Paizo Top Nav Branding
  • Hello, Guest! |
  • Sign In |
  • My Account |
  • Shopping Cart |
  • Help/FAQ
About Paizo Messageboards News Paizo Blog Help/FAQ
Pathfinder Roleplaying Game
Pathfinder Society

Pathfinder Beginner Box

Pathfinder Adventure Card Game

Pathfinder Comics

Pathfinder Legends

Is atheism a religion?


Off-Topic Discussions

101 to 150 of 1,394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>

If you, personally, have been around for hundreds of years, then your name better McCloud. LOL

Andoran

pres man wrote:
If you, personally, have been around for hundreds of years, then your name better McCloud. LOL

I am Ronald, of the clan McDonald, and I cannot fry.

There can be only bun.


pres man wrote:
your name better McCloud

MacLeod. Have a friend from Scotland whose clan is MacLeod, and spelling it the way you did causes her to erupt into violence so awful it makes all us militant atheists look like church mice -- namely, she actually corrects your spelling! Oh, the horror!


pres man wrote:
If you, personally, have been around for hundreds of years, then your name better McCloud. LOL

Crap, now I have to fake my death and change my name again.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Moff Rimmer wrote:
Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:
I'm a militant atheist, believe that anyone with a faith is irredeemably stupid, ...
Where's Kirth? I wanted to make sure he saw this.
Sorry -- I was too busy blowing up buildings. OK, no -- actually I was drinking beer and thinking about science stuff, which is of course equally heinous.

Clearly.

Grand Lodge

Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
ciretose wrote:
LazarX wrote:
ciretose wrote:
To steal a good line, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.
A more useful and accurate line would be that Atheism is not a religion, but more than a few Atheists pursue it as such.

Think of it this way. If for hundreds of years you were told that if you didn't worship some imaginary being, you would be oppressed at minimum, and risk being tortured and killed. And then you look around and realize that the majority of wars and conflicts come from people arguing about which invisible sky god was the best invisible sky god...maybe you would like people to consider reason and logic for a change.

I'm just sayin'

If you grew up in the Soviet Union where suppression of religious belief went along hand in hand with suppression and destruction of culture, language, and the freedom to express yourself, you'd have a simmilar opinion of militant atheism. Or "Dialectical Materialism" as it translates out to.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
your name better McCloud
MacLeod.

That is copyrighted I'm sure, didn't want to step on anyone's IP (or maybe I just forget and was too lazy to look it up). ;)


LazarX wrote:
Or "Dialectical Materialism" as it translates out to.

Not exactly, because in promoting Lysenko's garbledigook, the Soviets showed that they had also turned their backs on materialistic cause-and-effect relationships, and instead set sail for some kind of imaginary la-la-land.

Andoran

LazarX wrote:
ciretose wrote:
LazarX wrote:
ciretose wrote:
To steal a good line, atheism is a religion like abstinence is a sexual position.
A more useful and accurate line would be that Atheism is not a religion, but more than a few Atheists pursue it as such.

Think of it this way. If for hundreds of years you were told that if you didn't worship some imaginary being, you would be oppressed at minimum, and risk being tortured and killed. And then you look around and realize that the majority of wars and conflicts come from people arguing about which invisible sky god was the best invisible sky god...maybe you would like people to consider reason and logic for a change.

I'm just sayin'

If you grew up in the Soviet Union where suppression of religious belief went along hand in hand with suppression and destruction of culture, language, and the freedom to express yourself, you'd have a simmilar opinion of militant atheism. Or "Dialectical Materialism" as it translates out to.

Actually I have friends who grew up in the Soviet Union. They said people just thought the Christians were dumb.

They have told me open gays and atheists in the south have it far worse.

I personally don't like "militant" anythings, but I find what is described as "militant" for atheists is often anyone who says "But evolution has actually been peer reviewed."

Qadira

pres man wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
pres man wrote:
your name better McCloud
MacLeod.
That is copyrighted I'm sure, didn't want to step on anyone's IP (or maybe I just forget and was too lazy to look it up). ;)

Or maybe you meant this McCloud, since he's equally cool. (Or so I remember...I was seven or eight at the time, so who can tell?)


Moff Rimmer wrote:
Swivl wrote:
To be clear: atheism is not a religion. It is not a "belief" that the divine does not exist. It is a statement, proven by observations and backed by facts, that any given supernatural explanation for existence, life and the universe does not suffice in light of a natural existence.
I missed the "proof" that God doesn't exist. What lab was this done in?

I've already addressed this line of thinking. Please reread the thread.

