Moniker]

I am a Polybius Cicero-ian pietist.

I am the cement that keeps Rome alive.

I just had to take a second look at this rather brilliant post that both provides an argument of one particular aspect of why religion is “true” as well as potentially how a lack of piety can bring down a civilization (depending upon the historian of course).

Enigmatically, yet subserviently yours,
Doctor “Deuteronomy 23:1 will keep me out of heaven” Steuss

<---- *Reading Cicero’s Considering the Response to the Soothsayers in the corner while using Polybius’ Histories as a foot rest*


--------
As a side note, I don’t know if my posts are making any sense at all. Having a bad day today in regards to audible hallucinations, so it’s kind of hard to think. So, if they don’t make sense, I’m sorry.

Huh. They're making more sense, to me, than usual.

Don't know if that says something about you... or me?

[_GoodK]

One thing has now become very clear to me. Hoffer's definition of zealot applies 100% to you. Face it, you're an acolyte for atheism. That was obvious in your sig. line at MAD. Enjoy the praise you get from your fellow atheists. Go to sleep reading their posts. Sweet Lull-a-bye.

You must have also read that I don't think the word atheism is even a word we should be using. You seem quite angry at me, what was your name over at MAD? You sound familiar.

[_harmony]

I am the cement that keeps Rome alive.

I think this is absolutely brilliant. Wow. Poetry.

[_Doctor Steuss]

Huh. They're making more sense, to me, than usual.

Don't know if that says something about you... or me?

LOL! Thanks, but I think I'm going to call it a day and head on home. I can't function.

As for religion being true: Today, G-d doesn't exist for me, and Nature is a cruel bitch.