Also, I think there is some misstatement and misunderstanding going on. I did not claim that god has been proven not to exist. My statement is that god is not required to explain existence, and by importing a supernatural being into a natural realm, it creates myriad more questions than answers. This is the very basis of why faiths are many but no matter what certain truths are explainable without faith at all (gravity, electromagnetism, etc.).

If you wanted to make unprovable hypotheses, I've already supplied a couple upthread.


Someone above wrote:

"Atheism is not a religion, but more than a few Atheists pursue it as such."

This is probably the best answer to the original question that I have seen in this discussion.

In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.

Proselytizing atheists are as annoying as proselytizing theists, for almost identical reasons.


Shadowborn wrote:
Or maybe you meant this McCloud, since he's equally cool.

I have to admit, riding a horse down a city street around that kind of traffic is way more impressive than living forever and cutting people's heads off with a sword.


Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.

The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.


Werebat wrote:


Proselytizing atheists are as annoying as proselytizing theists, for almost identical reasons.

Fair enough. Though I would wager the proselytizing theists are far more abundant with far more negative outcomes (wars, the crusades, things exploding throughout history and today, etc).


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.

That too.

Qadira

Kirth Gersen wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Or maybe you meant this McCloud, since he's equally cool.
I have to admit, riding a horse down a city street around that kind of traffic is way more impressive than living forever and cutting people's heads off with a sword.

Well, I did say I was seven or eight. Still in my cowboy phase. It's probably more of a testament to the temperament and training of the horse anyway.

Qadira

ciretose wrote:


I personally don't like "militant" anythings, but I find what is described as "militant" for atheists is often anyone who says "But evolution has actually been peer reviewed."

I refer you back to my wall of text.

Grand Lodge

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.

I'm familiar with those folks and it's an initiative that I'm one hundred percent behind. The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.


LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.
I'm familiar with those folks and it's an initiative that I'm one hundred percent behind. The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.

The irony is that the christmas tree is more pagan than christian.


2 people marked this as a favorite.
LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.
I'm familiar with those folks and it's an initiative that I'm one hundred percent behind. The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.

+100

Christmas Trees are quite harmless, even beautiful, and socially prevalent enough to not be Christian-specific. Every atheist I know in person loves a good Christmas Tree.

EDIT: and of course the pagan thing. That's not really what comes to mind when I see one, though.


Swivl wrote:
LazarX wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.
I'm familiar with those folks and it's an initiative that I'm one hundred percent behind. The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.

+100

Christmas Trees are quite harmless, even beautiful, and socially prevalent enough to not be Christian-specific. Every atheist I know in person loves a good Christmas Tree.

I'm an atheist who also loves christmas. I consider it cultural as opposed to faith based. 99% of american culture around this supports that view. P.S. I invented that statistic, but I assume it's not that far off. ;-)

Qadira

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


The irony is that the christmas tree is more pagan than christian.

And the rub is that rather than simply look at it as an artful symbol of a holiday that is largely secular these days, some people have to use it as a point to start an argument against religion, which goes against the whole spirit of the holiday. You should be at home arguing with your relatives and in-laws, not out in the streets doing so with strangers.


Shadowborn wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


The irony is that the christmas tree is more pagan than christian.
And the rub is that rather than simply look at it as an artful symbol of a holiday that is largely secular these days, some people have to use it as a point to start an argument against religion, which goes against the whole spirit of the holiday. You should be at home arguing with your relatives and in-laws, not out in the streets doing so with strangers.

The point is that both militant sides get all up in arms about something that doesn't historically belong to either.

I like christmas trees, but they're not a religious symbol anymore than (Modern) Santa is.

Qadira

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


The irony is that the christmas tree is more pagan than christian.
And the rub is that rather than simply look at it as an artful symbol of a holiday that is largely secular these days, some people have to use it as a point to start an argument against religion, which goes against the whole spirit of the holiday. You should be at home arguing with your relatives and in-laws, not out in the streets doing so with strangers.

The point is that both militant sides get all up in arms about something that doesn't historically belong to either.

I like christmas trees, but they're not a religious symbol anymore than (Modern) Santa is.

I agree. I'm personally tired of the false dichotomy that constantly arises. Every year some religious folks will start up their defense against the "war on Christmas" and sure enough some atheist group will try and put up an ugly plaque with a pithy quotation on it at City Hall to justify their ranting.


Shadowborn wrote:
I agree. I'm personally tired of the false dichotomy that constantly arises. Every year some religious folks will start up their defense against the "war on Christmas" and sure enough some atheist group will try and put up an ugly plaque with a pithy quotation on it at City Hall to justify their ranting.

So do you suppose that if christians as a whole declared christmas trees non-religous symbols (which they're really not anyway) that the militant atheists would drop the subject?

Andoran

1 person marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber

If only both sides would.

Andoran

Pathfinder Comics Subscriber; Pathfinder Adventure Path, Campaign Setting, Companion, Modules, Pawns, Roleplaying Game, Tales Subscriber
LazarX wrote:
The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.

Yes, because nothing says "no establishment of religion" like the government promoting symbols of one and only one religion. :]

Granted, Christmas and Easter have become nearly secular holidays in the United States... but only because of longstanding grotesque violations of the separation of church and state. Which annoys a lot of people of many different religions. Rewriting the pledge of allegiance to awkwardly add in 'under God' (who is apparently indivisible) and putting 'in God we trust' on all the money often gets a pass because the vast majority of people are some flavor of monotheists, but it is kind of obnoxious to push a religious view on to school children every morning... while still claiming to be a nation that doesn't discriminate between religions.

Qadira

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
I agree. I'm personally tired of the false dichotomy that constantly arises. Every year some religious folks will start up their defense against the "war on Christmas" and sure enough some atheist group will try and put up an ugly plaque with a pithy quotation on it at City Hall to justify their ranting.
So do you suppose that if christians as a whole declared christmas trees non-religous symbols (which they're really not anyway) that the militant atheists would drop the subject?

I suppose it's a possibility, but I rarely expect rational action from emotionally agitated people. Which is why clashes like this continue; people whip themselves into a lather over minor issues and refuse to budge. Both sides would like to claim a moral high ground, but usually there's none to be had because everyone is too busy being a bunch of jerks.

On the bright side, the rest of us can simply turn off the TV and avoid articles about in online and enjoy the holiday (or not, in the case of humbuggers like me.)


CBDunkerson wrote:
LazarX wrote:
The Atheists that I would like to punt into a lake are the ones that complain about the Christmas Tree at City Hall.

Yes, because nothing says "no establishment of religion" like the government promoting symbols of one and only one religion. :]

Granted, Christmas and Easter have become nearly secular holidays in the United States... but only because of longstanding grotesque violations of the separation of church and state. Which annoys a lot of people of many different religions. Rewriting the pledge of allegiance to awkwardly add in 'under God' (who is apparently indivisible) and putting 'in God we trust' on all the money often gets a pass because the vast majority of people are some flavor of monotheists, but it is kind of obnoxious to push a religious view on to school children every morning... while still claiming to be a nation that doesn't discriminate between religions.

Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.


Kirth Gersen wrote:
Werebat wrote:
In general, I would much prefer to deal with non-proselytizing theists than proselytizing atheists.
The difference is, on the whole it's "OK" to be a theist in the U.S., but not an atheist. The proselytizing atheists are attempting to shift public perception to the point where people who actively disbelieve don't have to pretend to be religious just to avoid being branded as "obviously immoral deviants." They do it on the internet because it's harder for people to kick their ass there, and because there's an illusion of anonymity, so they don't feel like they'll get fired from their jobs for not being members of the God club.

I'm not trying to start anything here, but I'm wondering if this is a cultural issue rather than a religious one.

I've seen the exact thing happen in inverse over here in Singapore in certain industries with people discriminated against because of the religious beliefs. The same thing happens to Atheists in different fields.

Which generally makes me muse that it's more case of an old boy's club rather than a religious issue with people seeking to attract more similar belief systems with the unfortunate effect of creating self-perpetuating echo-chambers.

Qadira

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.

Deists, not atheists.


Elinor Knutsdottir wrote:


Kryzbyn said wrote:
Bald isn't a hair color, but it is a hair style :P

That's brilliant, and should be the last word on this subject wherever and whenever it is raised.

I bow and doff my helmet to you. Revealing not-bald.

I was reminded of the scene from Kill Bill 1 where gordon liu said to uma thurman "I'm not bald, I shave my head. Do you understand?" while being a smart ass.

Andoran

Pathfinder Battles Case Subscriber
Shadowborn wrote:
Deists, not atheists.

*waves*


The 8th Dwarf wrote:

All this conversation will achieve is a demonstration of high-level philosophical wankery as people who get their jollies by telling others how wrong they are, mouth off.

Did somebody say my name? No? Huh, that's weird...coulda sworn...


Shadowborn wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.
Deists, not atheists.

It seems we were both partially mistaken.

Per Wikipedia (not a scholastic journal, but good enough for this purpose)
Religion (of founding fathers)
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[14][15][16] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[17] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[18]


1 person marked this as a favorite.
ciretose wrote:
I personally don't like "militant" anythings, but I find what is described as "militant" for atheists is often anyone who says "But evolution has actually been peer reviewed."

Yes, thank you.

I'm militant in my atheism in precisely the same way I'm militant in anything else. Cuz I'm right and I'll show you. When people say something profoundly wrong and/or ignorant and I know how to show them evidence to the contrary, I do so.

So when someone says something PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT like "well evolution is just a theory, the bible is a fact!" watch the f*@# out!


Still though. Separation of church and state in a melting pot like the U.S. is a great idea that we are sort of ignoring lately.


meatrace wrote:
ciretose wrote:
I personally don't like "militant" anythings, but I find what is described as "militant" for atheists is often anyone who says "But evolution has actually been peer reviewed."

Yes, thank you.

I'm militant in my atheism in precisely the same way I'm militant in anything else. Cuz I'm right and I'll show you. When people say something profoundly wrong and/or ignorant and I know how to show them evidence to the contrary, I do so.

So when someone says something PROFOUNDLY IGNORANT like "well evolution is just a theory, the bible is a fact!" watch the f$#% out!

If that's the case I suppose I'm Militant also.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.

Just playing the Devil's Advocate...

In a Democracy, if a certain strata of society is morally motivated to skew government policy to match their belief, and they happen to be the majority section of the populace...

Then what?

The way the situation in the US is being described here, I'm going to assume it's a socially self-reinforcing tyranny of the majority has established itself.

So how would you go about disentangling the two?

Take this as coming from a person who lives in a country where the government has pretty much mandated "Live and Let Live" into the legal system and wields it like a bludgeon whenever someone plays the religion or race card.

Qadira

Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.
Deists, not atheists.

It seems we were both partially mistaken.

Per Wikipedia (not a scholastic journal, but good enough for this purpose)
Religion (of founding fathers)
Lambert (2003) has examined the religious affiliations and beliefs of the Founders. Of the 55 delegates to the 1787 Constitutional Convention, 49 were Protestants, and three were Roman Catholics (C. Carroll, D. Carroll, and Fitzsimons). Among the Protestant delegates to the Constitutional Convention, 28 were Church of England (or Episcopalian, after the American Revolutionary War was won), eight were Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutherans, two were Dutch Reformed, and two were Methodists.
A few prominent Founding Fathers were anti-clerical Christians, such as Thomas Jefferson[14][15][16] (who created the so-called "Jefferson Bible") and Benjamin Franklin.[17] A few others (most notably Thomas Paine) were deists, or at least held beliefs very similar to those of deists.[18]

Makes sense. Had you asked me to name the deists, Franklin would have been the only one I could name off the top of my head.

What drives me batty are the people who don't realize that separation of church and state was intended to work both ways. The other half of the equation, which some religious folk (I'm looking at you, Santorum) don't understand is that it keeps government out of religion, allowing people to follow their beliefs as they see fit. That whole thing with Rick Santorum talking about Kennedy's speech making him want to vomit was ridiculous. The whole speech was about exactly that: religious freedom. All the more ironic because Kennedy was Roman Catholic, as Santorum claims to be.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Shadowborn wrote:
That whole thing with Rick Santorum talking about Kennedy's speech making him want to vomit was ridiculous. The whole speech was about exactly that: religious freedom....

Can we just start referring him to Senator Butt-Juice?


Dies Irae wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Most of the founding fathers were actually atheist. Hence the strong agreement for "separation of church and state" which we seem to have discarded in the modern time. Personally I feel it was one of the best ideas the founding fathers had. It would solve a lot of problems if it actually happened as it was intended.

Just playing the Devil's Advocate...

In a Democracy, if a certain strata of society is morally motivated to skew government policy to match their belief, and they happen to be the majority section of the populace...

Then what?

The way the situation in the US is being described here, I'm going to assume it's a socially self-reinforcing tyranny of the majority has established itself.

So how would you go about disentangling the two?

Hold politicians to a higher standard than we do? Have representation based on more difficult criteria than mere popularity? Get rid of the electoral college system?

I don't really have the fix-it-all answer. I just recognize that it's broken and needs to be reevaluated.


meatrace wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
That whole thing with Rick Santorum talking about Kennedy's speech making him want to vomit was ridiculous. The whole speech was about exactly that: religious freedom....
Can we just start referring him to Senator Butt-Juice?

Senator Butt-sex juice to be more accurate. ;-)

Qadira

1 person marked this as a favorite.
meatrace wrote:
Shadowborn wrote:
That whole thing with Rick Santorum talking about Kennedy's speech making him want to vomit was ridiculous. The whole speech was about exactly that: religious freedom....
Can we just start referring him to Senator Butt-Juice?

Eww. No. I don't need that kind of imagery in my head. I just use what I pretend is his call sign for the Secret Service detail following him: Church Lady.


Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Hold politicians to a higher standard than we do? Have representation based on more difficult criteria than mere popularity? Get rid of the electoral college system?

I don't really have the fix-it-all answer. I just recognize that it's broken and needs to be reevaluated.

I'm not singling you out or anything... just that I'm a believer in the 'we shall discriminate against all equally' school of political thought, so this whole development of an overly sensitive right-wing religious mandate is interesting in a rubber-neck-car-crash sort of way.

The Singaporean government does get called a police state every now and again by the Western media, but frankly the "Police-Your-Own-Or-We-Will-Do-It-For-You" mentality leads to fairly mellow Atheists/Theists over where I live, with the exception of a few professional fields where one group or the other has congregated into an echo-chamber.


Dies Irae wrote:
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:


Hold politicians to a higher standard than we do? Have representation based on more difficult criteria than mere popularity? Get rid of the electoral college system?

I don't really have the fix-it-all answer. I just recognize that it's broken and needs to be reevaluated.

I'm not singling you out or anything... just that I'm a believer in the 'we shall discriminate against all equally' school of political thought, so this whole development of an overly sensitive right-wing religious mandate interesting in a rubber-neck-car-crash sort of way.

The Singaporean government does get called a police state every now and again by the Western media, but frankly the "Police-Your-Own-Or-We-Will-Do-It-For-You" mentality leads to fairly mellow Atheists/Theists over where I live, with the exception of a few professional fields where one group or the other has congregated into an echo-chamber.

No offense taken.


Pathfinder Adventure Path Subscriber
Hitdice wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
I'd say we're more likely to ask "How?"
IMO the difference between "How?" and "Why?" encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Science couldn't care less why something happens, only how.

If there is a why, in the sense that there's some kind of intelligent force causing the events we're investigating, asking how will uncover it. So all why questions collapse into how questions.

But even if we kept why questions around for some reason on their own, they would not eliminate the how questions. We'd still be asking how Being X did Thing Y. If Jesus appeared nine hundred feet tall in a cornfield in Iowa, in short order there would be scientists rushing after him trying to get samples of his muscle and bone tissue to find out how a biped that big doesn't collapse under its own weight.


Samnell wrote:
Hitdice wrote:
Kajehase wrote:
I'd say we're more likely to ask "How?"
IMO the difference between "How?" and "Why?" encapsulates the difference between science and religion. Science couldn't care less why something happens, only how.

If there is a why, in the sense that there's some kind of intelligent force causing the events we're investigating, asking how will uncover it. So all why questions collapse into how questions.

But even if we kept why questions around for some reason on their own, they would not eliminate the how questions. We'd still be asking how Being X did Thing Y. If Jesus appeared nine hundred feet tall in a cornfield in Iowa, in short order there would be scientists rushing after him trying to get samples of his muscle and bone tissue to find out how a biped that big doesn't collapse under its own weight.

I'd pay to see that.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Tiny Coffee Golem wrote:

I'm an atheist who also loves christmas. I consider it cultural as opposed to faith based. 99% of american culture around this supports that view. P.S. I invented that statistic, but I assume it's not that far off. ;-)

We don't believe in God, no-one's said anything about not believing in Santa.

101 to 150 of 1,394 << first < prev | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | next > last >>
Paizo / Messageboards / Paizo Community / Off-Topic Discussions / Is atheism a religion? All Messageboards

Want to post a reply? Sign in.

©2002–2014 Paizo Inc.®. Need help? Email customer.service@paizo.com or call 425-250-0800 during our business hours: Monday–Friday, 10 AM–5 PM Pacific Time. View our privacy policy. Paizo Inc., Paizo, the Paizo golem logo, Pathfinder, the Pathfinder logo, Pathfinder Society, GameMastery, and Planet Stories are registered trademarks of Paizo Inc., and Pathfinder Roleplaying Game, Pathfinder Campaign Setting, Pathfinder Adventure Path, Pathfinder Adventure Card Game, Pathfinder Player Companion, Pathfinder Modules, Pathfinder Tales, Pathfinder Battles, Pathfinder Online, PaizoCon, RPG Superstar, The Golem's Got It, Titanic Games, the Titanic logo, and the Planet Stories planet logo are trademarks of Paizo Inc. Dungeons & Dragons, Dragon, Dungeon, and Polyhedron are registered trademarks of Wizards of the Coast, Inc., a subsidiary of Hasbro, Inc., and have been used by Paizo Inc. under license. Most product names are trademarks owned or used under license by the companies that publish those products; use of such names without mention of trademark status should not be construed as a challenge to such status.